Would this type of contract be allowed?

[BigEyedPhish]

I was wondering today, if there was a loophole where a player could sign a 40 year contract for 1.5 million a year.

so a 60 million dollar contract

Obviously he wouldn't be playing for 40 years, but he would still be getting paid once retires (probably 20 years after he retires, assuming said player plays for 20 years).

This may not be as big of a lump sum as a lot of players get, but it would pretty much make him set for life as he wouldn't really have to worry about ever running out of money. As well as giving his franchise a ton of cap space to build a major team around.

Click to read more...

 

[HTFN]

Doubt it. The league would be all over a 40 year term.

 

[Shrimper]

Would never be allowed.

 

[Kirikanoir]

Doubt it. The league would be all over a 40 year term.

Exactly. The league would be correct in pointing out that not only is it unlikely that the player would play for the full term of the contract, but that it is damn near impossible that he would.

Think about it, if he signed that contract at age 19, he would have to play until age 59 in order to fully honor that deal.

 

[MoreMogilny]

No player is going to play until they are 60+, and the NHL knows that. There is no way that type of contract would be allowed.

 

[darkmoon1196]

This is nearly the definition of cap circumvention

 

[boredmale]

The only way the league would allow that is if the player actually gets paid 1.5M a year

 

[kuick]

Where were you this past offseason? Under a rock?

They didn't even allow Kovalchuk's 17 year deal through. I think it's unlikely anything over 15 years is ever approved again.

 

[ktrio730]

I was thinking about the answer, and than settled on no.

 

[Unaffiliated]

No player is going to play until they are 60+

 

[Kirikanoir]

No disrespect to Gordie Howe, but that is hardly the same situation.

Gordie Howe`s last NHL season was at age 51

That pic was a game in 1997-98 for the IHL Detroit Vipers where he at age 69 played one shift in 1 game so he could set the record for having played in six straight decades.

 

[James Duthie]

Did you try to offer that to Sidney Crosby in NHL 11? Hell no it's not gonna happen besides a typical NHL career is about 22 seasons. Or to the point where your at age 40 and teams aren't interested in you.

 

[LadyStanley]

Did you try to offer that to Sidney Crosby in NHL 11? Hell no it's not gonna happen besides a typical NHL career is about 22 seasons. Or to the point where your at age 40 and teams aren't interested in you.

Average is 4 years.

NHLers may play til their mid/late 30s. Fewer over 40; even fewer over 50.

(This has been discussed numerous times. See the last summer discussions of the NHLPA/NHL renegotiation of the CBA clause of contracts past age 40.)

 

[kdb209]

I was wondering today, if there was a loophole where a player could sign a 40 year contract for 1.5 million a year.

so a 60 million dollar contract

Obviously he wouldn't be playing for 40 years, but he would still be getting paid once retires (probably 20 years after he retires, assuming said player plays for 20 years).

This may not be as big of a lump sum as a lot of players get, but it would pretty much make him set for life as he wouldn't really have to worry about ever running out of money. As well as giving his franchise a ton of cap space to build a major team around.

As stated above the League would never allow it, but there is one tiny flaw in your theory - once the player retires, he no longer gets paid and forfeits the remainder of his salary.

Now a team could defer salary (to be paid after the end of an SPC), so that money is actually paid out over those 40 years - but it would be considered earned and have it's cap hit applied during the term of the contract.

 

[leoleo3535]

Did you try to offer that to Sidney Crosby in NHL 11? Hell no it's not gonna happen besides a typical NHL career is about 22 seasons. Or to the point where your at age 40 and teams aren't interested in you.

It varies by position but it is short.

http://www.quanthockey.com/Distributions/CareerLengthSeasons.php

 

[jol]

Why would any player would agree to do this? I would imagine that player would take $60 million in shorter period, i.e. in 20 years, tax wise it's same and player could invest money and get better return (maybe not).

JOL

 

[edog37]

given the Kovalchuk situation last year & the fact that this would be viewed as a personal services contract, I think it is safe to say this would be rejected even before being proposed...

 

[Drake1588]

The genius in the way in which the CBA is written is that it doesn't say you can not do a. b. or c., but everything else is allowed; rather, it gives broad leeway to the league to make the determination on a case-by-case basis as to when a team is violating the salary cap. Now a team or player can contest that, and it then goes to an arbitrator. Yet the burden is then on the team/player to prove convincingly that they are not trying to circumvent the CBA's salary cap provisions. Any contract that goes much beyond age 40 nowadays is going to raise flags, and teams are gambling if they go past, say, 42 or 43 or so.

 

[Fourier]

As stated above the League would never allow it, but there is one tiny flaw in your theory - once the player retires, he no longer gets paid and forfeits the remainder of his salary.

Now a team could defer salary (to be paid after the end of an SPC), so that money is actually paid out over those 40 years - but it would be considered earned and have it's cap hit applied during the term of the contract.

Kind of surprised it took 14 posts to point out that little flaw.

Looks like you're all alone on the CBA front these days.