Vladimir Tarasenko (NHL) Discussion Thread (IV)
View Single Post
01-08-2013, 11:13 AM
Join Date: Sep 2011
Originally Posted by
STL fan in IA
There are no rollbacks but it's a virtual guarantee that players are going to give back quite a bit in escrow next season. It's simply impossible for the players' share of HRR to go from 57% to 50% without them losing money. For the new 50% to match the old 57% on an actual dollar basis, HRR would have to increase approx. 14%. That's a nearly impossible one-year increase under normal circumstances but there's no way that happens now that they've damaged the game. It's the main reason why the players fought to have next yewr's cap at $64.3M instead of $60M. That amounts to an additional $129M the players will collectively not have to return via escrow next season. The "make whole" money will also help offset a good amount of the money the players will be giving back via escrow but I still bet they end up not getting a good chunk of their salaries for the next few years. THAT is what Kovy may be concerned about. That said, there's no way the NHL just let's him leave. He has a contract here and while I'm sure thr KHL would love to keep Kovy, I doubt they want to fight with the NHL and especially the IIHF, especially since the Olympics are schedule to be held in Sochi a little over a year from now. The IIHF has made it clear that they would out major sanctions on the KHL and Russian Federation if they didn't honor contracts elsewhere. I think all of this talk of players staying is just fluff and they will all eventually be back in the NHL...whether they like it or not.
True, I didn't even think of the escrow etc.
The longer it goes on the more interesting it gets. The excuses over why Kovalchuk was unreachable yesterday were a bit of a joke, yes it was Christmas Day in Russia, but that is largely meaningless. Now today he is playing after they released Tarasenko and Bobrovsky in the morning.
According to the main boards, the IIHF rules state...
3 Consequences of a Breach of Contract
3.1 Sporting sanctions shall be imposed on players found to be in breach of contract
(a) during the first three years of a contract for players aged up to and including 28
years of age, and (b) during the first two years of a contract for players aged 29
That isn't really clear because he is now in the third year of a contract he signed when he was 27; so does A apply because he signed it when he was 27 or does B apply because he is 29? If IIHF rules state there isn't going to be any blowback on himself, then staying might well become a more realistic option for him.
I expect he'll be back next week, but I would struggle to have any sympathy for the Devils if he decided to stay in St. Petersburg!
View Public Profile
Find More Posts by Alklha