HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > General Hockey Discussion > The Business of Hockey
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.

Voiding NHL contracts

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
07-09-2013, 02:53 AM
  #1
tc23
Moderator
 
tc23's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Vancouver
Country: Canada
Posts: 8,433
vCash: 1636
Voiding NHL contracts

It was brought up on the Canucks board that, according to Jason Botchford, if Luongo refused to report for a year, the Canucks would be able to void his contract. Does anyone know if this is true? I've yet to hear anything about this nor have I seen a situation where this occurred before.

Quote:
Brett Gulliver ‏@bgullly 6 Jul
@botchford hearing if luo sits for a year, contract is void. And is ufa next year, with no cap liability to Canucks. Is this true @TEAM1040

Jason Botchford ‏@botchford 6 Jul
@bgullly correct

Brett Gulliver ‏@bgullly 6 Jul
@botchford so why wouldn't he. One year on the bench for the ability to probs play in tax friendly Florida. $$ losses would not be

Jason Botchford ‏@botchford 6 Jul
@bgullly who said he wasn't doing that? Still hasn't decided yet, so it's clearly an option being seriously considered

tc23 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-09-2013, 08:39 AM
  #2
Pinkfloyd
Registered User
 
Pinkfloyd's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Roseville
Country: United States
Posts: 31,251
vCash: 2283
From what I know it is possible but he'd be a fool to do it. He's going to get 33.57 million dollars over the next five years on his contract. He's not getting that elsewhere. He's going to suck it up and play out at least the next five seasons. That's too much money to pass up because you're ********. Especially now that they made room for you to be the #1 guy again.

Pinkfloyd is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
07-09-2013, 08:46 AM
  #3
IU Hawks fan
They call me 'IU'
 
IU Hawks fan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: No longer IU
Country: United States
Posts: 18,095
vCash: 772
Yeah, he'll play it out for 5 or 6 years and screw them on the back end.

IU Hawks fan is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
07-09-2013, 08:50 AM
  #4
Mike Farkas
Hockey's Future Staff
Moron!
 
Mike Farkas's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: PA
Country: United States
Posts: 4,981
vCash: 500
Technically, could they not have agreed to a mutual termination of the contract upon his would-be clearing of unconditional waivers, or no? Not that that would be in Luongo's best interest necessarily, leaving untold (well, largely told) millions on the table and taking a shot at getting another big contract in a market that is not goalie-friendly...

Mike Farkas is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-09-2013, 10:07 AM
  #5
mouser
Global Moderator
Business of Hockey
 
mouser's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: South Mountain
Posts: 11,234
vCash: 500
My best answer would be it's a definite maybe.

The conditions under which a contract can be mutually terminated do not seem to be part of the CBA, hence not subject to collective bargaining. Suggesting the league is not bound to any criteria whether to permit it or not. SPC's do include provisions that the Club can terminate the contract if the player is in material breach, but it's not mandatory. Teams can also suspend players or demand specific performance on a contract (the Yashin ruling) if the player is in breach.

Contracts have been voided or mutually terminated in the past. But in every situation I'm aware of it has involved a player leaving the NHL, either for retirement or to play in another league. Luongo would be a different situation in that his intent (and the Cannucks expectation) would be he continues to play in the NHL under a new contract with a different team.

If I were in the NHL's shoes I would look at that unfavorably as it would be de facto Renegotiation or Voidable Years on a contract. Both prohibited practices in Article 11. It could also potentially fall under Article 26 No Circumvention concerns. The most reasonable response by the NHL imo would be to require Vancouver to suspend Luongo rather than void the contract if he tried to sit out.

mouser is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-09-2013, 10:43 AM
  #6
cbcwpg
Registered User
 
cbcwpg's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Between the Pipes
Country: United Nations
Posts: 5,680
vCash: 350
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike Farkas View Post
Technically, could they not have agreed to a mutual termination of the contract upon his would-be clearing of unconditional waivers, or no? Not that that would be in Luongo's best interest necessarily, leaving untold (well, largely told) millions on the table and taking a shot at getting another big contract in a market that is not goalie-friendly...
I for one hope the NHL would never let the Canucks and Lou mutually terminate the contract. My reason being is that this contract wasn't done by a couple of stupid people that didn't understand what they were doing and now want to end it, because it was a mistake they didn't mean to do. The Lou / Vancouver contract was done for the sole purpose of circumventing the rules and the cap, and as a result, it financially skewered the market and hurt a bunch of teams that actually try to follow the rules. So too bad, Vancouver, you are stuck with it.

cbcwpg is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-09-2013, 11:06 AM
  #7
Dado
Guest
 
Country:
Posts: n/a
vCash:
Quote:
Originally Posted by mouser View Post
If I were in the NHL's shoes I would look at that unfavorably as it would be de facto Renegotiation or Voidable Years on a contract. Both prohibited practices in Article 11.
If Luongo and the Cancuks are allowed to do it, it opens the door to hold outs.

What would happen with cap recapture in this scenario? If the contract is voided rather than Luongo retires, over what number of years will the recapture be calculated?

  Reply With Quote
Old
07-09-2013, 11:11 AM
  #8
Fourier
Registered User
 
Fourier's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Waterloo Ontario
Country: Canada
Posts: 8,655
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by mouser View Post
My best answer would be it's a definite maybe.

The conditions under which a contract can be mutually terminated do not seem to be part of the CBA, hence not subject to collective bargaining. Suggesting the league is not bound to any criteria whether to permit it or not. SPC's do include provisions that the Club can terminate the contract if the player is in material breach, but it's not mandatory. Teams can also suspend players or demand specific performance on a contract (the Yashin ruling) if the player is in breach.

Contracts have been voided or mutually terminated in the past. But in every situation I'm aware of it has involved a player leaving the NHL, either for retirement or to play in another league. Luongo would be a different situation in that his intent (and the Cannucks expectation) would be he continues to play in the NHL under a new contract with a different team.

If I were in the NHL's shoes I would look at that unfavorably as it would be de facto Renegotiation or Voidable Years on a contract. Both prohibited practices in Article 11. It could also potentially fall under Article 26 No Circumvention concerns. The most reasonable response by the NHL imo would be to require Vancouver to suspend Luongo rather than void the contract if he tried to sit out.
I agree completely with your position on this. They have to take a stand like this or you can see a lot of "exceptional cases" happening in the future.

In any case, termination should not protect a team from cap recapture.

Fourier is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-09-2013, 11:15 AM
  #9
Ziostilon
Registered User
 
Ziostilon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 3,329
vCash: 500
the only way you can probably void his contract right away... is if he did something that is "conduct detrimental to the league or the club"

like punching Mike Gillis in the face

Ziostilon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-09-2013, 11:27 AM
  #10
Dado
Guest
 
Country:
Posts: n/a
vCash:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ziostilon View Post
the only way you can probably void his contract right away... is if he did something that is "conduct detrimental to the league or the club"

like punching Mike Gillis in the face
At this point I'm not sure Canuckdom would view that as a "detrimental" action.

What are the rules on retirement? How long do you have to be retired before you can come back as UFA, if the team "voluntarily" lets you retire? Because that's what we're really talking about here, right?

  Reply With Quote
Old
07-09-2013, 02:52 PM
  #11
silvercanuck
Registered User
 
silvercanuck's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,036
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fourier View Post
I agree completely with your position on this. They have to take a stand like this or you can see a lot of "exceptional cases" happening in the future.

In any case, termination should not protect a team from cap recapture.
I would agree with a cap recapture scenario in this case, but how is it fair that teams can use a one time buyout or that teams that traded retirement contracts are exempt from the new rules? To me the new cap recapture rules are a total farce. It's clear that the NHL is trying to let certain teams off the hook - Philly, New York, LA etc - and punishing other teams such as Vancouver, Nashville, New Jersey. If I didn't know any better I would gather that the league does not want to hurt it's big market US teams - which is exactly what happened in the previous CBA with Jagr and the Rangers.

silvercanuck is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-09-2013, 03:11 PM
  #12
Dado
Guest
 
Country:
Posts: n/a
vCash:
Even if the rules were changed as you suggest, Philly would have virtually no cap recapture penalty from either Richards or Carter contracts. During much of his time in Philly, Richards was actually being paid *less* than his cap hit, and Carter was traded before any of it would have accrued to Philly.

There is no "anti-Canuck" conspiracy here - we screwed up, plain and simple.

  Reply With Quote
Old
07-09-2013, 03:48 PM
  #13
Screw You Rick Nash
🚨🚨🚨🚨🚨🚨🚨🚨
 
Screw You Rick Nash's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Brooklyn, New NY
Country: United States
Posts: 27,208
vCash: 3000
If the Canucks did void his contract, wouldn't they get screwed with the cap benefit recapture penalty?

__________________
++++++++++[>+++++++>++++++++++>+++>+<<<<
-]>++++++.>+.+++++++++++++++.>+++++++++.<-.
>-------.<<-----.>----.>.<<+++++++++++.>-------------
-.+++++++++++++.-------.--.+++++++++++++.+.>+.>.

New and improved Hockey Standings
"A jimmie for a jimmie makes the whole world rustled." -31-
Screw You Rick Nash is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
07-09-2013, 03:49 PM
  #14
Screw You Rick Nash
🚨🚨🚨🚨🚨🚨🚨🚨
 
Screw You Rick Nash's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Brooklyn, New NY
Country: United States
Posts: 27,208
vCash: 3000
Quote:
Originally Posted by silvercanuck View Post
I would agree with a cap recapture scenario in this case, but how is it fair that teams can use a one time buyout or that teams that traded retirement contracts are exempt from the new rules? To me the new cap recapture rules are a total farce. It's clear that the NHL is trying to let certain teams off the hook - Philly, New York, LA etc - and punishing other teams such as Vancouver, Nashville, New Jersey. If I didn't know any better I would gather that the league does not want to hurt it's big market US teams - which is exactly what happened in the previous CBA with Jagr and the Rangers.
How did they let the Rangers off the hook?

Screw You Rick Nash is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
07-09-2013, 03:53 PM
  #15
Fish on The Sand
Untouchable
 
Fish on The Sand's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Nanaimo
Country: Canada
Posts: 48,667
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dado View Post
Even if the rules were changed as you suggest, Philly would have virtually no cap recapture penalty from either Richards or Carter contracts. During much of his time in Philly, Richards was actually being paid *less* than his cap hit, and Carter was traded before any of it would have accrued to Philly.

There is no "anti-Canuck" conspiracy here - we screwed up, plain and simple.
Not to mention Carter and Richards would have to retire at an astonishingly young age too.

Fish on The Sand is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-09-2013, 05:29 PM
  #16
silvercanuck
Registered User
 
silvercanuck's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,036
vCash: 500
What about Nashville and the cap recapture clause in Shea Weber's new deal? I see a clear pattern. The NHL put a get out of jail free card into the CBA with a one time buy out. The big US markets were able to take advantage. I see a definite pattern here and I don't think I'm being a conspiracy nut.

silvercanuck is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-09-2013, 05:38 PM
  #17
IU Hawks fan
They call me 'IU'
 
IU Hawks fan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: No longer IU
Country: United States
Posts: 18,095
vCash: 772
Yeah, and Tampa Bay is such a massive hockey market. It's all a conspiracy against Nashville.


IU Hawks fan is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
07-09-2013, 07:07 PM
  #18
htpwn
Registered User
 
htpwn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Toronto
Country: Poland
Posts: 12,596
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by silvercanuck View Post
What about Nashville and the cap recapture clause in Shea Weber's new deal? I see a clear pattern. The NHL put a get out of jail free card into the CBA with a one time buy out. The big US markets were able to take advantage. I see a definite pattern here and I don't think I'm being a conspiracy nut.
The Islanders found the money to buy out DiPietro.

The Lightning found the money to buy out Lecavalier.

It may be easier for larger markets to take advantage of the compliance buyouts but the option is open for everyone. Instead of blaming the league, blame your owner for being unwilling to do what his even his poorer competitors were open to.

htpwn is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-09-2013, 10:12 PM
  #19
Oleg Petrov
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 1,035
vCash: 500
Suspending or voiding the contract are both options if Luongo refuses to render services to the Canucks. However, termination will allow him to sign a new deal with a new club while suspending him will ensure that he can't play for anyone else ( as long as he doesn't report ). Either way they'll get dinged with cap recapture penalty of about 800 k for the remainder of the deal.

As was previously stated, he's leaving too much money on the table to not report. Suck it up, play another year and maybe there is more trade potential at the end of next season.

Oleg Petrov is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-10-2013, 01:18 AM
  #20
tempest2i
Myxomatosis
 
tempest2i's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Cowtown
Country: Canada
Posts: 5,124
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dado View Post
What are the rules on retirement? How long do you have to be retired before you can come back as UFA, if the team "voluntarily" lets you retire? Because that's what we're really talking about here, right?
I won't claim to be an expert on this because I'm not, however I am under the impression that a player that retires from the NHL can not come back and re-join the league until the term of the contract they retired from is up.

I don't know what that's what I think is the case, it's just something I remember hearing or reading somewhere. It could be completely wrong for all I know.

tempest2i is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-12-2013, 05:16 AM
  #21
JuniorNelson
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: E.Vancouver
Country: Australia-Aboriginal
Posts: 4,590
vCash: 50
Point is moot. It will never happen.

Luongo lost the starting job, then seemed content to back-up. He didn't come to camp breathing fire, trying to redeem himself. He wasn't very good, really. His heart didn't seem in it. What team will give that guy a chance to start? There is only the one.

JuniorNelson 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 11:45 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.