HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > NHL Eastern Conference > Atlantic Division > Toronto Maple Leafs
Notices

Biggest contracts could take hit under new CBA

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
09-22-2012, 05:28 PM
  #101
LeafsRReady
Registered User
 
LeafsRReady's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 276
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by diceman934 View Post
Closing the loop hole moving forward, not going backwards as the contracts were negotiated under the existing contract.

This would violate the terms of the contract.....and therefore render the new rule illegal when dealing with existing contracts.....it really is not that hard to understand.

The terms are very different then agreeing to a salary roll back.
Apparently for you it is. Individual player contracts are not affected by changing the rules as to how the cap is calculated in the future. Redefining how the cap is calculated is no different than redefining HRRevenues. It has nothing to do with being retroactive. From this point forward the cap in any given year will be calculated by the new rules as agreed upon by the NHL and NHLPA. That I understand.

LeafsRReady is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-22-2012, 05:30 PM
  #102
eyeball11
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 11,910
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorade View Post
Term.


Sure. Players prefer contract length to dollars. It truly is dizzying around here by times.

I bet most players would turn down $50 M over 5 years in favour of $50 M over 10 years. After all, "term" is what they negotiate for.


eyeball11 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-22-2012, 05:32 PM
  #103
thebluemachine*
go ahead, do it
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 11,193
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by diceman934 View Post
Closing the loop hole moving forward, not going backwards as the contracts were negotiated under the existing contract.

This would violate the terms of the contract.....and therefore render the new rule illegal when dealing with existing contracts.....it really is not that hard to understand.

The terms are very different then agreeing to a salary roll back.
Nope.

They wouldn't be violating any contracts because they're not altering the actual contracts. It's the new CBA that will be changed.

thebluemachine* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-22-2012, 05:40 PM
  #104
diceman934
Registered User
 
diceman934's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: NHL player factory
Posts: 5,683
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by LeafsRReady View Post
Apparently for you it is. Individual player contracts are not affected by changing the rules as to how the cap is calculated in the future. Redefining how the cap is calculated is no different than redefining HRRevenues. It has nothing to do with being retroactive. From this point forward the cap in any given year will be calculated by the new rules as agreed upon by the NHL and NHLPA. That I understand.

The Contracts in question were negotiated by teams and approved by the NHL with the terms all approved. The players cap hit was averaged over the term of the contract and that will not change as it changes the terms of the existing contracts!

So by changing the New CBA to make the owners responsible for the cap hit for the total amount of negotiated years retroactively it would change the terms of the existing contracts and the owners can claim and Legally do so that the contracts and the terms were valid at the time of signing them and they will follow the terms and conditions that they negotiated in good faith.

Players will be adversely effected as well as some players will become untradeable, again making this a legal battle that the NHL can not win as the terms and conditions can not be changed of an individuals contract without the consent of the individual.

diceman934 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-22-2012, 05:42 PM
  #105
bluebarry
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 776
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by stanleyorbust View Post
Most owners would LOVE making teams honor these cap circumventing contracts. And, yes the NHL can make it retroactive... Assuming both sides agree to it in the cba.

Just think.. Kovy retires at 40, and no longer gets paid. However his 6 million (ish) cap hit stays for another 5 years. Hinders the team slightly but a team looking for a phantom cap hit would love it! Cap hit with no salary
if they implement that rule they will have to make the original club take the cap hit. otherwise it makes no sense to have it. teams will front load even more if those contracts can traded to cap floor teams.

bluebarry is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-22-2012, 05:43 PM
  #106
stanleyorbust
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 859
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by diceman934 View Post
Closing the loop hole moving forward, not going backwards as the contracts were negotiated under the existing contract.

This would violate the terms of the contract.....and therefore render the new rule illegal when dealing with existing contracts.....it really is not that hard to understand.

The terms are very different then agreeing to a salary roll back.

I think you have it backwards. How cap hit is calculated is not part of the contract, just a product of it. Currently the,CBA says contracts signed over age of 35 do not drop if that player retires, etc. edit... This is part of the cba, not thr contract, much like if they changed that rule to encompase all contracts minus career ending injuries, etc

Just like with the previous contract, changes are made to current active contract years. Roll backs affected current contracts, much the way cap hit calculations could be impacted if the cba called for it. If taking a forced 25% cut on your contract isnt violating your contract, then arguing that cap calculations is one... Is a stretch.


Last edited by stanleyorbust: 09-22-2012 at 05:48 PM.
stanleyorbust is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-22-2012, 05:48 PM
  #107
bluebarry
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 776
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by mooseOAK View Post
The teams signed the contracts with the players for a specified number of years. Why would they be concerned about this new rule?
because they had a secret hand shake deal.... oh wait....

This is the whole point. If the contracts were negotiated "in good faith" then teams who have front loaded contracts need not fear a rule change.

btw this isn't so much a rule change as it is a way of enforcing the existing rules.

bluebarry is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-22-2012, 05:50 PM
  #108
LeafsRReady
Registered User
 
LeafsRReady's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 276
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by diceman934 View Post
The Contracts in question were negotiated by teams and approved by the NHL with the terms all approved. The players cap hit was averaged over the term of the contract and that will not change as it changes the terms of the existing contracts!

So by changing the New CBA to make the owners responsible for the cap hit for the total amount of negotiated years retroactively it would change the terms of the existing contracts and the owners can claim and Legally do so that the contracts and the terms were valid at the time of signing them and they will follow the terms and conditions that they negotiated in good faith.

Players will be adversely effected as well as some players will become untradeable, again making this a legal battle that the NHL can not win as the terms and conditions can not be changed of an individuals contract without the consent of the individual.
By your argument doesn't that also apply to the last CBA. Some teams, like the Leafs, were more adversely affected by the new cap because it was harder for those teams to get in compliance. Using your theory, the cap rules should only have applied to new contracts, not existing one to avoid retroactivity.

LeafsRReady is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-22-2012, 05:53 PM
  #109
diceman934
Registered User
 
diceman934's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: NHL player factory
Posts: 5,683
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by thebluemachine View Post
Nope.

They wouldn't be violating any contracts because they're not altering the actual contracts. It's the new CBA that will be changed.
Yes they are changing the terms.....the players negotiated a contract that paid them a set amount of money over the length of the contract that has an average cap hit over the term of the contract.

So is this rule an anti retirement rule?.....which would violate a players rights under any labour laws in place in every state and province. I really do not believe that the NHL would have any legal ground to force a team to show the contract under its season salary cap of a retired player as they can not be expected to know when a player would want to retire.

diceman934 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-22-2012, 05:55 PM
  #110
bluebarry
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 776
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Budsfan View Post
That would be a good rule to put in the CBA, it would certainly derail the cap circumvention and make teams think twice about giving out those kind of contracts.

It may be hard to do, say if a player was injured and could no longer play, something would have to be worked around that and insurance would have to kick in however ones that go until the player is say 43 (as in Luongo's contract), it should go until termination and retirement shouldn't be a factor.
i would think the cap penalty would just be the portion which the team paid more salary than were charged cap hit. it makes sense to implement this possible rule with injury and demotions as well.

the whole point is to make sure teams payroll reflects the cap hit. front loaded contracts defer some of the cap hit, it only makes sense that for each contract where cap hit is deferred it should be paid up at some point regardless if it occurs because of retirement injury or demotions.

personnally i can't believe it wasnt implemented at the begginning of the cap system.

bluebarry is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-22-2012, 05:59 PM
  #111
thebluemachine*
go ahead, do it
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 11,193
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by diceman934 View Post
Yes they are changing the terms.....the players negotiated a contract that paid them a set amount of money over the length of the contract that has an average cap hit over the term of the contract.

So is this rule an anti retirement rule?.....which would violate a players rights under any labour laws in place in every state and province. I really do not believe that the NHL would have any legal ground to force a team to show the contract under its season salary cap of a retired player as they can not be expected to know when a player would want to retire.
They aren't altering individual contracts, however they will be changing rules in the new CBA.

The way cap hits were calculated under the last CBA does'nt matter anymore. It has expired.

thebluemachine* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-22-2012, 06:03 PM
  #112
diceman934
Registered User
 
diceman934's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: NHL player factory
Posts: 5,683
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by bluebarry View Post
i would think the cap penalty would just be the portion which the team paid more salary than were charged cap hit. it makes sense to implement this possible rule with injury and demotions as well.

the whole point is to make sure teams payroll reflects the cap hit. front loaded contracts defer some of the cap hit, it only makes sense that for each contract where cap hit is deferred it should be paid up at some point regardless if it occurs because of retirement injury or demotions.

personnally i can't believe it wasnt implemented at the begginning of the cap system.
Yes it was a loophole that was exposed and as such made the contracts and the loophole fair for everyone to now go back and punish the teams that took advantage of the rules.....seems like a very vindictive thing to do as they acted under the rules and to be punished retroactively seems to me be unfair and more importantly illegal as it violates the terms and conditions of the CBA that was in effect at the time.

diceman934 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-22-2012, 06:03 PM
  #113
rojac
HFBoards Sponsor
 
rojac's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Waterloo, ON
Posts: 6,290
vCash: 500
I suspect those who are saying that they cannot change players' actual contracts; however, but accordng to the sample SPC (standard player contract) that is included with the just-expired CBA:

Quote:
This SPC is entered into subject to the CBA between
the NHL and the NHLPA and any provisions of this SPC inconsistent with such CBA are
superseded by the provisions of the CBA.

rojac is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
09-22-2012, 06:05 PM
  #114
LeafsRReady
Registered User
 
LeafsRReady's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 276
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by diceman934 View Post
Yes they are changing the terms.....the players negotiated a contract that paid them a set amount of money over the length of the contract that has an average cap hit over the term of the contract.

So is this rule an anti retirement rule?.....which would violate a players rights under any labour laws in place in every state and province. I really do not believe that the NHL would have any legal ground to force a team to show the contract under its season salary cap of a retired player as they can not be expected to know when a player would want to retire.
What effect would a rule change have on Kovalchuk? How does the average cap hit of his contract affect him? It doesn't. He gets his money as contracted for in every year. If he chooses to stop playing, he stops getting the money. The only effect is has is that teams are unlikely to hand out future Kovalchuk type contracts. Hence, there is not only no effect to Kovalchuk, it's also not retroactive.

LeafsRReady is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-22-2012, 06:57 PM
  #115
egd27
#freethebigpicture
 
egd27's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Toronto
Posts: 3,663
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by diceman934 View Post
Yes they are changing the terms.....the players negotiated a contract that paid them a set amount of money over the length of the contract that has an average cap hit over the term of the contract.
What terms of the contract between the player and the team do you think are changing?
The overall money? The length of it? The payment schedule? Any bonus payments?

egd27 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
09-22-2012, 07:01 PM
  #116
Disgruntled Observer
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,595
vCash: 500
This would screw over about 1/3rd of the leagues GM's.
The same GM's that unanimously voted in favor of Bettman locking out the players.
Imagine that... sitting out for an entire season in support of your commissioner, and then watching him screw over your organization as your 'reward'.

It's just NOT going to happen.

The owners probably see the loophole as a manipulation by the nhlpa. The agents pitted the owners against each other, and the owners had to succumb to the demands in order to get the players they wanted.

Bettman will be trying to PROTECT the owners from this loophole. Not screw them over with it.
The loophole will be fixed, and the owners currently burdened by the loophole will have an out.

Disgruntled Observer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-22-2012, 07:23 PM
  #117
Mike1
Registered User
 
Mike1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Mississauga,Ontario
Posts: 3,541
vCash: 500
This reminds me of the last lockout when all the big spending teams were supposedly going to get screwed & not be able to adjust to the cap. Boston had virtually no one signed. What happened then? There was a buy out period for teams to adjust.

If the NHL changes the rules regarding long term contracts then they will do something that helps teams out. They arent going to throw more than half the league under the bus. Gary works for the owners & will help them.

Mike1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-22-2012, 07:24 PM
  #118
mooseOAK*
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 42,437
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by bluebarry View Post
because they had a secret hand shake deal.... oh wait....

This is the whole point. If the contracts were negotiated "in good faith" then teams who have front loaded contracts need not fear a rule change.

btw this isn't so much a rule change as it is a way of enforcing the existing rules.
And teams can't fight the new rule without admitting to cap circumvention.

mooseOAK* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-22-2012, 07:29 PM
  #119
Disgruntled Observer
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,595
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by mooseOAK View Post
And teams can't fight the new rule without admitting to cap circumvention.
Sure they can.
Having a 39 year old Kovalchuk playing on your team with a 6 million cap hit wouldn't be too much of a burden under the old CBA.
In 15 years, the cap would have risen to god knows what. 6 million would have probably been close to the average salary by then, and Kovy putting up maybe 12 goals would have been acceptable.

But a new CBA will almost certainly lower the salary cap SUBSTANTIALLY, which could make Kovalchuks contract MUCH more of a burden in 15 years.

So they do not have to claim cap circumvention in order to make a case.

Disgruntled Observer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-22-2012, 07:54 PM
  #120
thebluemachine*
go ahead, do it
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 11,193
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Disgruntled Observer View Post
This would screw over about 1/3rd of the leagues GM's.
The same GM's that unanimously voted in favor of Bettman locking out the players.
Imagine that... sitting out for an entire season in support of your commissioner, and then watching him screw over your organization as your 'reward'.

It's just NOT going to happen.

The owners probably see the loophole as a manipulation by the nhlpa. The agents pitted the owners against each other, and the owners had to succumb to the demands in order to get the players they wanted.

Bettman will be trying to PROTECT the owners from this loophole. Not screw them over with it.
The loophole will be fixed, and the owners currently burdened by the loophole will have an out.

They won't be screwing over anyone, they'll just be making sure these contracts that were signed will be fulfilled and re-calculated properly under the new CBA. Essentially those that signed or handed out these contracts screwed themselves over by gambling things weren't going to change after being warned by the league about it.

thebluemachine* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-22-2012, 07:55 PM
  #121
thebluemachine*
go ahead, do it
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 11,193
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Disgruntled Observer View Post
Sure they can.
Having a 39 year old Kovalchuk playing on your team with a 6 million cap hit wouldn't be too much of a burden under the old CBA.
In 15 years, the cap would have risen to god knows what. 6 million would have probably been close to the average salary by then, and Kovy putting up maybe 12 goals would have been acceptable.

But a new CBA will almost certainly lower the salary cap SUBSTANTIALLY, which could make Kovalchuks contract MUCH more of a burden in 15 years.

So they do not have to claim cap circumvention in order to make a case.
Too bad IMO, Kovy's cap hit should actually be 9+ million. Tough cookies.

thebluemachine* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-22-2012, 07:59 PM
  #122
egd27
#freethebigpicture
 
egd27's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Toronto
Posts: 3,663
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Disgruntled Observer View Post
Sure they can.
Having a 39 year old Kovalchuk playing on your team with a 6 million cap hit wouldn't be too much of a burden under the old CBA.
In 15 years, the cap would have risen to god knows what. 6 million would have probably been close to the average salary by then, and Kovy putting up maybe 12 goals would have been acceptable.

But a new CBA will almost certainly lower the salary cap SUBSTANTIALLY, which could make Kovalchuks contract MUCH more of a burden in 15 years.

So they do not have to claim cap circumvention in order to make a case.
So your argument is Lamerillo didn't realize there was new CBA coming?

egd27 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
09-22-2012, 08:15 PM
  #123
Disgruntled Observer
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,595
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by egd27 View Post
So your argument is Lamerillo didn't realize there was new CBA coming?
He did realize that a new CBA was coming.

He also realized that Bettmans job during CBA negotiations is to PROTECT the owners, not screw them over.

I'm still trying to imagine those owners spending all that money on Bettman, losing all that money locking the players out for an entire season, and then having Bettman work AGAINST them in negotiations.

It just doesn't make sense and it's not going to happen.

Disgruntled Observer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-22-2012, 08:23 PM
  #124
LeafsRReady
Registered User
 
LeafsRReady's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 276
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by thebluemachine View Post
Too bad IMO, Kovy's cap hit should actually be 9+ million. Tough cookies.
Yeah, it's kind of hard to argue that if you are paying a guy 9M per it's not fair that he counts for 9M against the cap.

Can I tell CRA I'm not going to pay HST at 13% because when I negotiated my last raise I didn't know they were going to harmonize GST and PST and make me pay it on services that were previously exempt from PST?

LeafsRReady is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-22-2012, 08:27 PM
  #125
mooseOAK*
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 42,437
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Disgruntled Observer View Post
He did realize that a new CBA was coming.

He also realized that Bettmans job during CBA negotiations is to PROTECT the owners, not screw them over.

I'm still trying to imagine those owners spending all that money on Bettman, losing all that money locking the players out for an entire season, and then having Bettman work AGAINST them in negotiations.

It just doesn't make sense and it's not going to happen.
The same league that just fined one of their teams 250,000 dollars?

mooseOAK* is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Forum Jump


Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 12:09 PM.

monitoring_string = "e4251c93e2ba248d29da988d93bf5144"
Contact Us - HFBoards - Archive - Privacy Statement - Terms of Use - Advertise - Top - AdChoices

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. 2014 All Rights Reserved.