NHL vs NHLPA (Kovalchuk) - who wins

[devs30rko]

[/B]


Good point, I forgot about that one.

i think that the when bobby holik got 9 mil that was with the rangers LEAVING the devils...

if i'm wrong i'm sorry i was pretty young when that happened.

 

[devs30rko]

Lou has some goofy deals on the books.
- over-age multi-year contract for Rolston at $5m+ (for his 20 goals)
- David freakin' Clarkson multi-year at $2.67m (for his 11 goals)
- Johan Hedberg and his 7-10 games for $1.5 million in a goalie glut market

was he in charge for the Bobby Holik $9mill per year deal?

and puckhead, all do respect, but clarkson missed a ton of time this year, the kid could have very will hit 20 goals this year, and probably will if he plays the full year, not to mention the tenacity along with other intangibles he brings.

 

[devs30rko]

and 2 of the NHLPA votes are devils fans....sooooo...sort of the NHL is in 2nd behind KHL. hah

hey, we're being real about it and have good facts backing us up relax their trigger we're not min.......

 

[dare2be]

just remember, the NHL is winning this poll 14-9...any vote for the KHL means a vote against the contract so that the KHL becomes an option again :p

 

[davnlaguna]

The part they said to have broken is 26.3 a and b
It is basically a "catch all" that says if the teams/players find a way around the cap that is not strictly forbidden elsewhere, it is still forbidden. Even it that wasn't the intent of the parties who did it.

part c says the player won't be fined if the team tricked him into thinking it was legal, but if his agent knew than the player is still responsible


The sticking point is why now? They have let several contracts go before and not rejected them. The NHL will counter with those other cases were not let go. They are still under investigation and penalties may be forthcoming. There is no time limit to start or stop an investigation so every contract ever written could still be investigated.

I wanted to vote on the fence but that is the pussy way out of not taking a stand.
Hey my first swear word (sort of) in a thread.

 

[Vadered]

I'm an idiot and clicked the wrong button in the poll.

 

[devs30rko]

I'm an idiot and clicked the wrong button in the poll.

what did you/were you going to vote.

 

[dash]

Have you ever negotiated a contract? I have from both sides, union and management. It's damn near impossible to cover all of the angles. There is a time where ethics come into play and this is an obvious "Ha I found a loop hole" is that the way we want major sports leagues run?

It is a business Boss, and a competitive one at that. If you're going to allow contracts like Hossa's and Luongo's to stand, then you should allow this one as well. Both sides signed off on the CBA, but Bettman and his cronies miscalculated the ingenuity of these capologists along with how much NHL revenues have increased since the lockout.

 

[Destroydacre]

IMO it's in the best interest for all parties involved if the arbiter rules in favor of the NHLPA. This would push the NHL into changing the wording of the CBA so that these kinds of contracts are strictly forbidden including terms that the contracts must adhere to. Black and white, no gray area. If the arbiter rules in favor of the NHL, they have no reason to change this and every contract is subject to Bettman's whim. Is that really what people want?

 

[BOSSMANPC]

It is a business Boss, and a competitive one at that. If you're going to allow contracts like Hossa's and Luongo's to stand, then you should allow this one as well. Both sides signed off on the CBA, but Bettman and his cronies miscalculated the ingenuity of these capologists along with how much NHL revenues have increased since the lockout.

I agree dash but where does it stop? Do we want to run all of the small market teams out of town?

We can't let the big markets control any sport esp hockey. If it's all about money then the Canadian teams are in trouble because there are a lot of US cities with more money. JMO.

 

[ELYEAH82]

IMO it's in the best interest for all parties involved if the arbiter rules in favor of the NHLPA. This would push the NHL into changing the wording of the CBA so that these kinds of contracts are strictly forbidden including terms that the contracts must adhere to. Black and white, no gray area. If the arbiter rules in favor of the NHL, they have no reason to change this and every contract is subject to Bettman's whim. Is that really what people want?

I am a whole lot better with this than I am with these contracts going through till the next CBA and then waiting another year for this sorry ass loophole to be adjusted. In the end if this goes through the fans will suffer through a long and shitty lockout because the NHLPA will not allow this to be worked on a without concessions.

 

[dare2be]

IMO it's in the best interest for all parties involved if the arbiter rules in favor of the NHLPA. This would push the NHL into changing the wording of the CBA so that these kinds of contracts are strictly forbidden including terms that the contracts must adhere to. Black and white, no gray area. If the arbiter rules in favor of the NHL, they have no reason to change this and every contract is subject to Bettman's whim. Is that really what people want?

I disagree with the bolded statement. I think the discomfort from the NHL front offices was there when the trend started with Hossa, Luongo, etc. They realized that the loophole was there and was hoping that it wouldn't be too blatently abused, which is why they let the earlier ones go. But this one pushed the envelope much more than the previous ones, and the NHL brass had to stop the bleeding. Even if ruled in the NHL's favor, there is no way this won't be addressed and fixed at the next CBA talks.

 

[dash]

I agree dash but where does it stop? Do we want to run all of the small market teams out of town?

We can't let the big markets control any sport esp hockey. If it's all about money then the Canadian teams are in trouble because there are a lot of US cities with more money. JMO.

I think the new CBA will have to address this, Boss. We're already seeing a widening divide between rich and poor teams with some teams struggling to reach the cap floor. I'm not sure what the answer is (lower % of revenues allocated to player salaries, larger amount of revenue sharing from rich teams to poor teams), but I think it sets a bad precedent when you allow some "suspect" contracts to stand and deny one just because you feel you're being snookered by a CBA that you signed off on.

 

[BOSSMANPC]

IMO it's in the best interest for all parties involved if the arbiter rules in favor of the NHLPA. This would push the NHL into changing the wording of the CBA so that these kinds of contracts are strictly forbidden including terms that the contracts must adhere to. Black and white, no gray area. If the arbiter rules in favor of the NHL, they have no reason to change this and every contract is subject to Bettman's whim. Is that really what people want?

No we want parity, read my earlier post. It's not good for the league and look what has happened in MLB. It's a great game and if we allow big market teams to do what they want we have no parity. I hate MLB for this and I am damn sure most big market fans will back what the Devils did. Fine and dandy., lets just have the Hawks, Wings, Flyers. Rangers, Canadiens and Kings in the playoffs every year and the other teams sit back and watch.

It's about revenues Big markets mean big buck's. That is very obvious.

 

[ELYEAH82]

I think the new CBA will have to address this, Boss. We're already seeing a widening divide between rich and poor teams with some teams struggling to reach the cap floor. I'm not sure what the answer is (lower % of revenues allocated to player salaries, larger amount of revenue sharing from rich teams to poor teams), but I think it sets a bad precedent when you allow some "suspect" contracts to stand and deny one just because you feel you're being snookered by a CBA that you signed off on.

If there is language in the CBA that says circumvent the salary cap then the NHLPA is going to be snookered by something they signed off on.

 

[Destroydacre]

I disagree with the bolded statement. I think the discomfort from the NHL front offices was there when the trend started with Hossa, Luongo, etc. They realized that the loophole was there and was hoping that it wouldn't be too blatently abused, which is why they let the earlier ones go. But this one pushed the envelope much more than the previous ones, and the NHL brass had to stop the bleeding. Even if ruled in the NHL's favor, there is no way this won't be addressed and fixed at the next CBA talks.

We'll see. It would be a lot easier to just renew the CBA than it would be to re-negotiate part of it, and if the arbiter rules that the NHL is the ultimate authority and has the final say, then I don't see any incentive for them to make any changes.

 

[Destroydacre]

No we want parity, read my earlier post. It's not good for the league and look what has happened in MLB. It's a great game and if we allow big market teams to do what they want we have no parity. I hate MLB for this and I am damn sure most big market fans will back what the Devils did. Fine and dandy., lets just have the Hawks, Wings, Flyers. Rangers, Canadiens and Kings in the playoffs every year and the other teams sit back and watch.

It's about revenues Big markets mean big buck's. That is very obvious.

I think it would be very good for the league to force them into defining terms as to what kind of contract circumvents the cap and what kind of contract doesn't. You're going way overboard with your comparison, there's not any New York Yankees in the NHL. The Salary Cap is fine the wording about cap circumvention needs to be addressed. The arbiter ruling in favor of Kovalchuk and the NHLPA will force the NHL to address this issue.

 

[dare2be]

We'll see. It would be a lot easier to just renew the CBA than it would be to re-negotiate part of it, and if the arbiter rules that the NHL is the ultimate authority and has the final say, then I don't see any incentive for them to make any changes.

Well, if I were in that position, I wouldn't want the burden and responsibility of reviewing and making decisions on every future contract that appears suspect, and then re-evaluate all the ones that were rejected and restructured. Adding to that the impression of playing favorites, it would be a no-brainer to me to close the loophole in the next CBA. You want to cap the leaking oil at the source instead of cleaning up the rogue spills after the fact.

 

[ELYEAH82]

I think it would be very good for the league to force them into defining terms as to what kind of contract circumvents the cap and what kind of contract doesn't. You're going way overboard with your comparison, there's not any New York Yankees in the NHL. The Salary Cap is fine the wording about cap circumvention needs to be addressed. The arbiter ruling in favor of Kovalchuk and the NHLPA will force the NHL to address this issue.

Here are the salaries pre-lockout. Quite the disparity between the different markets some are 3x what others are. The baseball analogy is pretty accurate.

http://www.hockeyzoneplus.com/$maseq_e.htm

 

[Destroydacre]

Well, if I were in that position, I wouldn't want the burden and responsibility of reviewing and making decisions on every future contract that appears suspect, and then re-evaluate all the ones that were rejected and restructured. Adding to that the impression of playing favorites, it would be a no-brainer to me to close the loophole in the next CBA. You want to cap the leaking oil at the source instead of cleaning up the rogue spills after the fact.

I agree with your position, however I'm not convinced the NHL feels that way. I really hope this loophole is closed, but just don't have confidence that the NHL will take care of it correctly without some outside influence.