I'm not sure how many are required to approve from the owners.
The owners who did so all signed contracts believing that the players will be in the league until around the age of 40. Therefore they have nothing to argue about.
Yeah, clearly the league has been warning teams repeatedly about making these type of deals because they did'nt mean it.
I can see this being a rule for any new contract.....but it will not have any effect on existing contracts. The contracts were negotiated under the existing CBA which had holes in it to allow these contracts which by the way were approved by the NHL.
So there is no way that they can change the rules and back date them.
If this rule goes into effect on current contracts....2/3rds of the league is going to regret a LOT.
I hope to god that this is in the new CBA.
All these GM's circumventing the cap and getting away with it... and making the competition of signing UFA's only limited to only those GM's that circumvent the cap.
I can see this being a rule for any new contract.....but it will not have any effect on existing contracts. The contracts were negotiated under the existing CBA which had holes in it to allow these contracts which by the way were approved by the NHL.
So there is no way that they can change the rules and back date them.
Do we not remember the last lockout where negotiated contracts were changed?
If you're making a contract that is legal within the rules of the leagues CBA... and the nhl itself signs off on the contract... then it IS NOT cap circumvention.
I'm VERY surprised that I would have to explain this to people. It appeared to me as common sense.
The league CANNOT punish teams for signing contracts that the nhl itself signed off on. It just doesn't make sense.
There is NO WAY that these contracts will be retroactive.
Leaf fans are just clinging to this for the moment because they've been humiliated by the GM they stubbornly defended... and now they're trying to save face.
If you're making a contract that is legal within the rules of the leagues CBA... and the nhl itself signs off on the contract... then it IS NOT cap circumvention.
I'm VERY surprised that I would have to explain this to people. It appeared to me as common sense.
The league CANNOT punish teams for signing contracts that the nhl itself signed off on. It just doesn't make sense.
There is NO WAY that these contracts will be retroactive.
Leaf fans are just clinging to this for the moment because they've been humiliated by the GM they stubbornly defended... and now they're trying to save face.
You don't recall the league signing off on many contracts the past several years then retroactively taking action upon them? The Leafs themselves had one.
You don't recall the league signing off on many contracts the past several years then retroactively taking action upon them? The Leafs themselves had one.
You're grasping at straws in an attempt to defend a disgrace of a GM.
Teams will be given an "out" of those contracts.
You can't sign a contract that is "legal" according to one cba (as proven by the nhl signing off on it), and then hold it against the team when a brand new cba is created. It's just not going to happen.
I know it. You know it. Everyone knows it.
You're grasping at straws in an attempt to defend a disgrace of a GM.
Teams will be given an "out" of those contracts.
You can't sign a contract that is "legal" according to one cba (as proven by the nhl signing off on it), and then hold it against the team when a brand new cba is created. It's just not going to happen.
I know it. You know it. Everyone knows it.
I'm pointing out the obvious flaw in your argument, which you yourself verified.
A lot of pie in the sky in this thread. At most there will be a rollback. Will lose a season just to get that.
Contracts are signed sealed and delivered. Teams will not be penalized for working within the old CBA no matter how much fans want to think so just because Burke refused to use the rules to his advantage. Pie in the sky.
You're grasping at straws in an attempt to defend a disgrace of a GM.
Teams will be given an "out" of those contracts.
You can't sign a contract that is "legal" according to one cba (as proven by the nhl signing off on it), and then hold it against the team when a brand new cba is created. It's just not going to happen.
I know it. You know it. Everyone knows it.
This thread is quite funny. The same folks that dump on Cox are now grasping at a fool hearty theory that has no merit. In fact the NHLPA will dump a season to protect their signed sealed and delivered contracts. Not to mention the most powerful teams have those players. Foolish.
I can see this being a rule for any new contract.....but it will not have any effect on existing contracts. The contracts were negotiated under the existing CBA which had holes in it to allow these contracts which by the way were approved by the NHL.
So there is no way that they can change the rules and back date them.
You don't seem to understand how CBA's work and there effect on current contracts.
Do we not remember the last lockout where negotiated contracts were changed?
Impossibru, that never happened and the league hasn't been warning teams for the last few years about cap circumvention deals either. Nothing to see here, clearly it's just a made up story by Lebrun, Custance, numerous GM's and the board of the NHL so only the Leafs can pinch players from the bad guys.
Quote:
Well, you get the drift. Soon, other teams and agents got into the act and the next thing you knew, back-diving deals were in vogue. The league was furious. It warned owners and GMs over and over again to stop doing them and, in fact, according to various sources over the past few years, made it clear in board of governors meetings that teams doing these types of deals could be penalized in some shape or form in the new CBA.
If this does come to pass, then I agree, I hope we stay far away from Luongo.
Regarding the 10+ year contracts continuing, I am not sure they will be as popular if this new rule takes effect. The whole idea behind them was to take advantage of the cap circumvention. Now, they have to be legit 10-15 year deals, and the only players that you can realistically sign to those types of contracts will be the 20-25 year olds.
Not exactly Wendel, i can already see a HUGE loophole is this system.
The rich team trades the aged player to a poor team when the contract is close to winding down.
The poor team gets a boost of 6 million toward reaching the cap floor without paying a dime in salary.
Can't see anyway to restrict the trading of said player if they do it before any retirement announcement.
Also can't see how they could structure any penalty either direction if it is done before a retirement call.
So the NHL and NHLPA come up with Kovalchuk amendment on how to deal with long term contracts and now the NHL is going to punish those teams which followed the Kovalchuk amendment in negotiating the contract? Some of those contracts came after the Kovalchuk amendment. They are going to go after teams for following the guidelines negotiated between the NHL and the PA? That's funny. The NHLPA will have a say in any changes in how cap hits are calculated. Why would the PA agree to punish those teams and take away cap space from those teams affecting other players? I heard Bill Daly say they never thought teams would hand out long term contracts when they wrote the CBA in 2005. They missed out on many things.
But they are still in the minority. Minnesota (Parise, Suter), Vancouver (Luongo), Philadelphia (Bryzgalov), Chicago (Hossa, Keith), Buffalo (Ehrhoff), New York (Richards), Detroit (Franzen, Zetterberg), New Jersey (Kovalchuk), and Nashville (Weber) are the teams that have signed players to cap circumventing deals. Los Angeles (Richards, Carter, Quick) and Pittsburgh (Crosby) also have deals that see significant drop in salary in the later years but are no where near as blatant.
9 teams (11 if you count the Pens and Kings) or just under (/over) 1/3 of the league have these deals, 21 (or 19) do not. A CBA needs a simple majority to be put in place (16 teams), meaning that Bettman should have more than enough support to push such a provision through the Board of Governors.
Simple majority ONLY if Bettmen approves of the CBA being voted on, i believe they need 8 ish more votes over the top to override Bettmens objection.
Don't fool yourselves kids, Bettmen is a little bit more then JUST a front man for the owners.
It matters little if it is perceived as cap circumvention or not, a retired player (before his contract expires) is a retired player.
DiPietro is signed till he is 40 , there are more examples of long term contracts where it aids the team if the player retires in his waning years, regardless if there was any perceived circumvention involved.
The contracts don't have to be changed. The rules about how the cap hit is calculated on the contract can be changed via collective bargaining.
Bingo, crazy that people still don't understand this. These contracts won't get touched, it's how these contracts will reflect under the new CBA. And there isn't any doubt the new CBA will be changed after the last one has been taken advantage of by some very guilty people.
I can see this being a rule for any new contract.....but it will not have any effect on existing contracts. The contracts were negotiated under the existing CBA which had holes in it to allow these contracts which by the way were approved by the NHL.
So there is no way that they can change the rules and back date them.
This rule can absolutely be made retroactive.
There is nothing in the proposal that affects the legitimate contract between the player and the team, none what so ever.
This rule is a administrated rule between the league and the owners(teams).
