| Author |
 Topic  |
|
Beans15
Moderator
Canada
8286 Posts |
 Posted - 07/20/2010 : 18:34:40
|
Honestly, I see the issue at hand and I don't disagree that it is a very obvious loophole. However, every single team in the NHL has the ability to do the exact same thing. That's my point. I see that this opens pandora's box, but the end of the day is that every team has the same abilities. No one is excluded for any reason.
Here is my issue with, even more so, if the NHL gets involved. The Devils have broken no visable rule. There is nothing that I can find in the CBA that says anything about a max length of a contract. Why is it ok for the exact same structure of deal(albeit shorter) happen in the past 2-3 years but this one is an issue??
Weak. If the NHL is refusing the Kovalchuk deal, they better go back and look at Luongo, Zetterberg, Datsuyk, Lecavalier, Richards, and Pronger at least. They can't say some of them are ok but this one is not. Show the rules they are breaking
(Wow, possibly for the first time I am completely blaming Gary Bettman for something other than discipline!) |
Edited by - Beans15 on 07/20/2010 18:41:59 |
 |
|
|
nuxfan
PickupHockey All-Star
3670 Posts |
Posted - 07/20/2010 : 19:54:28
|
wow, I am stunned by this ruling to be honest. There is no rule, the NHL is simply making an arbitrary decision. In the words of Kypreos, "it just smelled wrong". The NHL is basing decisions on smell factor?
Just when you thought everything was done this offseason. |
|
|
|
fat_elvis_rocked
PickupHockey Pro
Canada
902 Posts |
Posted - 07/20/2010 : 20:24:17
|
I'm thinking Kypreos is wafting in the stench of hypocrisy. The owners push the NHLPA to agree to a salary cap, and once they get that major concession, it is one of the owners who utilizes a loophole first, or at the very least agrees to said loophole, if the deal was proposed by the player's agent.
If proposed by the player's agent, brilliant! If proposed by the owner of the Devils, see stench above.... |
|
|
|
nuxfan
PickupHockey All-Star
3670 Posts |
Posted - 07/20/2010 : 22:13:21
|
So, what next?
According to TSN, there are 3 possible paths thru this unprecedented situation.
1. NJD redo contract with IK in a way that makes it NHL-friendly, and resubmits - could take a few days, could take longer.
2. Players Association files a grievance over the rejection, and it goes to arbitration. Could take ages, and the whole things slows to a crawl.
3. NJD walk away, say they cannot make it work for them, IK is a UFA again - could happen tomorrow.
If 1 or 2 happen, expect there to be no quick solution to this issue. If the IK contract is really holding up other deals, what does this development do to the rest of the anticipated deals? |
|
|
|
Guest3153
( )
|
Posted - 07/20/2010 : 22:20:35
|
| Easy. The Devils file a grievance, go to an arbitrator and just point to all of the slightly less ridiculous but equally cap evading deals that Beans pointed out, and then slyly point to guys like Chelios and shrug and say "it happens". Case closed. Get a lawyer or twelve worth the ink on their degrees and we'll all be home in time for Sunday brunch. |
|
|
|
irvine
PickupHockey Veteran
Canada
1315 Posts |
Posted - 07/21/2010 : 03:50:47
|
This has officially become a soap opera. The Ilya Show.
I find it odd that the NHL has decided to intervene in this deal, when they have let every other contract of similar nature (albeit, 5 years less in length for most), slide.
I think this (NHL intervening), will cause a lot of NHLPA issues in the end. I don't think the NHL are getting away with this.
In the end, I think the deal will go threw as it stands. If, the Devs and IK don't work out a new deal in the meantime, while fighting it.
Irvine/prez. |
|
|
|
n/a
deleted
4809 Posts |
Posted - 07/21/2010 : 05:03:41
|
The deal is waved off! . . . . or IS it?
According to the letter of the law, it is within the rules - that is #1 and most important. As much as the NHL can whine about the "spirit of the deal", the only spirits worth noting in the courtroom are hidden under the judge's bench, and they have no say in anything. Of note as well, Lou (because he's a smart bastard who knows the CYA rule) had Kovalchuk cover said derriere by pointing out that he plans on playing for the whole contract and keeping himself in shape . . . we all know it was tongue in cheek, but still, it formally demonstrates that both management 'expects' and the player 'intends' to fulfill the contract.
A grievance will be filed and this will be again quickly overturned, and the deal will stand, IMHO. As Guest 3153 pointed out, all one has to do is point to players like Chris Chelios (played until 45, 46 years old) and all the other weasely deals out there that are JUST AS LEGAL, and the deal will stand.
How could The Count, a lawyer of ill-repute, have left these contract rules wide open to be taken advantage of? Maybe some good can come of this and The Count can be sent back to Transylvania where he belongs, sucking the blood from some other poor sports league! 
"Take off, eh?" - Bob and Doug |
|
|
|
Beans15
Moderator
Canada
8286 Posts |
Posted - 07/21/2010 : 14:56:23
|
Rich Winter, a current agent for many NHL players was on the Radio this morning and it is interested that he openly admitted that it is hypocritical that when an Owner initiates the deal it's bad but a player's favorable deal it good. He did a ton of comparisons to the Gaborik and Hossa deals as he was resposible for both. His reasoning is that Gaborik will be 33 when his deal ends and will be making $7.5 million in the last year, which is reasonable for an elite player at that age. However, Hossa's deal ends when he is his early 40's and making a little less than a million a season which is what most players over the age of 40 are making.
He ultimately said that this deal would not have been rejected if it was not so obviously built for Kovalchuk to basically walk away(retire or get bought out) at the age of 39 with most of the deal have been paid for. He said if the dollar values were just a bit higher towards the end of the deal or the drop from the $11ish million to nearly nothing.
It was a really interesting interview. |
|
|
|
irvine
PickupHockey Veteran
Canada
1315 Posts |
Posted - 07/22/2010 : 04:11:50
|
I also forgot to mention the other day...
This deal being rejected has more implications than many think. Including, most media.
If this goes to an arbitrator, and the arbitrator does rule that the deal circumvented the current NHL CBA... the punishment is fierce. Or, can be.
So basically, if the arbitrator rules with Bettman... Bettman then (as Commish), decides the following (Against NJ):
1) A fine of no less than $1M (no more than $5M)
2) Devils Salary Cap ceiling is reduced. No less than $1M (no more than $5M)
3) Forfeiture of draft picks. (Amount of picks, round for the picks & the year of them) to be determined by the commish.
4) Agents, players, etc.. may be suspended from duty.
--
So when we look at this overall, it's not as easy as just re-negotiating a new contract. This may go to arbitration. If it does, New Jersey are in a heap of trouble.
Bettman will likely make an example out of NJ. He may propose $5M Cap hit and fine (the max).
Now we consider that Kovalchuk's new deal, will likely see a raise in the overall cap hit. So rather than $6M of cap, likely in the ballpark of $8-8.5M per year. Add on a $5M Cap penalty to NJ... we now see Kovy's cap hit for year 1 being $14-15M!
Not good. Not good at all. That would force NJ's hand at re-signing Parise, perhaps. Atleast, it would create greater problems at doing so. More guys would need to be moved out for both being cap compliant this year... and then more to get Parise next year. They would be in a heap of trouble, suddenly.
Irvine/prez. |
|
|
|
irvine
PickupHockey Veteran
Canada
1315 Posts |
Posted - 07/22/2010 : 04:15:40
|
Not to mention...
Are things slowly going South in Jersey between the Devils Ownership Group and their General Manager, Lou Lamoriello?
Lou has made it very, very clear that he had nothing to do with the contract given to Ilya Kovalchuk. He has pointed out several times, that ownership are to be 'blamed'.
Lou seems to want nothing to do with this Ilya Kovalchuk deal, nor the contract. With how well Lou has done in the league (NJ too), as a GM. It seems almost weird that the Ownership would overrule Lou and offer such a ludacris contract. As Lou has pointed out, he had 0 to do with it.
Irvine/prez. |
|
|
|
n/a
deleted
4809 Posts |
Posted - 07/22/2010 : 05:09:48
|
I actually have to say that I have lost some respect for Lou here . . . too much scrambling to cover his butt and absolve himself of any blame, and zero accountability.
Great points about the penalties to NJ if the rejection of the deal stands, irvine . . . thanks for saving me the trouble of looking that up this morning myself! Like you said, NJ might be in a heap of trouble here, and suddenly there are many trade implications involved here potentially.
But I will tell you all what REALLY got my attention this morning as I went over a few articles detailing the mysterious rejection for an unknown reason . . .
http://sports.yahoo.com/nhl/blog/puck_daddy/post/NHL-declares-hypocritical-political-war-with-Ko?urn=nhl-257340
Near the end of this article on Yahoo sports the point is made that an inside source has said that the Devils knew that the deal would be rejected, but went ahead with the press conference anyways . . . and that in some respects, Lou Lamoriello himself seemed to shoot the deal in the foot with his mannerisms and commentary.
Is Lou involved in a conspiracy with the other NHL owners/Bettman to set some kind of precedent with the nixing of this deal? The idea is not that far-fetched . . .
My barometer for how possible this scenario is, is what kind of penalty gets doled out against the NJ management if the decision stands? As Irvine pointed out, the penalty could be quite severe - cap-wise, and for picks, etc - but if the NHL really makes it a soft penalty . . . I would really wonder if this wasn't all a charade for our benefit.
At any rate, it was confirmed that the NHLPA have 48 hours to respond. They better get to it!
"Take off, eh?" - Bob and Doug |
|
|
|
Beans15
Moderator
Canada
8286 Posts |
Posted - 07/22/2010 : 08:18:23
|
I've heard a rumor that there is some chain of e-mails that the NHL has their hands on that specifically talks about the Kovalchuk retiring at a certain point in the deal. If that is the case, wow!!
Onto Lamoreillo. Here's my take. The owners and Lou got together and hatched this plan to blame the owners so if the NHL brings the hammer down, that is where it will fall.
Think about this for a second. Is there ANYONE in the NHL today in any capacity that is already in the HOF and is still at the top of their game?? There is only one. Do you think for even a second that if Lamoreillo was not 100% involved in this deal and the owners basically went around him that he would not be gone from Jersey so quick that TSN would be reporting his departure and his new job in the same report???
He is the one guy in hockey (other than Ken Holland) that virtually any ownership group would fire their current GM to their their hands on. He is one of only about 6 guys in the NHL today that can demand completely automony to run a hockey club and get it completely.
That being said, as good as Lou is and how much I respect that, like Slozo has said I've lost a little respect in how he has handled this. Too much passing the buck, too much of a scapegoat mentality. |
|
|
|
Alex116
PickupHockey Legend
6113 Posts |
Posted - 07/22/2010 : 14:21:28
|
Talk on the radio today was hinting at the possibility that Lou and Bettman (who are apparently quite close / friendly) may just have planned this deal as a way to put a stop to the madness that has become of these long contracts?
Gonna be interesting to see how this plays out.... |
|
|
|
nuxfan
PickupHockey All-Star
3670 Posts |
Posted - 07/22/2010 : 14:58:28
|
if there was collusion between an active GM and the commissioner of the league, the players union will have a field day... there will be no quick end to this mess.
|
|
|
|
n/a
deleted
4809 Posts |
Posted - 07/22/2010 : 15:03:47
|
Yeah, that's the thing, Alex . . . it smacks of a 'deal' when two buddies like Lamoriello and Bettman put on this charade that is the Kovalchuk deal, then - lo and behold! - the NHL has to set a precedent which all the owners benefit from. Like I said, the thing I am most interested in is the penalty to the NJ Devils if the nixing of the deal stands.
Remember that the NJ Devils declined to appeal within 24 hours in a press release . . . that in itself is very, very suspicious, no?
The NHL is such an old boys club it's not even funny.
"Take off, eh?" - Bob and Doug |
|
|
|
Beans15
Moderator
Canada
8286 Posts |
Posted - 07/22/2010 : 16:08:21
|
From my understanding, it's not the Devils who put in the appeal. The only recourse is a greivance from the NHLPA within 7 days. At that time, it goes to an arbitrator and he has 48 hrs to make a decision.
The Devils are technically part of the BOG, so would an appeal not be against themselves??
Honestly, if the deal is nixed, I don't see the league doing any kind of further action towards the Devils. It's just to stop the deal and tell the rest of the league to not bother trying anything similar. |
|
|
|
Beans15
Moderator
Canada
8286 Posts |
Posted - 07/23/2010 : 21:03:46
|
I just read on the ticker on TSN that the NHLPA is going to file the grievance against the NHL on the Kovalchuk deal. They do not have it listed on their website but I did find this from MSNsports.
The NHLPA is reportedly planning to file a grievance on Ilya Kovalchuk's behalf after the NHL rejected his 17-year/$102 deal with the Devils.
Kovalchuk's contract is heavily frontloaded and the NHL is arguing that it was an attempt at circumventing the salary cap. The NHLPA has until Monday at 5pm to file the grievance. In the event that they do so, the matter will be ruled on by a "system" arbitrator, but first the NHL and NHLPA must hire one. Both sides have to agree on the hiring, so this process could take a while. The Devils and Kovalchuk might still attempt to restructure the deal, but even if that happens, the NHLPA might opt to file a grievance to prevent the NHL from rejecting similar contracts in the future. Stay tuned.
This is going to get good really quick.
|
|
|
|
Rookie
Top Prospect
Canada
10 Posts |
Posted - 07/24/2010 : 16:10:00
|
The NHL launched investigations into Hossa and Pronger (possibly others) AFTER the contracts were registered. I don't know if those investigations ever officially came to a close, but the contracts have been allowed to stand until now.
2. Kovalchuk - what happened
17 year contract, until 44. Structure was far more frontloaded than others, though not entirely (first two years were a combined 12M only). Structure as leaked by capgeek was 6Mx2, 11.5x5, 10.5, 8.5, 6.5, 3.5, 750k, 550k x 5.95M in 10 years, but 102M in 17 years.
NHL has rejected the contract on the basis of cap circumvention. I was not aware they could even do this.
3. The mechanism set out in the CBA:
Section 11 of the CBA shows rules governing the SPC. Section 11.6 details procedure for the rejection of a contract:
a) Reasons for rejecting a contract are club exceeding the upper limit, contract exceeding maximum player salary, or club circumventing maximum player salary or upper limit. The latter must be what they are challenging this on. At this point the contract is deemed void untill/unless decided upon by an arbitrator.
Honestly,I'm not exactly sure why the NHL is trying to crack down on this now? It's there own fault for not doing anything to prevent this in the CBA. So are they doing this to not make themselves look bad?
This issue needs an immediate resolution, as it was obviously not anticipated at the signing of the CBA, which was thrown together quite quickly at the opportunity of resuming hockey. Using this loophole advantageously is obviously not the way Lou does business and I appreciate his candor on the subject even if it does not go with the organizational line. But Lou is Lou. Nobody like him in the league. No other GM in the league would have the stones to call his shot like Lou has here.
I think an emergency meeting should be held to discuss this very issue. Create a framework where the peak salary of the contract has to be within X amount of the starting and ending points. That would instantly make the contract length discussion irrelevant.
When will the drama end? |
|
|
|
polishexpress
PickupHockey Pro
525 Posts |
Posted - 07/25/2010 : 11:11:40
|
But if the NHLPA does file the grievance, and a suitable arbitrator is hired (how about the bankruptcy judge who did the PHX case?) doesn't the arbitrator have 48hrs to reach a decision?
|
|
|
|
nuxfan
PickupHockey All-Star
3670 Posts |
Posted - 07/25/2010 : 11:55:31
|
Actually Rookie, I believe that the owners did envision something like this when the last CBA was signed. Apparently, they tried to insert a limit of 5yrs, and then 7yrs on contract length into the CBA, but the NHLPA did not go for it.
I think the NHL is trying to crack down on it because the Kovy deal simply goes too far. As others have said - what is next? Sign Doughty to a 50yr/150M contract, with a cap hit of 3M, that pays 115M in the first 15 years, and the other 35M over the next 35? There is no limit to how far you can go with this tactic.
Trouble is, they cannot crack down until after next season, when the CBA is back up for renewal. I would imagine that this will be the owners #1 issue to resolve. It is unknown what the player stance is on these deals, although I'd have to assume that they don't mind what is happening. |
|
|
|
Beans15
Moderator
Canada
8286 Posts |
Posted - 07/25/2010 : 15:28:57
|
There is two things that each contract has to adhere to. Firstly, no player can earn more than 20% of the current cap. So the highest a player a can in a single season today is around $11.8 million per season. Secondly a contract can not drop my more than 1/2 of the previous year's deal or be more then 50% of the lowest of the first 2 years of the deal.
Kinda cloudy, I know. But this was the NHL's way of have some kind of control of the length of the deal.
Kovalchuk's deal is pretty much the far extreme of what a team can do. 50 year deals are obvious circumvention of the CBA. However, an guy like Crosby can be a UFA at the age of 25 and likely look at a deal like this. I still think any deal past the age of 40 is going to be heavily scritinized by the NHL as there are only around 10-15 NHL players each year that are over the age of 40.
However, my point is that there is structure to limit the 50 year deal but obviously not for the 17 year deal. |
|
|
|
irvine
PickupHockey Veteran
Canada
1315 Posts |
Posted - 07/25/2010 : 22:39:29
|
I agree, Kovalchuk's deal is obvious circumvention of the cap. But, so are many other deals.
Who really looks at Hossa's deal (as an example), and says "They signed him for so many years, and with reducing salary because they feel his production will drop in the later years, making him worth less".
Rather than, "They reduced the salary, to drop the cap hit." Same with Pronger, etc..
I mean, many are obvious. But to suddenly take a stand, just does not seem fair. If they were to do something, they should have waited until the new CBA and addressed the issue. This to me, spells trouble. Suddenly taking a stand, usually does nothing good.
I think Bettman just created trouble within the NHL & NHLPA.
Irvine/prez. |
|
|
|
n/a
deleted
4809 Posts |
Posted - 07/26/2010 : 05:12:22
|
Well, as most of you heard I am sure, the NHLPA contested the NHL's decision, and now they have to choose an arbiter (referee) for the whole hearing to see who is right, who is wrong.
It's funny, but I keep hearing the broken record recording of how the NHL nixed the deal because Kovalchuk was trying to circumvent the salary cap . . . but with absolutely no explanation of how and where exactly the deal broke any rules.
Hundreds of knowledgable sports writers have poured over this now, and no one has found the deal in contravention of any of the stated rules. So, either the NHL has really bungled this one badly and it will be a slam dunk case for the NHLPA; or, quite possible, the NHL has a rumoured email/written dialogue obtained between parties, indicating Kovalchuk wasn't prepared to play ot the full term of the contract.
It's curious though . . . because without any evidence as mentioned, the NHL doesn't really have a leg to stand on.
"Take off, eh?" - Bob and Doug |
|
|
|
Beans15
Moderator
Canada
8286 Posts |
Posted - 07/26/2010 : 10:33:35
|
We all have to remember who the people who actually run the NHL are and that is the owners. What I believe is that sometime in the past seasons after the deals for Pronger, Hossa, and Luongo came out, the BOG told Gary B to do something about it. This was the first opportunity he has had.
But I do completely agree, without factual information the NHL no leg to stand on as they have allowed similar deals in the past. However, there is also the opportunity to discuss intent. Regardless of what Kovalchuk said at the Press Conference about wanting to play that long, it's also reasonably easy to prove that 99% of NHL players retire before the age of 40. |
|
|
|
polishexpress
PickupHockey Pro
525 Posts |
Posted - 07/26/2010 : 13:30:39
|
but Beans, cannot Ilya Kovalchuk and the Devils counter that with the physical shape that players are able to maintain, he has the potential to be able to play until 44? The NHL cannot prove that Ilya will not want to play when he is that old, and they certainly cannot prove it is impossible for him to be in shape to play when he is 44.
Although you can say most players retire before 40, not all of them do so purely because of physical inability. Many continue(d) to be effective into their "old" age, as shown by modern players like Tkachuk, Guerin, Selanne, Neidermayer, Roloson, Lidstrom etc.
I think this one will come down to whether the arbitrator is able to find concrete, legal phrasing that shows the contract clearly, unequivocally circumvents the CBA.
Once they find an arbitrator, we will only wait 48 hours for the decision! |
Edited by - polishexpress on 07/26/2010 13:37:18 |
|
|
|
Beans15
Moderator
Canada
8286 Posts |
Posted - 07/26/2010 : 14:45:32
|
Sure, they could counter but will the arbitrator listen.
Consider that of the 800+ NHL players who played last year, there are less than 20 over the age of 40. The NHL can also argue there have been very, very few players in the history of the NHL who have played to the age of 44, let alone been effective.
However, the flip side to this is there are already deals which have been approved to have a player under contract past the age of 40. Why have an issue with this one??
Both arguments are actually quite valid.
The next interesting piece to this is who the arbitrator is going to be. It has to be agreed upon by both sides which is not always easy. |
|
|
|
irvine
PickupHockey Veteran
Canada
1315 Posts |
Posted - 07/26/2010 : 14:56:00
|
Players often retire around the age of 40, but I don't think many people are going to argue that many could continue to play a 3rd/4th line role, and still be serviceable. They are still physically fit, by the age of 40-45. Some, even older.
Most choose to retire at 40, due to the abuse they have taken on the ice over the years. They already have enough cash, why not retire at the young age (for those of us, not in pro sports), and enjoy life.
I think arguing that it is possible to continue play at 44, is valid. They can not, in any way (the NHL), say he won't be playing at that age. They can not foresee (they can guess, and base it on average), that he can not fulfill the contract given to him.
Kovalchuk and NJ, should win this in my opinion. The NHL can not prove anything. Unless, they have it in writing, or on tape, that Ilya and NJ said he does not have to, or won't, play out the contract.
Otherwise, the NHL can not prove any thing. In my opinion. They can only assume, and base their thoughts on averages/educated guesses. Which, is not solid evidence.
Irvine/prez. |
|
|
|
Beans15
Moderator
Canada
8286 Posts |
Posted - 07/26/2010 : 16:19:52
|
quote:
Originally posted by irvine
Players often retire around the age of 40, but I don't think many people are going to argue that many could continue to play a 3rd/4th line role, and still be serviceable. They are still physically fit, by the age of 40-45. Some, even older.
Most choose to retire at 40, due to the abuse they have taken on the ice over the years. They already have enough cash, why not retire at the young age (for those of us, not in pro sports), and enjoy life.
I think arguing that it is possible to continue play at 44, is valid. They can not, in any way (the NHL), say he won't be playing at that age. They can not foresee (they can guess, and base it on average), that he can not fulfill the contract given to him.
Kovalchuk and NJ, should win this in my opinion. The NHL can not prove anything. Unless, they have it in writing, or on tape, that Ilya and NJ said he does not have to, or won't, play out the contract.
Otherwise, the NHL can not prove any thing. In my opinion. They can only assume, and base their thoughts on averages/educated guesses. Which, is not solid evidence.
Irvine/prez.
Hey, I completely agree and I am actually for the contract to stand. All I am being is devil's advocate.
That being said, I don't think the NHL does not have to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that Kovalchuk will not be playing at 44. All they have to do is prove that it is highly unlikely and therefore the contract is not expected to be honored to it's completion. |
|
|
|
n/a
deleted
4809 Posts |
Posted - 07/27/2010 : 05:31:46
|
Actually Beans, that's exactly what the NHL has to prove - beyond a shadow of a doubt. If there is only a slight chance that Kovalchuk COULD be playing at 44, and if he says he has every intent of doing so - the contract is good. No circumvention there.
For some reason though, I can't imagine the NHL doing this without some trump card . . . there's got to be an email or note or something where Kovalchuk or his agent said something about not playing out the contract.
The NHL couldn't be that stupid, could it? (don't hold your breath on that one)
"Take off, eh?" - Bob and Doug |
|
|
|
Beans15
Moderator
Canada
8286 Posts |
Posted - 07/27/2010 : 07:26:05
|
Actually Slozo, I don't believe they have to prove beyond the shadow of a doubt. Perhaps in your eyes that is required, however from my experience in arbitrations (labour unions) it is far different than one would expect. I really comes down to opinion. The NHL (or New Jersey) has to sway the arbitrator to one side or the other.
This is not a case where there are a number of different options. It's one or the other. Either the deal circumvents the CBA or it doesn't. In most arbitration cases, it's a very cloudy and grey area to begin with or it would not require arbitration.
At the end of the day, beyond the shadow of a doubt is not needed for an arbitrator to rule in favor of or against anything. |
|
|
|
nuxfan
PickupHockey All-Star
3670 Posts |
Posted - 07/30/2010 : 16:07:35
|
| TSN reports that an arbitrator has been found for the IK controversy, and a final decision should be rendered by the end of next week |
|
|
|
Alex116
PickupHockey Legend
6113 Posts |
Posted - 07/30/2010 : 17:04:36
|
quote:
Originally posted by nuxfan
TSN reports that an arbitrator has been found for the IK controversy, and a final decision should be rendered by the end of next week
Is it just me or does anyone else feel that these decisions shouldn't take a freakin' week to make!!!  |
|
|
|
Deaner
Rookie
Canada
107 Posts |
Posted - 07/30/2010 : 17:20:25
|
| no doubt, i wish this whole kovy thing would just end already or send him to the leafs......even if the guy was 55 years old he'd probably score more goals than the rest of the team lol...(no hard feelings kessel) |
|
|
|
nuxfan
PickupHockey All-Star
3670 Posts |
Posted - 07/30/2010 : 21:23:26
|
| I believe the catch to the arbitrator was that they had to be *mutually* agreed to. Tough finding an arbitrator that both NJ and the NHL can agree on, given that each side wants to win. |
|
|
|
Beans15
Moderator
Canada
8286 Posts |
Posted - 07/31/2010 : 07:48:50
|
quote:
Originally posted by Alex116
quote:
Originally posted by nuxfan
TSN reports that an arbitrator has been found for the IK controversy, and a final decision should be rendered by the end of next week
Is it just me or does anyone else feel that these decisions shouldn't take a freakin' week to make!!!
All in it will take a week. I believe the next piece is for the PA to state their case against the NHL's opinion and vise versa.
Once that meeting takes place, the arbitrator gets 48 hours to make his decision.
In the real world, arbitrations can often take months to schedule the hearing and then often a month or two following to hear from the arbitrator(s). |
Edited by - Beans15 on 07/31/2010 07:52:51 |
|
|
|
Tiller33
PickupHockey Pro
389 Posts |
Posted - 08/02/2010 : 09:29:26
|
quote:
Originally posted by Deaner
no doubt, i wish this whole kovy thing would just end already or send him to the leafs......even if the guy was 55 years old he'd probably score more goals than the rest of the team lol...(no hard feelings kessel)
Send him to the Leafs maybe but only so Burke can take Ilya Yashin out behind the workshed and knock some sense into him |
|
|
|
The Duke
PickupHockey Veteran
Canada
1239 Posts |
Posted - 08/02/2010 : 12:27:04
|
| i think if a player is to earn 11.5 million in a single season, the CAP HIT should be 11.5 million for that season, simple as that. All these long contracts with no $$$$ at the end do is give a team an higher hidden cap. Does any1 honestly think Kovalchuk will play hockey @ the age of either 40, 41, 42, 43, or 44 for a measley $ 550,000.oo per year ?? i don`t think so. |
|
|
|
irvine
PickupHockey Veteran
Canada
1315 Posts |
Posted - 08/03/2010 : 00:51:01
|
@ The_Duke:
Do I really believe that Kovalchuk will be playing at the age of 40-45? No, I don't.
But, do I believe it is possible? I certainly do.
And, if it's possible we can not conclude that he will not be playing at that age. No one can, perhaps not even Ilya him self at this point.
Only time will tell if he plays at that age or not. But, I just don't see how the NHL can suddenly decide to take a stand on a contract like this. Especially, when others have passed that have players playing over the age of 40, when their new big contracts expire.
The only difference, is a price tag of $500K or so seperating the deals.
The deals will see other players, being 41 years of age and making $1M (Roughly on both age and salary).
Kovalchuk's, drops to $500K or something. That's the only difference I see. And, a 45 year old player is roughly worth $500K per season, if his production drops drastically.
Irvine/prez. |
|
|
|
nuxfan
PickupHockey All-Star
3670 Posts |
Posted - 08/03/2010 : 09:42:07
|
quote:
Do I really believe that Kovalchuk will be playing at the age of 40-45? No, I don't.
But, do I believe it is possible? I certainly do.
This will be the crux of the NHLPA argument, and IMO will be impossible for the NHL to disprove. It is frankly possible for a player to play into their 40's these days, with improvements in conditioning and offseason training, and I bet we'll see it more and more as the years go on. Will Kovy? - I doubt it, but not because of health.
But if you cannot prove that NJ and Kovy both do NOT believe it and colluded to sign this contract with that intent, then this will be a hard case for the NHL to win. Unless they have some irrefutable proof of collusion that we have not heard about yet.
If the NHLPA wins this and the contract is allowed to stand, watch out next year. Next summer is the last year of the current CBA, and you can be sure that the NHL will close this loophole in the next deal in some way. There are a lot of big names that could squeak under the wire and get their front-loaded-lifetime deals next summer.
|
|
|
|
n/a
deleted
4809 Posts |
Posted - 08/09/2010 : 08:14:55
|
So we have all waited for this now, and the arbitor has until the end of the work day today to make the decision known . . .
. . . can't they get on with this thing already?!?
Anyone have any word of what the decision may be - leaks, rumours?
"Take off, eh?" - Bob and Doug |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
|
|
Ilya Kovalchuk - Signs with Devils 
