NHL is still investigating the contract of Savard, Hossa, Pronger and Luongo

  1. You have chosen to ignore posts from BruWingFan. Show BruWingFan's posts

    Re: NHL is still investigating the contract of Savard, Hossa, Pronger and Luongo

    I'm not a lawyer, but I have to believe the NHL would be wide open for lawsuits over any decision to rescind the other contracts. The teams made other decisions based on the NHL accepting and registering those contracts. To go back and say they're no longer valid would be severely detrimental to those teams. IMO the league needs to honor the contracts. They had their chance to deny the contracts and did not do so.

    I don't see how they could possibly do anything with Hossa because he's already played a season under the contract.

     
     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from SanDogBrewin. Show SanDogBrewin's posts

    Re: NHL is still investigating the contract of Savard, Hossa, Pronger and Luongo

    I would think any deal that got rejected months after it was submitted that wasn't rejected at the time it was initially submitted would indeed get challenged in court by the player and or the team. For instance if Marc were declared a free agent by the league Chiarelli could scream "I couldv'e traded Savard and gotten some type of compensation for him while under contract."

    I don't see how the league could wait this long to declare the contract rejected after they didn't reject it for a hearing in the first place.
     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from RMiller87. Show RMiller87's posts

    Re: NHL is still investigating the contract of Savard, Hossa, Pronger and Luongo

    Many of these front loaded contracts were clearly exploiting loopholes in the League's salary cap provisions.

    New Jersey seems to have tried to drive a Mack truck through with the offer to Kovalchuk, and this party looks to be over.

    This might get interesting. 

    Wonder why Lecavalier's 11 year, $85 million contract hasn't been included since it is also heavily front loaded in the manner of Savard's, Hossa's, Pronger's and Luongo's.
     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from RMiller87. Show RMiller87's posts

    Re: NHL is still investigating the contract of Savard, Hossa, Pronger and Luongo

    Of course, I also don't see how the League can now really go after player contracts that they have already previously approved without everything going all higgeldy piggeldy legally...

    I am guessing that the League likely won't.
     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from NorthernBrewin. Show NorthernBrewin's posts

    Re: NHL is still investigating the contract of Savard, Hossa, Pronger and Luongo

    Far too many variables for the league to go back on old deals.


     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from shaunk. Show shaunk's posts

    Re: NHL is still investigating the contract of Savard, Hossa, Pronger and Luongo

    I can see how the league can do it because they are a bunch of fickle dim-witted and illogical carpetbaggers. 

    If the league goes after those contracts, then they must also "investigate" (which means staring at a blank piece of paper for 7 hours), contracts like Zetterberg's and Franzen's in Detroit and as RMiller87 has pointed out, Lecavalier's in TB.

    I'd be interested in reading what BookBoy thinks of this. This Kovalchuk rejection and contract issue is a step in the wrong direction for the NHL and if they have another lockout because the league office is too indecisive and vague and darn near incompetent, with the strength of the KHL and European leagues, the NHL won't survive it.

    Although it might force us back to the good ol' days of the original six...
     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from DrCC. Show DrCC's posts

    Re: NHL is still investigating the contract of Savard, Hossa, Pronger and Luongo

    In Response to Re: NHL is still investigating the contract of Savard, Hossa, Pronger and Luongo:
    [QUOTE]So, Lou Lamiorello basically designed the new CBA with Jacobs and others, and they are pretending they didn't know what they were doing?  I am not buying that.
    Posted by russgriswold[/QUOTE]
    Conspiracy theory time:  Lou negotiated this contract with the intent that the league reject it so that the League would be given the precedent to go after contracts with similar terms.
     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from Not-A-Shot. Show Not-A-Shot's posts

    Re: NHL is still investigating the contract of Savard, Hossa, Pronger and Luongo

    In Response to Re: NHL is still investigating the contract of Savard, Hossa, Pronger and Luongo:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: NHL is still investigating the contract of Savard, Hossa, Pronger and Luongo : Conspiracy theory time:  Lou negotiated this contract with the intent that the league reject it so that the League would be given the precedent to go after contracts with similar terms.
    Posted by DrCC[/QUOTE]

    I don't know how far off the truth this is.  It's possible.  If not to eliminate them retroactively, at least to stop them going forward.

    Parise turning RFA at season's end might be on his mind also.
     
  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from dc-bruins-fan. Show dc-bruins-fan's posts

    Re: NHL is still investigating the contract of Savard, Hossa, Pronger and Luongo

    This is really interesting from a legal perspective. The players listed above have almost no doubt relied on the contracts that the NHL has already signed off on, even if the league wasn't in favor of them. If the league were to then void those contracts, the players may have a breach of contract (or tortious interference with contract) lawsuit against the NHL. 
     
  10. You have chosen to ignore posts from dc-bruins-fan. Show dc-bruins-fan's posts

    Re: NHL is still investigating the contract of Savard, Hossa, Pronger and Luongo

    As to my above post, this is they key from the article from a legal perspective:

    Several agents contacted Monday were alarmed by the implication of the league going after contracts already in effect.

    “I’ve never heard of a contract that had been registered and approved and then having that registration withdrawn,” said one agent, who requested to remain anonymous.

    “The league has two months now to go after Savard, Pronger and Luongo [whose contract extensions began July 1]. Until they start getting paid, they’ve got two months.”

     

    I would actually disagree with the "they've got two months." To say that those players haven't acted in anticipation of that contract money (which the NHL signed off on) would be a really hard argument for the NHL's lawyers to make

     
  11. You have chosen to ignore posts from felixwas. Show felixwas's posts

    Re: NHL is still investigating the contract of Savard, Hossa, Pronger and Luongo

    Given the acrimony between the players and team ownership, it's odd to see a player and a GM (owner proxy) aligned against the league itself. Does anybody know where the other GMs are coming down on this decision? Is Lamoriello merely a front man to address an owners' desire to eliminate these loophole (so to speak) contracts?

    I had hoped the contract would be upheld, just because I tend to support the workers (players) instead of management (owners). Working decades for penurious business owners tilted me in the workers' direction in labor matters.
     
  12. You have chosen to ignore posts from bogie6. Show bogie6's posts

    Re: NHL is still investigating the contract of Savard, Hossa, Pronger and Luongo

    I made a mistake earlier and glanced at capgeek's listing on Savard and it appears that I did not look out far enough. Savvy's deal could be undone and make Savvy a UFA. On one hand it solves the bruins cap problem, but if it means that Savvy leaves, who would replace him?? Makes for an interesting month prior to camp in September
     
  13. You have chosen to ignore posts from rolerhoky19. Show rolerhoky19's posts

    Re: NHL is still investigating the contract of Savard, Hossa, Pronger and Luongo

    In Response to Re: NHL is still investigating the contract of Savard, Hossa, Pronger and Luongo:
    [QUOTE]Bogie, I'm pretty interested in why you would think that Savvy's already approved contract would be voided
    Posted by pbergeron37[/QUOTE]

    It could be voided as an attempt to circumvent the cap, based on the same merits that the kovalychuk contract was voided.  I think his would stand based on him only being 39 at the end of the deal, but one point I did read on the Kovy contract, that I can see being an issue in the savard contract is the $575k at the end of the deal will be below the league minimum at that time. (kovy had 6 years tacked on at that rate) savard only 2..
     
  14. You have chosen to ignore posts from SanDogBrewin. Show SanDogBrewin's posts

    Re: NHL is still investigating the contract of Savard, Hossa, Pronger and Luongo

    "According to the collective bargaining agreement, the NHL can conduct an investigation to determine whether circumvention took place even after a contract has been approved and registered."

    After Luongo, Pronger and Hossa are already getting paid more reasons the CBA needs to be revamped. If the arbitrator does indeed reject the Savard contract and Chiarelli does want to keep Savard it will now force PC to finally deal with Ryder's contract which will be a good thing. No more playing patty cake with that bum. I can't imagine PC in front the press trying to spin "Oh I kept Ryder instead of Savard because...."

    "that I can see being an issue in the savard contract is the $575k at the end of the deal"

    On the end of a 17 year deal I can see a problem but not on the end of a shorter deal much shorter.
     
  15. You have chosen to ignore posts from rolerhoky19. Show rolerhoky19's posts

    Re: NHL is still investigating the contract of Savard, Hossa, Pronger and Luongo

    In Response to Re: NHL is still investigating the contract of Savard, Hossa, Pronger and Luongo:
    [QUOTE]"According to the collective bargaining agreement, the NHL can conduct an investigation to determine whether circumvention took place even after a contract has been approved and registered." After Luongo, Pronger and Hossa are already getting paid more reasons the CBA needs to be revamped. If the arbitrator does indeed reject the Savard contract and Chiarelli does want to keep Savard it will now force PC to finally deal with Ryder's contract which will be a good thing. No more playing patty cake with that bum. I can't imagine PC in front the press trying to spin "Oh I kept Ryder instead of Savard because...." "that I can see being an issue in the savard contract is the $575k at the end of the deal" On the end of a 17 year deal I can see a problem but not on the end of a shorter deal much shorter.
    Posted by SanDogBrewin[/QUOTE]


    I dont think the term matters as much as the amount, i mean the league min will be above that in all likelihood before either player gets there, and as the bruins I think it would be tough to argue your legit intention is savards game will fall off so far by his 5,6, and 7 that he will be worth the league minimum, but still capable of playing to a point that you want to keep him locked in to your roster..

     
  16. You have chosen to ignore posts from nrguy. Show nrguy's posts

    Re: NHL is still investigating the contract of Savard, Hossa, Pronger and Luongo

    Savys contract and Kovys are not as comparable as you make it seem. Savy is paid $.5 million the last 2 years of his contract when he's old but likely service-able (hopefully). At that point, he would likely get the league min or something like that anyway.

    Kovy would be out of the league for 4 years before his contract ended. Savy, maybe 1 possibly 2. Kovy's deal takes him to 44, Luongo - 43, Pronger - 42, and Hossa - 42. Savys deal takes him to 39 which is more reasonable.

    Lou knew exactly what he was doing and intentionally structured the contract that way. Lou is way too smart to not realize it was going to be rejected.
     
  17. You have chosen to ignore posts from rolerhoky19. Show rolerhoky19's posts

    Re: NHL is still investigating the contract of Savard, Hossa, Pronger and Luongo

    Nr,
    I agree they are different, but its the same idea, and same effect tack a couple extra years on to lower the hit, and buy the player out at the end if hes not productive.  I mean savard would be earning (below) league minimum at that point? I doubt it, his game is not structured that way.. When he stops being a productive point producer, he wont belong in the nhl.. He won't have value as a 3/4 checking line center..

    Also the "1" player they sited as being over 43(recchi) is a 1.95? cap hit this season..
     
  18. You have chosen to ignore posts from Bookboy007. Show Bookboy007's posts

    Re: NHL is still investigating the contract of Savard, Hossa, Pronger and Luongo

    I'm not surprised at the decision or the subsequent investigations.  I wouldn't have been overly surprised to see things go the other way, either.  The whole thing turns on some unsubstantiated language regarding circumventing the cap.  The CBA provides no examples of what this means, and this was the basis of the NHLPA grievance as I understand it.  No one knows quite what that phrase means.  Block has, in effect, said that this is an example.  Now the NHL is considering applying that example to the existing contracts.

    I think the definition of circumventing the cap should be allowing you to give more cash in player salaries than the cap and negotiated cushions allow.  That's exactly what these deals allow.  The Bruins are effectively deferring $3M of the cap hit on Marc Savard's salary until he's in his late 30s.  If you add up the salary dollars for this Bruins roster, not including any bonuses, the total salary committed is $64.2M.  If Seguin and Recchi hit their bonuses, add another $3.5M+.  Add the penalties and buy outs ($2.75M+) and the Bruins could be writing payroll cheques for $70.45M, or about $11M more than the cap is supposed to allow (more like $6M with the bonus cushion, but that $5M would be carried over...).  That's circumventing the intent of the cap.

    There's a good reason for the NHL to fight this - they've argued that X% of revenues is the mason-dixon line for a healthy league, so how can they let teams blast past that line without blinking?

    As for the existing contracts, I'm not sure the NHL would have won the same case with any of them as they did with Kovalchuk.  The NJ deal magnifies the problem 10 fold in length, high-end pay-out, and length of the 'tail'.  In other words, it's sufficiently obscene to override the vagueness of the "circumvent the cap" language.  Now, though, with that precedent in hand, the NHL is in better position to reject those earlier contracts.  I think it's unlikely that they do, but I can see several scenarios where it's possible.  Even the Hossa deal - yes, he played a year under that deal, so not only would Chicago hve to revise his contract or lose him, they'd have to pay some kind of penalty against the cap.

    Finally, though, the argument would come down to two interpretations of what these contracts do:

    Con contract says that they seek to circumvent the cap by taking on walk-away years the team will never pay because the player will retire and therefore take a large cap hit (more than both salary and production) with him.

    Pro contract says look, players decline as they age, and with 35+ contract provisions, it's tricky for older but still effective veterans to get much security - and given that older vets have more established or complicated family situations, it's unfair to expect them to move year to year just to keep playing.  By X age, the team and player agree that it's likely he'll be a veteran role player and not the superstar he is right now.  If we were to sign 43 yr old Ilya K. for one last kick at the Cup, we probably would offer him NHL minimum and maybe some bonuses.  26 yr old Ilya accepts that on behalf of 43 yr old Ilya - that's what we agree he'll be worth.  So that's what the contract will provide for.  This is the same deal as escalators for emerging players, who get a raise each year because we all assume experience will make them better.  So what's the big deal about doing it in reverse?  We want to keep this player for 17 years.  Right now, he's worth $10M, but he won't be worth that much in 17 years.   We're just being realistic.

    In the end, I think they grandfather the existing deals and look to change the language in the CBA before next July 1 so that total salaries paid cannot exceed the cap and bonus cushion, but teams will have the flexibility to pay out different amounts in different years rather than stick with a flat average cap hit.

     
  19. You have chosen to ignore posts from mamico3308. Show mamico3308's posts

    Re: NHL is still investigating the contract of Savard, Hossa, Pronger and Luongo

    Even if the league did decide to void Savy's contract I would think they would either have to classify him as an RFA or set a timeline for a restructing before he became a UFA.  If the league just voided the contract and made him a UFA, I can see the Bruins come back and demand compensation due to the fact that the contract was signed and approved while Savard was property of the Bruins and not subject to offers from other teams.

    All I know is: this might get real ugly, real quick
     
  20. You have chosen to ignore posts from dc-bruins-fan. Show dc-bruins-fan's posts

    Re: NHL is still investigating the contract of Savard, Hossa, Pronger and Luongo

    I  would be shocked if any of the other, already registered, contracts were voided.

    Did a little research...should be impossible to void the Hossa contract...he's already started performing the terms of the deal (1 year of the contract already gone) so the only way to void it would be to simultaneously pay him the full amount (or a sum agreed to by the parties).

    For the same reasons it should be impossible to review the contracts of Savard and the others listed (who haven't played a season under the new deals), since those contracts were effective July 1, 2010...depending on the terms of the deal, they could have already started performing (they likely have).


     
  21. You have chosen to ignore posts from rolerhoky19. Show rolerhoky19's posts

    Re: NHL is still investigating the contract of Savard, Hossa, Pronger and Luongo

    BB,
    I agree with you, I do think the new CBA will address contract length (maybe add player and team optionsor something...) I think thats a quick answer to avoid this, maybe limit contracts based on a players age, 22-26 6 year max deal, 26-30 5 year max deal 30-34 4 year max deal, and 35 plus 3 years max, change the 35 plus contracts to if a player retires the rules are the same as a buy out, if  a player retires due to injury you are covered by an exemption.. Having no limit on the length is really were teams are able to "circumvent" the cap..

    change the buy out rules so that the cap reflects the remaining cap hit (or the cushion that was built in), not remaining salary if you carried a 2 years at 10 mill and 2 years at 2 mill to carry a 4 year 6 mill cap hit, you shouldnt be able to buy out the last 2 years for 2.66m over 4 years (cash wise sure)but if you buy out the contract the league should say ok that was 2 years @ 10m, (not 4 years @ 6) you have an 8m cap penalty to spread over the final 2 years @ 2/3, or you have 12m remaining @ 2/3 for 4 years

     
  22. You have chosen to ignore posts from rolerhoky19. Show rolerhoky19's posts

    Re: NHL is still investigating the contract of Savard, Hossa, Pronger and Luongo

    In Response to Re: NHL is still investigating the contract of Savard, Hossa, Pronger and Luongo:
    [QUOTE]I  would be shocked if any of the other, already registered, contracts were voided. Did a little research...should be impossible to void the Hossa contract...he's already started performing the terms of the deal (1 year of the contract already gone) so the only way to void it would be to simultaneously pay him the full amount (or a sum agreed to by the parties). For the same reasons it should be impossible to review the contracts of Savard and the others listed (who haven't played a season under the new deals), since those contracts were effective July 1, 2010...depending on the terms of the deal, they could have already started performing (they likely have).
    Posted by dc-bruins-fan[/QUOTE]

    I could see the league giving teams an "option" 48 hour window where either the contract becomes a flat rate (thus taking out the benefit of buying a player out later on), and the team can decide if they want to walk away or not.

    That doesnt sound like much, but now a team has to decide if they want savard hanging around at 37 because he has to play to get his money..
     
  23. You have chosen to ignore posts from nrguy. Show nrguy's posts

    Re: NHL is still investigating the contract of Savard, Hossa, Pronger and Luongo

    Who would have thought 10 years ago that we'd be having a discussion about the Bs spending over the salary cap? Not me, and if you say you saw it coming, you're a liar. 

    In the last two years of the contract, we'll just staple Savy to the half boards on PPs. It'll work.

     
  24. You have chosen to ignore posts from islamorada. Show islamorada's posts

    Re: NHL is still investigating the contract of Savard, Hossa, Pronger and Luongo

    In Response to Re: NHL is still investigating the contract of Savard, Hossa, Pronger and Luongo:
    [QUOTE]I'm not surprised at the decision or the subsequent investigations.  I wouldn't have been overly surprised to see things go the other way, either.  The whole thing turns on some unsubstantiated language regarding circumventing the cap.  The CBA provides no examples of what this means, and this was the basis of the NHLPA grievance as I understand it.  No one knows quite what that phrase means.  Block has, in effect, said that this is an example.  Now the NHL is considering applying that example to the existing contracts. I think the definition of circumventing the cap should be allowing you to give more cash in player salaries than the cap and negotiated cushions allow.  That's exactly what these deals allow.  The Bruins are effectively deferring $3M of the cap hit on Marc Savard's salary until he's in his late 30s.  If you add up the salary dollars for this Bruins roster, not including any bonuses, the total salary committed is $64.2M.  If Seguin and Recchi hit their bonuses, add another $3.5M+.  Add the penalties and buy outs ($2.75M+) and the Bruins could be writing payroll cheques for $70.45M, or about $11M more than the cap is supposed to allow (more like $6M with the bonus cushion, but that $5M would be carried over...).  That's circumventing the intent of the cap. There's a good reason for the NHL to fight this - they've argued that X% of revenues is the mason-dixon line for a healthy league, so how can they let teams blast past that line without blinking? As for the existing contracts, I'm not sure the NHL would have won the same case with any of them as they did with Kovalchuk.  The NJ deal magnifies the problem 10 fold in length, high-end pay-out, and length of the 'tail'.  In other words, it's sufficiently obscene to override the vagueness of the "circumvent the cap" language.  Now, though, with that precedent in hand, the NHL is in better position to reject those earlier contracts.  I think it's unlikely that they do, but I can see several scenarios where it's possible.  Even the Hossa deal - yes, he played a year under that deal, so not only would Chicago hve to revise his contract or lose him, they'd have to pay some kind of penalty against the cap. Finally, though, the argument would come down to two interpretations of what these contracts do: Con contract says that they seek to circumvent the cap by taking on walk-away years the team will never pay because the player will retire and therefore take a large cap hit (more than both salary and production) with him. Pro contract says look, players decline as they age, and with 35+ contract provisions, it's tricky for older but still effective veterans to get much security - and given that older vets have more established or complicated family situations, it's unfair to expect them to move year to year just to keep playing.  By X age, the team and player agree that it's likely he'll be a veteran role player and not the superstar he is right now.  If we were to sign 43 yr old Ilya K. for one last kick at the Cup, we probably would offer him NHL minimum and maybe some bonuses.  26 yr old Ilya accepts that on behalf of 43 yr old Ilya - that's what we agree he'll be worth.  So that's what the contract will provide for.  This is the same deal as escalators for emerging players, who get a raise each year because we all assume experience will make them better.  So what's the big deal about doing it in reverse?  We want to keep this player for 17 years.  Right now, he's worth $10M, but he won't be worth that much in 17 years.   We're just being realistic. In the end, I think they grandfather the existing deals and look to change the language in the CBA before next July 1 so that total salaries paid cannot exceed the cap and bonus cushion, but teams will have the flexibility to pay out different amounts in different years rather than stick with a flat average cap hit.
    Posted by Bookboy007[/QUOTE]

    Just got home to read you analysis, I would agree with DrCC the Lamirello-Kovy contract was deliberate at this point.  I have the CBA on my desktop and failed to see that the NHL can review existing contracts.  Supreme Court decision Dartmouth vs. NH established the fact contracts are legal even under differing constitutional bylaws.  I am not a constitutional lawyer but I would believe the provision allowing the NHL to review existing contracts is illegal or unconstitutional.  if not it would be a jurisdicational nightmare.  Grandfathering the existing contracts is the only way to legally handle the matter under that thinking.  As for the arbitrary 40 year old standard for Savard, well, I don't buy it.  Savard's contract circumvents the intent of the cap.  The age is arbitrary!  I am beginning to think like DrCC that this was an attempt by the league to establish a boundary of contract lengths before the next CBA.  Personally, no contract should be longer than 5 years.  The amount of the contract though should also not be limited.  The cap was instituted for the owners/GMs to live with a budget.  If these people cannot balance their budget with the current revenue sharing system of the NHL then let Phoenix go to Hamilton!

     
  25. You have chosen to ignore posts from rolerhoky19. Show rolerhoky19's posts

    Re: NHL is still investigating the contract of Savard, Hossa, Pronger and Luongo

    In Response to Re: NHL is still investigating the contract of Savard, Hossa, Pronger and Luongo:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: NHL is still investigating the contract of Savard, Hossa, Pronger and Luongo : Just got home to read you analysis, I would agree with DrCC the Lamirello-Kovy contract was deliberate at this point.  I have the CBA on my desktop and failed to see that the NHL can review existing contracts.  Supreme Court decision Dartmouth vs. NH established the fact contracts are legal even under differing constitutional bylaws.  I am not a constitutional lawyer but I would believe the provision allowing the NHL to review existing contracts is illegal or unconstitutional.  if not it would be a jurisdicational nightmare.  Grandfathering the existing contracts is the only way to legally handle the matter under that thinking.  As for the arbitrary 40 year old standard for Savard, well, I don't buy it.  Savard's contract circumvents the intent of the cap.  The age is arbitrary!  I am beginning to think like DrCC that this was an attempt by the league to establish a boundary of contract lengths before the next CBA.  Personally, no contract should be longer than 5 years.  The amount of the contract though should also not be limited.  The cap was instituted for the owners/GMs to live with a budget.  If these people cannot balance their budget with the current revenue sharing system of the NHL then let Phoenix go to Hamilton!
    Posted by islamorada[/QUOTE]


    I would agree about the liability except for the CBA being "ratified" by both parties.. I am sure the players probably sign off on something as part of any contract that probably extents to the CBA having hierarchy over an individual contract as well, I mean how else can you explain the 24% pay cur/roll back from the last CBA.

     

Share