HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > General Hockey Discussion > The Business of Hockey
Mobile Hockey's Future Become a Sponsor Site Rules Support Forum vBookie Page 2
The Business of Hockey Discuss the financial and business aspects of the NHL. Topics may include the CBA, work stoppages, broadcast contracts, franchise sales, and NHL revenues.

Cap circumventing contracts NOT grandfathered in?

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
01-08-2013, 01:08 PM
  #101
Lacaar
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Edmonton
Posts: 1,478
vCash: 500
If you don't put down the hammer on teams that used looplholes last cba you lose the possibility of teams being wary of using an exposed loophole this cba.

The whole point being.. Just because it was legal within this CBA doesn't mean it can't change next cba. They'll use logic and common sense to try and thwart the "oh how do you know I won't play till i'm 50" argument or whatever lame excuse is made when and if a loophole is found.

Lacaar is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-08-2013, 01:08 PM
  #102
Thordic
StraightOuttaConklin
 
Thordic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Kearny, NJ
Country: United States
Posts: 1,906
vCash: 500
What if the players simply refuse to report? Lets face it, the players on these contracts don't really need the pension benefits of retiring.

Thordic is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-08-2013, 01:10 PM
  #103
cheswick
Non-registered User
 
cheswick's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Peg City
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,085
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Thordic View Post
What if the players simply refuse to report? Lets face it, the players on these contracts don't really need the pension benefits of retiring.
And what benefit is that to the player?

cheswick is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-08-2013, 01:11 PM
  #104
Lard_Lad
Registered User
 
Lard_Lad's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Kelowna
Country: Canada
Posts: 6,678
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by kdb209 View Post
No. By the time Lu got to his last year, some of that $6M cap benefit would have been depleted. His cap hit penalty if he retired in his final year would be (as discussed above) ~$4.333M - the difference between his cap hit and salary for that year (which also, unsurprisingly, happens to be the difference between his aggregate salaries and aggregate cap hits up until then).
If he's traded by Vancouver right now, though, the Canucks will have benefited by $6.1m. Neither Friedman nor Lebrun are perfectly clear about the exact rules in that situation, but the way I read them it's implied that if he retired with a season remaining, the Canucks would be penalized that amount, and his other team (assuming Luongo stayed there for all nine years) wouldn't have any penalty, the excess of cap over salary after 2018 having wiped out earlier the benefit to them.

Now, logically, you'd think the rule would work so that the total penalties for any individual team couldn't exceed the net cap benefit over the whole life of the deal to the point of retirement (so, in the case described above, the $4.33m you mentioned for the Canucks in the final year.) But we don't have confirmation of that yet, and I wouldn't be surprised if it turned out to be structured in a way that maximizes the penalty to the team that signs the contract.

Lard_Lad is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-08-2013, 01:14 PM
  #105
roboninja
EYG
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 2,083
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Captain Bob View Post
I didn't like the Zetterberg, Franzen and Hossa contracts
I never understood how the league could allow some but not others.

But once you allow them, you allow them. And to go back and punish teams now is just another example of NHL stupidity.
Quote:
Originally Posted by pld459666 View Post
I think it's rediculous to punish teams that were signing players to contracts that were in line with the agreement that the league was operating under.

They addressed the issue on a going forward basis, no need to continue to punish teams that were able to get deals done under the prior agreement.

Seems really petty.
Guys, you are exclaiming that these contracts are not cap circumventing, that these guys intend to play out the contracts. If they do, there are no issues whatsoever. No penalties anywhere. So you should not be worried, right?

roboninja is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-08-2013, 01:16 PM
  #106
cheswick
Non-registered User
 
cheswick's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Peg City
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,085
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lard_Lad View Post
If he's traded by Vancouver right now, though, the Canucks will have benefited by $6.1m. Neither Friedman nor Lebrun are perfectly clear about the exact rules in that situation, but the way I read them it's implied that if he retired with a season remaining, the Canucks would be penalized that amount, and his other team (assuming Luongo stayed there for all nine years) wouldn't have any penalty, the excess of cap over salary after 2018 having wiped out earlier the benefit to them.

Now, logically, you'd think the rule would work so that the total penalties for any individual team couldn't exceed the net cap benefit over the whole life of the deal to the point of retirement (so, in the case described above, the $4.33m you mentioned for the Canucks in the final year.) But we don't have confirmation of that yet, and I wouldn't be surprised if it turned out to be structured in a way that maximizes the penalty to the team that signs the contract.
When asked on twitter Friedman responded that as was his understanding it would be a $6 million hit to the Canucks for a 1 year early retirement.

Considering the massive hits such a situation could present I think it will probably be structued that if any subsequent teams have a net cap overpayment it will be applied to the inital teams penalty.

cheswick is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-08-2013, 01:17 PM
  #107
ginner classic
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Kitsilano
Posts: 6,712
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Krishna View Post
If reports are true hypothetically if Preds traded Weber after 6 yrs & he retired with 1 yr left NAS would get $32.9 mil cap hit in 2025-26.

Absolutely hilarious


I have a feeling this is not over yet. BOG meeting may come back with changes to the agreement with this being one of them. There is going to be civil war between the owners over this clause and I can't see the PA caring one way or the other.

My prediction.....this clause gets scuppered at BOG.

ginner classic is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
01-08-2013, 01:20 PM
  #108
ginner classic
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Kitsilano
Posts: 6,712
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lacaar View Post
If you don't put down the hammer on teams that used looplholes last cba you lose the possibility of teams being wary of using an exposed loophole this cba.

The whole point being.. Just because it was legal within this CBA doesn't mean it can't change next cba. They'll use logic and common sense to try and thwart the "oh how do you know I won't play till i'm 50" argument or whatever lame excuse is made when and if a loophole is found.
Dumb logic. They approved the deals that were signed. They signed the last CBA. Not the teams problem they are too daft to analyze the deal before they signed it.

ginner classic is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
01-08-2013, 01:21 PM
  #109
coldsteelonice84
Registered User
 
coldsteelonice84's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 26,153
vCash: 50
They're all going on LTIR.

coldsteelonice84 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-08-2013, 01:23 PM
  #110
kdb209
Global Moderator
 
kdb209's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 12,515
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Thordic View Post
What if the players simply refuse to report? Lets face it, the players on these contracts don't really need the pension benefits of retiring.
We don't know the rules under the new CBA - but under the old CBA they could be suspended without pay (or cap hit) for not-reporting (except for 35+ yo deals).

My guess is that those deals would be treated similar to the 35+ yo rules - the penalty would be assessed if the player were not on a roster, LTIR, or loaned (ie any case where his cap hit would not otherwise apply), not just if he officially filed retirement papers - otherwise it would have too many loopholes and be effectively worthless.

kdb209 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-08-2013, 01:27 PM
  #111
cheswick
Non-registered User
 
cheswick's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Peg City
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,085
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by coldsteelonice84 View Post
They're all going on LTIR.
Well first they'd need a doctor to say that they would in fact qualify. So your talking about team doctors lying about injuries. Plus the NHL (at least in the last CBA) had the right to get the opinon of a neutral physician in regards to any LTIR claims.

cheswick is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-08-2013, 01:35 PM
  #112
Ragamuffin Gunner
Lost in The Flood
 
Ragamuffin Gunner's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Boston
Country: United States
Posts: 15,975
vCash: 500
I don't see why people are *****ing. They signed these contracts and claimed that they were legit because the players were going to play.

They are legal because there will be years in the future where their cap hit is higher than their salary. If the players don't play the full contract then the contract circumvents the cap and the team who signed that player should pay for the years that they circumvented the cap.

Ragamuffin Gunner is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
01-08-2013, 01:36 PM
  #113
Halibut
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 3,097
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by ginner classic View Post
Dumb logic. They approved the deals that were signed. They signed the last CBA. Not the teams problem they are too daft to analyze the deal before they signed it.
The last CBA had provisions that allowed the commisioner to penalize teams that tried to circumvent the cap. These deals dont actually circumvent the cap unless the player retires early. Under the old CBA the comissioner would have had the right to invoke penalties at the point when an attempt to circumvent the cap took place. The new deal simply spells out what those penalties will be.

Halibut is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-08-2013, 01:52 PM
  #114
Off Sides
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 991
vCash: 744
Perhaps I am not comprehending this and please correct me if I am mistaken, but

What if a team trades a player with one of these deals and that player is bought out using a regular buyout by the new team?

Instead of the player retiring, he would get 2/3rds of his remaining salary.

The team trading the player removes his cap hit

The team trading for the player adds his cap hit yet pays a much lower real dollar amount. Presumably a team trying to reach the cap floor.

Seems like by 2017 or whenever the cap floor will be disproportionate again and some teams will value these contracts in order to save real dollars. Whether or not they actually buyout the player or just keep him, as long as he does not retire, there is no penalty.

Off Sides is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-08-2013, 01:56 PM
  #115
Beukeboom Fan
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 11,597
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Model62 View Post
Then it looks like penalties of 1.5 and 1.5 for each of the last two seasons.

But they'll probably do an amnesty buyout for him, won't they?
The amensty buys-outs are only available in the summer of 2013 and the summer of 2014, not before the start of the upcoming shortened season. Because that's the case - the Rangers are on the hook for $5.6M of cap hit unless they're able to buy him out as part of the normal process before this season starts.

Beukeboom Fan is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
01-08-2013, 02:04 PM
  #116
Lacaar
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Edmonton
Posts: 1,478
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by ginner classic View Post
Dumb logic. They approved the deals that were signed. They signed the last CBA. Not the teams problem they are too daft to analyze the deal before they signed it.

If there was no intent to retire early then there's no issue. That's the logic right there. You calling it dumb doesn't make it so. Stop hiding behind a lie and then trying to use even more retarded logic like you just stated to justify it.

Lacaar is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-08-2013, 02:22 PM
  #117
Krishna
Registered User
 
Krishna's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Philadelphia
Country: Canada
Posts: 82,083
vCash: 500
How would this work in the cases of Jeff Carter and James Van Riemsdyk?

Both signed long deals but neither of them ever played a game for the flyers under that contract

Krishna is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-08-2013, 02:38 PM
  #118
KINGS17
Smartest in the Room
 
KINGS17's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Country: United States
Posts: 15,622
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Reign Nateo View Post
The team that signed the players to the contract bears the burden of the cap penalties going forward once that player retires, regardless of where he ends up...

It's absolutley ridiculous and something only a bush league would do, but here we are...
It's a heady-handed penalty to ensure that teams keep the players that they sign to these deals and that the player doesn't retire several years before the contract ends.

Bottom line...if you have signed a player to one of these type deals, he better had been a cornerstone of you franchise for the entire length of the contract.

KINGS17 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-08-2013, 02:43 PM
  #119
pld459666
Registered User
 
pld459666's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Danbury, CT
Country: United States
Posts: 16,434
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by roboninja View Post
Guys, you are exclaiming that these contracts are not cap circumventing, that these guys intend to play out the contracts. If they do, there are no issues whatsoever. No penalties anywhere. So you should not be worried, right?
I would venture a guess that 8 of the guys listed will play till they are 40.

a very small number will retire before their contracts are out.

VERY SMALL

So yeah, not worried at all.

I still think it's pathetic and petty to punish teams that have contracts that were 100% allowed under an agreement the NHL was HAPPY to sign back in 2005

pld459666 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-08-2013, 02:45 PM
  #120
pld459666
Registered User
 
pld459666's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Danbury, CT
Country: United States
Posts: 16,434
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lacaar View Post
If you don't put down the hammer on teams that used looplholes last cba you lose the possibility of teams being wary of using an exposed loophole this cba.

The whole point being.. Just because it was legal within this CBA doesn't mean it can't change next cba. They'll use logic and common sense to try and thwart the "oh how do you know I won't play till i'm 50" argument or whatever lame excuse is made when and if a loophole is found.
And on a going forward basis, I agree.

However, retro-active punishment is petty and pathetic

pld459666 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-08-2013, 02:45 PM
  #121
Broad Street Elite
Registered User
 
Broad Street Elite's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 3,377
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Krishna View Post
How would this work in the cases of Jeff Carter and James Van Riemsdyk?

Both signed long deals but neither of them ever played a game for the flyers under that contract
It's fair to suggest that all of this is just speculation until we have a final signed CBA that has passed both the PA and BOG. Before than, nuances like this are almost assuredly going to be complicated to assess.

Broad Street Elite is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-08-2013, 02:46 PM
  #122
cheswick
Non-registered User
 
cheswick's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Peg City
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,085
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Krishna View Post
How would this work in the cases of Jeff Carter and James Van Riemsdyk?

Both signed long deals but neither of them ever played a game for the flyers under that contract
Under the formula presented by Friedman they wouldn't be on the hook at all since it only counts for the cap benefit received. If they didn't play for them under the contract, they didn't receive any cap benefit.

cheswick is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-08-2013, 02:54 PM
  #123
eyeball11
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 12,092
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by pld459666 View Post
I would venture a guess that 8 of the guys listed will play till they are 40.

a very small number will retire before their contracts are out.

VERY SMALL

So yeah, not worried at all.

I still think it's pathetic and petty to punish teams that have contracts that were 100% allowed under an agreement the NHL was HAPPY to sign back in 2005
They weren't 100% allowed. Anything that "violated the spirit" of the cap was not allowed.

eyeball11 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-08-2013, 03:10 PM
  #124
RandV
It's a wolf v2.0
 
RandV's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Vancouver
Country: Canada
Posts: 14,628
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by cheswick View Post
When asked on twitter Friedman responded that as was his understanding it would be a $6 million hit to the Canucks for a 1 year early retirement.

Considering the massive hits such a situation could present I think it will probably be structued that if any subsequent teams have a net cap overpayment it will be applied to the inital teams penalty.
Yeah that really doesn't make sense, since it would be so trivial to base the penalty against the balance remaining on the contract. If Luongo retires with 1 year left, that's 1m in salary on a 5m cap hit, so really only 4m in salary cap is circumvented. Calculate the ratio of cap $$$ saved that Vancouver benefited vs the cap $$$ saved that Luongo's other team(s) benefited and apply the split on the $4M that's left on the deal.

Or if he retires with 2 years left then that's $8m to be divided up over a 2 year span based on the same ratio, and the same thing for 3 years and so on. Dead simple and entirely fair, this really shouldn't be that hard.

It should also be noted that if Luongo remains on the same team that trades for him and they start getting into the years where he makes less than his salary cap, then that subtracts from the cap money the team benefited earlier on.

RandV is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
01-08-2013, 03:39 PM
  #125
ginner classic
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Kitsilano
Posts: 6,712
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by eyeball11 View Post
They weren't 100% allowed. Anything that "violated the spirit" of the cap was not allowed.
They approved the contracts. If they violated the CBA they should have rejected them. They did not.

End of story.

ginner classic is online now   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 12:45 AM.

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.