Devil of a Signing...

[shrader]

Agreed Taro, it would be tough, but they don't have to prove it. Thats why its called "overwhelming" circumstantial evidence, and this they can prove. Oh, and on a side note, its been 2 players to retire at 44 or beyond for exactly 93 years, not 50.

I've been in an arbitration over language in a contract, and it is correct, interpretation of the circumstantial clause is critical. "All arbitration will be subjected to Logic Interpretation and no other."

 

Basically what that means is, use common sense when reading the contract. Like I said, this will most definitely alter the Kovalchuk contract, which, in its simplest, common sense form, went as long as it did and at the amounts annually as it did clearly to get a cap hit of 6 million a season, regardless of his actual payscale. It also subscribes to the position on a buy out of this contract say, at age 37 or 38, with that being the case not only would his cap hit dissappear, but so to would the "actual" salary and in this case it would give the offending party (in this case the Devils) a real circumvention situation which would be dealt with via fine. I am not sure of what other penalties there are.

 

I wonder how different the arbitration process might be though since they are governed by the CBA. These pro sports arbitrations are never exactly like the real world. ######, look at the NFL where the hearing for a grievance from a suspended player is held by the same guy who issued the suspension.

 

please explain...

 

It was all in one of the threads about Balsillie trying to poach the Coyotes and bring them to Hamilton. One poster (forget his name, but he was the guy who had that virtual bar thread going for a little while) kept pushing that Bettman was going to run into RICO charges for blocking the sale/move.

[Eleven]

I wonder whether Bettman realizes he's staring at major jail time for RICO violations yet again?

 

I'm still annoyed about that string of BS posts.

 

Oh, no. Please don't remind me.

 

please explain...

 

Last summer, we had a poster who insisted that the NHL's conduct in denying the Coyotes' proposed move to Hamilton amounted to a violation of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act. Not just a civil violation, either; he insisted that it was criminal. There was absolutely no convincing him.

[Taro T]

Agreed Taro, it would be tough, but they don't have to prove it. Thats why its called "overwhelming" circumstantial evidence, and this they can prove. Oh, and on a side note, its been 2 players to retire at 44 or beyond for exactly 93 years, not 50.

I've been in an arbitration over language in a contract, and it is correct, interpretation of the circumstantial clause is critical. "All arbitration will be subjected to Logic Interpretation and no other."

 

Basically what that means is, use common sense when reading the contract. Like I said, this will most definitely alter the Kovalchuk contract, which, in its simplest, common sense form, went as long as it did and at the amounts annually as it did clearly to get a cap hit of 6 million a season, regardless of his actual payscale. It also subscribes to the position on a buy out of this contract say, at age 37 or 38, with that being the case not only would his cap hit dissappear, but so to would the "actual" salary and in this case it would give the offending party (in this case the Devils) a real circumvention situation which would be dealt with via fine. I am not sure of what other penalties there are.

We will have to agree to disagree on this point, as I doubt your argument will sway my opinion and mine likely will not sway you.

 

The CBA specifically defines how the "evidence" of circumvision will be viewed. The arbitrator will review whether the "evidence that an SPC or any provision of an SPC cannot reasonably be explained in the absence of conduct prohibited by this Article 26". I've come up w/ "reasonable" explanations for the behaviour (that's for you Dwight ;) ) in 15 minutes. I'm sure some high priced lawyer working for the Devils and/or Kelly Hrudy (or whoever it is that has/will succeed Paul Kelly at the NHLPA) will be able to come up with much better "reasonable" explanations.

 

If, down the road, Kovalchuk retires after getting paid for 10 years; then you'd have much stronger circumstantial evidence of circumvention. And, per the CBA, the Devils and Ilya could be on the hook for substantial penalties.

 

One simple "improvement" to this reg is to simply explicitly state that cap space that had been saved throughout the life of a contract gets charged back at an accelerated rate upon retirement of a player. Currently, there is nothing in the CBA regarding how retirement effects the Cap for players that signed prior to turning 35. The way Cap corrections are calculated in cases of buyouts makes me believe they had worked out how they wanted these things to occur and had probably addressed them in a preliminary draft, but simply forgot to put them into the Final version when some wording needed to get modified.

 

If, upon retirement by Kovy, the Devils got hit with recouping all that cap in say 1/2 of the time remaining on the contract (vs a 2x time frame for a buyout) suddenly they are looking at 2-3 years of having ~$10MM of reduced cap space; they'd think twice before making that deal. (And it works out for Kovy as they now have an incentive to buy him out rather than let him retire, and he gets a little extra "walking around" money.)

 

I'd be surprised if this issue isn't addressed in the next CBA; I'd also be surprised if the system gets revamped to the point that players can only sign contracts for X years max or have to have highly balanced annual payments. The PA wouldn't allow those to happen. They might get it to a point where the minimum salary in any given year can't be less than 50% of the max annual salary; but I'd be surprised to see the league win that much of a concession from the players.

[Eleven]

We will have to agree to disagree on this point, as I doubt your argument will sway my opinion and mine likely will not sway you.

 

The CBA specifically defines how the "evidence" of circumvision will be viewed. The arbitrator will review whether the "evidence that an SPC or any provision of an SPC cannot reasonably be explained in the absence of conduct prohibited by this Article 26". I've come up w/ "reasonable" explanations for the behaviour (that's for you Dwight ;) ) in 15 minutes. I'm sure some high priced lawyer working for the Devils and/or Kelly Hrudy (or whoever it is that has/will succeed Paul Kelly at the NHLPA) will be able to come up with much better "reasonable" explanations.

 

If, down the road, Kovalchuk retires after getting paid for 10 years; then you'd have much stronger circumstantial evidence of circumvention. And, per the CBA, the Devils and Ilya could be on the hook for substantial penalties.

 

One simple "improvement" to this reg is to simply explicitly state that cap space that had been saved throughout the life of a contract gets charged back at an accelerated rate upon retirement of a player. Currently, there is nothing in the CBA regarding how retirement effects the Cap for players that signed prior to turning 35. The way Cap corrections are calculated in cases of buyouts makes me believe they had worked out how they wanted these things to occur and had probably addressed them in a preliminary draft, but simply forgot to put them into the Final version when some wording needed to get modified.

 

If, upon retirement by Kovy, the Devils got hit with recouping all that cap in say 1/2 of the time remaining on the contract (vs a 2x time frame for a buyout) suddenly they are looking at 2-3 years of having ~$10MM of reduced cap space; they'd think twice before making that deal. (And it works out for Kovy as they now have an incentive to buy him out rather than let him retire, and he gets a little extra "walking around" money.)

 

I'd be surprised if this issue isn't addressed in the next CBA; I'd also be surprised if the system gets revamped to the point that players can only sign contracts for X years max or have to have highly balanced annual payments. The PA wouldn't allow those to happen. They might get it to a point where the minimum salary in any given year can't be less than 50% of the max annual salary; but I'd be surprised to see the league win that much of a concession from the players.

 

The guys on GR this morning stated that the NHL wants a provision in the new CBA whereby the salary cap impact of a long term deal (yet to be defined) is determined by averaging the five highest-paid years of the deal. Good luck with that, especially if the NHLPA hires Donald Fehr, as is widely rumored. I'm worried about whether there will be hockey in 2012-13. How much are NU season tickets?

[static70]

We will have to agree to disagree on this point, as I doubt your argument will sway my opinion and mine likely will not sway you.

 

The CBA specifically defines how the "evidence" of circumvision will be viewed. The arbitrator will review whether the "evidence that an SPC or any provision of an SPC cannot reasonably be explained in the absence of conduct prohibited by this Article 26". I've come up w/ "reasonable" explanations for the behaviour (that's for you Dwight ;) ) in 15 minutes. I'm sure some high priced lawyer working for the Devils and/or Kelly Hrudy (or whoever it is that has/will succeed Paul Kelly at the NHLPA) will be able to come up with much better "reasonable" explanations.

 

If, down the road, Kovalchuk retires after getting paid for 10 years; then you'd have much stronger circumstantial evidence of circumvention. And, per the CBA, the Devils and Ilya could be on the hook for substantial penalties.

 

One simple "improvement" to this reg is to simply explicitly state that cap space that had been saved throughout the life of a contract gets charged back at an accelerated rate upon retirement of a player. Currently, there is nothing in the CBA regarding how retirement effects the Cap for players that signed prior to turning 35. The way Cap corrections are calculated in cases of buyouts makes me believe they had worked out how they wanted these things to occur and had probably addressed them in a preliminary draft, but simply forgot to put them into the Final version when some wording needed to get modified.

 

If, upon retirement by Kovy, the Devils got hit with recouping all that cap in say 1/2 of the time remaining on the contract (vs a 2x time frame for a buyout) suddenly they are looking at 2-3 years of having ~$10MM of reduced cap space; they'd think twice before making that deal. (And it works out for Kovy as they now have an incentive to buy him out rather than let him retire, and he gets a little extra "walking around" money.)

 

I'd be surprised if this issue isn't addressed in the next CBA; I'd also be surprised if the system gets revamped to the point that players can only sign contracts for X years max or have to have highly balanced annual payments. The PA wouldn't allow those to happen. They might get it to a point where the minimum salary in any given year can't be less than 50% of the max annual salary; but I'd be surprised to see the league win that much of a concession from the players.

Its agreed then, we will agree to disagree. I am very interested to see where the arbitrator rules on this and his reasoning for the ruling.

 

"intended to or has the effect of defeating or Circumventing the provisions of this Agreement"

In my opinion, the NTC removal option, right at the time of decline on the salary, is of a very suspicious nature unto itself.

There is key circumstantial evidence with the way this deal was structured that any common sense individual can see it was an attempt to lower the cap hit to 6 mil a season and insert an option to off load Kovy at the very time of financial down turn in the contract. Very suspect indeed, IMHO.

I do however, agree with you that this will be addressed or attempt to be addressed in the next CBA. I do not believe though, the players will want another lock out, as I stated last time, the owners are in the driver seat this time around.

I am wondering what other penalties can the Devils be subjected to if he where to retire early.

[shrader]

One simple "improvement" to this reg is to simply explicitly state that cap space that had been saved throughout the life of a contract gets charged back at an accelerated rate upon retirement of a player. Currently, there is nothing in the CBA regarding how retirement effects the Cap for players that signed prior to turning 35. The way Cap corrections are calculated in cases of buyouts makes me believe they had worked out how they wanted these things to occur and had probably addressed them in a preliminary draft, but simply forgot to put them into the Final version when some wording needed to get modified.

 

The problem with this is that with the Kovalchuk contract there may very well be two new CBAs by the time it expires. Who knows how those new agreements will handle the cap hit of this contract. All I know is that if they do wind up with a 17 year deal, any new CBA will have a specific section of the paper work that was created specifically for this contract alone. It won't explicitly state "this is how the Kovalchuk contract will be handled in this agreement" but it might as well say it.

 

Another thing I wonder about is what happens if in 15 years or so, his salary is below the mandated league minimum (if he's still somehow playing). Then again, I guess all of this will be answered in the Kovalchuk section of any new CBA.

 

 

The guys on GR this morning stated that the NHL wants a provision in the new CBA whereby the salary cap impact of a long term deal (yet to be defined) is determined by averaging the five highest-paid years of the deal. Good luck with that, especially if the NHLPA hires Donald Fehr, as is widely rumored. I'm worried about whether there will be hockey in 2012-13. How much are NU season tickets?

 

Or just eliminate any cap advantage to loading contracts and make the cap hit always equal to the greatest annual salary earned at any point of the contract. The PA would never sign off on that though. It would probably help the low end guys, but they don't care about them.

[nfreeman]

It was all in one of the threads about Balsillie trying to poach the Coyotes and bring them to Hamilton. One poster (forget his name, but he was the guy who had that virtual bar thread going for a little while) kept pushing that Bettman was going to run into RICO charges for blocking the sale/move.

Oh, no. Please don't remind me.

 

Last summer, we had a poster who insisted that the NHL's conduct in denying the Coyotes' proposed move to Hamilton amounted to a violation of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act. Not just a civil violation, either; he insisted that it was criminal. There was absolutely no convincing him.

And the RICO stuff was just a sample. An unrelenting pile of BS kept emitting from his keyboard about the bankruptcy process, the competing bids, the rights of the previous owner, etc. The worst part to me was his tone -- he had no qualms whatsoever about making definitive statements on matters that he was utterly clueless about. I don't think I've ever been so annoyed about a back-and-forth on this board.

 

One simple "improvement" to this reg is to simply explicitly state that cap space that had been saved throughout the life of a contract gets charged back at an accelerated rate upon retirement of a player. Currently, there is nothing in the CBA regarding how retirement effects the Cap for players that signed prior to turning 35. The way Cap corrections are calculated in cases of buyouts makes me believe they had worked out how they wanted these things to occur and had probably addressed them in a preliminary draft, but simply forgot to put them into the Final version when some wording needed to get modified.

 

If, upon retirement by Kovy, the Devils got hit with recouping all that cap in say 1/2 of the time remaining on the contract (vs a 2x time frame for a buyout) suddenly they are looking at 2-3 years of having ~$10MM of reduced cap space; they'd think twice before making that deal. (And it works out for Kovy as they now have an incentive to buy him out rather than let him retire, and he gets a little extra "walking around" money.)

 

I'd be surprised if this issue isn't addressed in the next CBA; I'd also be surprised if the system gets revamped to the point that players can only sign contracts for X years max or have to have highly balanced annual payments. The PA wouldn't allow those to happen. They might get it to a point where the minimum salary in any given year can't be less than 50% of the max annual salary; but I'd be surprised to see the league win that much of a concession from the players.

Your suggestion is a good one, but I think you are right about the broader issue -- the PA is going to push back hard on any erosion of any of their loopholes. Of course, you are also right that the 57% cap and escrow enforcement means that this loophole really only benefits the handful of stars that get these contracts, at the expense of everyone else.

 

The guys on GR this morning stated that the NHL wants a provision in the new CBA whereby the salary cap impact of a long term deal (yet to be defined) is determined by averaging the five highest-paid years of the deal. Good luck with that, especially if the NHLPA hires Donald Fehr, as is widely rumored. I'm worried about whether there will be hockey in 2012-13. How much are NU season tickets?

It's hard not to see another work stoppage coming. The owners want more concessions, and the players want to get rid of some of the big ones they already made.

[PASabreFan]

Your suggestion is a good one, but I think you are right about the broader issue -- the PA is going to push back hard on any erosion of any of their loopholes.

 

I find myself oddly aroused.

[shrader]

It's hard not to see another work stoppage coming. The owners want more concessions, and the players want to get rid of some of the big ones they already made.

 

And it's not just a hockey thing. It's about to happen in the NFL and NBA too. I'm sure most will work something out, but there is a small percentage chance that we're headed into a very dark period in pro sports.

[spndnchz]

The problem with this is that with the Kovalchuk contract there may very well be two new CBAs by the time it expires. Who knows how those new agreements will handle the cap hit of this contract. All I know is that if they do wind up with a 17 year deal, any new CBA will have a specific section of the paper work that was created specifically for this contract alone. It won't explicitly state "this is how the Kovalchuk contract will be handled in this agreement" but it might as well say it.

 

Another thing I wonder about is what happens if in 15 years or so, his salary is below the mandated league minimum (if he's still somehow playing). Then again, I guess all of this will be answered in the Kovalchuk section of any new CBA.

 

 

 

 

Or just eliminate any cap advantage to loading contracts and make the cap hit always equal to the greatest annual salary earned at any point of the contract. The PA would never sign off on that though. It would probably help the low end guys, but they don't care about them.

 

I can answer this one already. His salary goes up to league minimum and his cap gets adjusted also.

[shrader]

I can answer this one already. His salary goes up to league minimum and his cap gets adjusted also.

 

And any adjustment for what the cap hit should have been in previous years? Yes, I realize that it's impossible to talk about how things will be controlled by a document that doesn't actually exist yet.

[spndnchz]

And any adjustment for what the cap hit should have been in previous years? Yes, I realize that it's impossible to talk about how things will be controlled by a document that doesn't actually exist yet.

 

What sense would it make to change the previous years cap hit? Carryforward like a bonus? Nah.

 

The minimum part is already in CBA.

[Taro T]

The problem with this is that with the Kovalchuk contract there may very well be two new CBAs by the time it expires. Who knows how those new agreements will handle the cap hit of this contract. All I know is that if they do wind up with a 17 year deal, any new CBA will have a specific section of the paper work that was created specifically for this contract alone. It won't explicitly state "this is how the Kovalchuk contract will be handled in this agreement" but it might as well say it.

That's the way most regulatory environments work. And quite often the fix is worse than the problem that they're "fixing."

Another thing I wonder about is what happens if in 15 years or so, his salary is below the mandated league minimum (if he's still somehow playing). Then again, I guess all of this will be answered in the Kovalchuk section of any new CBA.

Chz nailed that answer to that one. It's the same as if a player has a previously signed valid contract that calls for too much money in a year the cap goes down. The contract gets reduced and the cap hit gets adjusted moving forward to account for the new salary.

Or just eliminate any cap advantage to loading contracts and make the cap hit always equal to the greatest annual salary earned at any point of the contract. The PA would never sign off on that though. It would probably help the low end guys, but they don't care about them.

The problem with that is in an environment where the aggregate player salaries are fixed, then the nominal aggregate value of contracts will in most likelihood be significantly less than what the players are supposed to receive. Which means the teams that do have cash flow issues and thought they were spending below the cap will have to come up with significantly more money to pay out the actual value of the salaries they signed.

 

As an extreme example, lets say all the contracts for 1/2 the teams have cap values at twice what they nominally pay out in the current season and the contracts for the other half have identical cash and cap values. (We'll say for sake of argument that the nominal average salary of players is $4MM but for 1/2 the teams the actual payout averages to $2MM and the other half it is $4MM. Which makes the average actual salary $3MM.) If the sum total of cap $'s (taken at $4MM/player) equals 57% of league revenues, then all the teams will have to shell out 1/3 more dough to their players to get the actual $'s paid out up to 57% of total revenues. Which means teams that had payed out $4MM in player salary now have to pay $5.3MM/player and those that were messing around w/ the cap now have to pay $2.7MM/player.

 

That scenario becomes an accounting nightmare.

 

I'd really like to see them correct this "retirement loophole" but not significantly change the overall system. (No need to repost my initial suggestions.) Unfortunately, I could see where "fixing" this portion of the system (which doesn't really need MAJOR mods to have it reasonably workable) could be tied to major concessions by the bulk of the "small market" teams to allow for either a payroll band, which the aggregate player salaries have to end up in; trading cap space (having 1 team pick up a portion of the salary of a player they traded away); or somehow reduce the amount of revenue sharing between clubs from shared entities such as NHL.com. All of which would benefit the big spenders at the expense of the smaller teams. The current system is FAR superior to anything the league ever had in year's prior.

 

One other thing the league needs to be wary of in any mods they make to the current system is that they are not the only pro hockey league out there. If they limit top end salaries too much or limit them in aggregate too much then maybe the KHL or a someday to be formed Euro Super League manage to start poaching the top guys away from the NHL. (And I mean the top guys, not former stars at the fringes of their careers.)

[Eleven]

And the RICO stuff was just a sample. An unrelenting pile of BS kept emitting from his keyboard about the bankruptcy process, the competing bids, the rights of the previous owner, etc. The worst part to me was his tone -- he had no qualms whatsoever about making definitive statements on matters that he was utterly clueless about. I don't think I've ever been so annoyed about a back-and-forth on this board.

 

 

Your suggestion is a good one, but I think you are right about the broader issue -- the PA is going to push back hard on any erosion of any of their loopholes. Of course, you are also right that the 57% cap and escrow enforcement means that this loophole really only benefits the handful of stars that get these contracts, at the expense of everyone else.

 

 

It's hard not to see another work stoppage coming. The owners want more concessions, and the players want to get rid of some of the big ones they already made.

 

Also, it's a clear violation of Food and Drug Administration regulations governing the use of food colorings in soft drinks. I hope the Obama administration takes a hard stance on this.

[static70]

That's the way most regulatory environments work. And quite often the fix is worse than the problem that they're "fixing."

 

Chz nailed that answer to that one. It's the same as if a player has a previously signed valid contract that calls for too much money in a year the cap goes down. The contract gets reduced and the cap hit gets adjusted moving forward to account for the new salary.

 

The problem with that is in an environment where the aggregate player salaries are fixed, then the nominal aggregate value of contracts will in most likelihood be significantly less than what the players are supposed to receive. Which means the teams that do have cash flow issues and thought they were spending below the cap will have to come up with significantly more money to pay out the actual value of the salaries they signed.

 

As an extreme example, lets say all the contracts for 1/2 the teams have cap values at twice what they nominally pay out in the current season and the contracts for the other half have identical cash and cap values. (We'll say for sake of argument that the nominal average salary of players is $4MM but for 1/2 the teams the actual payout averages to $2MM and the other half it is $4MM. Which makes the average actual salary $3MM.) If the sum total of cap $'s (taken at $4MM/player) equals 57% of league revenues, then all the teams will have to shell out 1/3 more dough to their players to get the actual $'s paid out up to 57% of total revenues. Which means teams that had payed out $4MM in player salary now have to pay $5.3MM/player and those that were messing around w/ the cap now have to pay $2.7MM/player.

 

That scenario becomes an accounting nightmare.

 

I'd really like to see them correct this "retirement loophole" but not significantly change the overall system. (No need to repost my initial suggestions.) Unfortunately, I could see where "fixing" this portion of the system (which doesn't really need MAJOR mods to have it reasonably workable) could be tied to major concessions by the bulk of the "small market" teams to allow for either a payroll band, which the aggregate player salaries have to end up in; trading cap space (having 1 team pick up a portion of the salary of a player they traded away); or somehow reduce the amount of revenue sharing between clubs from shared entities such as NHL.com. All of which would benefit the big spenders at the expense of the smaller teams. The current system is FAR superior to anything the league ever had in year's prior.

 

One other thing the league needs to be wary of in any mods they make to the current system is that they are not the only pro hockey league out there. If they limit top end salaries too much or limit them in aggregate too much then maybe the KHL or a someday to be formed Euro Super League manage to start poaching the top guys away from the NHL. (And I mean the top guys, not former stars at the fringes of their careers.)

Agree on everything you state in the bolded area here. And of course, you also address the revenue sharing aspect of this. Which would lead to a question, atleast in my mind, can they flatline or set a hard percentage on that, in affect, forcing both teams and the players to actively seek the lowest deals in an effort to offset the the revenue share payout?

[Taro T]

Agree on everything you state in the bolded area here. And of course, you also address the revenue sharing aspect of this. Which would lead to a question, atleast in my mind, can they flatline or set a hard percentage on that, in affect, forcing both teams and the players to actively seek the lowest deals in an effort to offset the the revenue share payout?

I'm not quite following your question. I'm not certain what you mean by "in an effort to offset the revenue share payout". It's never in the best interest of an individual player to reduce his actual paycheck (taking out of the discussion the rare case of a star player being willing to take slightly less money to fit another star player under his team's cap), but in the current system it IS in a player's best interest to see everyone else take smaller salaries than they theoretically could. So I'm not certain how/why a player would actively seek to get a lower deal.

[static70]

I'm not quite following your question. I'm not certain what you mean by "in an effort to offset the revenue share payout". It's never in the best interest of an individual player to reduce his actual paycheck (taking out of the discussion the rare case of a star player being willing to take slightly less money to fit another star player under his team's cap), but in the current system it IS in a player's best interest to see everyone else take smaller salaries than they theoretically could. So I'm not certain how/why a player would actively seek to get a lower deal.

Sorry, should have added clarity. I was referring to those teams at the high end of the revenue share: I.E. marketing sales and the like. In order to level the playing field once again, if this deal is ok'd (which I give it a better than 60% chance that it will)those teams in larger revenue markets forced to give beyond a set number or percentage to small market teams in order to offset the amount of capital that some teams can spend as opposed to other.

[Taro T]

Sorry, should have added clarity. I was referring to those teams at the high end of the revenue share: I.E. marketing sales and the like. In order to level the playing field once again, if this deal is ok'd (which I give it a better than 60% chance that it will)those teams in larger revenue markets forced to give beyond a set number or percentage to small market teams in order to offset the amount of capital that some teams can spend as opposed to other.

Unfortunately, if one set about to say that teams could only spend $x on coaching, or scouting, or facilities; they'd be hit with an antitrust suit before they even had time to fax the memo around to everybody.

 

The best way to keep the teams on even footing in terms of the support functions is by increasing the %age of revenues that are shared leaguewide. That can come about from 3 root sources: generally shared revenues (NHL.com, CI, national TV deals (and the Canadian TV deals are bigger than the US deals), etc.); increased sharing of gate revenues between home and road teams; and revenue sharing. The 2nd and 3rd items will be very tough sells to get the NYR's, Loafs, Phlyers, etc. to play nicer. Which is why I DON'T have a problem with the NHL trying to get the league a larger footprint in the US. If the league could get shared revenue streams such as a national TV contract or TV contracts in Europe to grow significantly, then it would be a whole lot easier for teams on paper to stay on a competitive footing with each other. They also could increase the staff and reports put out by central scouting, but due to the international flavor and wide disparity of where/how players come from they'd never be able to put on a "scouting combine" like the NFL does.

 

The thing is, I'm not real certain that most teams are smart enough to spend their extra profits on improved coaching and scouting staffs. (So I'm not certain that my plea for greater revenue sharing is fully justified in practice.) Detroit, SJ, and NJ are the only teams that I see that make me say there is an organization that has shown itself to consistently "get it." Washington, under Leonsis, might be getting it, we'll have to see how they do heading into the future; and Rocky Wirtz might be hockey's answer to Jim Irsay - the kid of an idiot that is smart enough to hire and turn loose people that know their sport. But even with those examples (minus Washington, but even Washington has a lot of money to buy the corporate suites, so maybe they can count as larger market) of larger market teams getting it; you've also got TO and the NYR as examples of how to not get it.

 

I truly believe it is in the best interest of the players to side w/ the smaller market teams vs the big market ones; but see them siding with the big market teams time and again in negotiations. Yeah, the players would have started out w/ a bigger chunk of the pie without a cap; but would their cut have gone from sub-$40MM/team in '05-'06 up to ~$58MM/team in only 5 years under Goodenow's proposed system? A roughly 60% payraise in some pretty rough economic times isn't half bad. If the 2 sides can be smart and work together, the pie WILL get bigger. It's a darn shame Paul Kelly got punted. Listening to him in interviews, it sounded to me like he "got it."

 

Sorry, I'm rambling again.

[static70]

Unfortunately, if one set about to say that teams could only spend $x on coaching, or scouting, or facilities; they'd be hit with an antitrust suit before they even had time to fax the memo around to everybody.

 

The best way to keep the teams on even footing in terms of the support functions is by increasing the %age of revenues that are shared leaguewide. That can come about from 3 root sources: generally shared revenues (NHL.com, CI, national TV deals (and the Canadian TV deals are bigger than the US deals), etc.); increased sharing of gate revenues between home and road teams; and revenue sharing. The 2nd and 3rd items will be very tough sells to get the NYR's, Loafs, Phlyers, etc. to play nicer. Which is why I DON'T have a problem with the NHL trying to get the league a larger footprint in the US. If the league could get shared revenue streams such as a national TV contract or TV contracts in Europe to grow significantly, then it would be a whole lot easier for teams on paper to stay on a competitive footing with each other. They also could increase the staff and reports put out by central scouting, but due to the international flavor and wide disparity of where/how players come from they'd never be able to put on a "scouting combine" like the NFL does.

 

The thing is, I'm not real certain that most teams are smart enough to spend their extra profits on improved coaching and scouting staffs. (So I'm not certain that my plea for greater revenue sharing is fully justified in practice.) Detroit, SJ, and NJ are the only teams that I see that make me say there is an organization that has shown itself to consistently "get it." Washington, under Leonsis, might be getting it, we'll have to see how they do heading into the future; and Rocky Wirtz might be hockey's answer to Jim Irsay - the kid of an idiot that is smart enough to hire and turn loose people that know their sport. But even with those examples (minus Washington, but even Washington has a lot of money to buy the corporate suites, so maybe they can count as larger market) of larger market teams getting it; you've also got TO and the NYR as examples of how to not get it.

 

I truly believe it is in the best interest of the players to side w/ the smaller market teams vs the big market ones; but see them siding with the big market teams time and again in negotiations. Yeah, the players would have started out w/ a bigger chunk of the pie without a cap; but would their cut have gone from sub-$40MM/team in '05-'06 up to ~$58MM/team in only 5 years under Goodenow's proposed system? A roughly 60% payraise in some pretty rough economic times isn't half bad. If the 2 sides can be smart and work together, the pie WILL get bigger. It's a darn shame Paul Kelly got punted. Listening to him in interviews, it sounded to me like he "got it."

 

Sorry, I'm rambling again.

No, by all means, continue, I am only roughly 2 years into financials, at age 39 and any time I can narrow my learning curve by having my eyes opened to this side of it only helps me.

I am learning volumes, both in my business and from the discussions I have on forums and social events such as Sabrespace. Its most appreciated and so is the patience to answer the questions.

[spndnchz]

blah blah blah

 

The circumstantial evidence most definitely is going to be that 2 players have retired at or past the age of 44 in the past 50 years. Chelios may be only the 3rd to do so. The evidence, although circumstantial is so overwhelming in favor of this decision by the NHL that it is most definitely going to alter or change or negate completely this contract.

 

Circumstantial is all it is. Nobody can say Kovy won't be playing at that age.

Gordie Howe was 52 when he retired.

Hasek is 45 years old and still playing in the KHL.

Chelios was 48 in his last year playing.

Lidstrom is 40 and still playing.

Brodeur, 38.

Mark Recchi, still playing age 43.

Shanahan, 41 yrs old.

Matt Schneider, 41 yrs old.

Rob Blake, 40.

and Messier, 43

[tom webster]

Circumstantial is all it is. Nobody can say Kovy won't be playing at that age.

Gordie Howe was 52 when he retired.

Hasek is 45 years old and still playing in the KHL.

Chelios was 48 in his last year playing.

Lidstrom is 40 and still playing.

Brodeur, 38.

Mark Recchi, still playing age 43.

Shanahan, 41 yrs old.

Matt Schneider, 41 yrs old.

Rob Blake, 40.

and Messier, 43

 

 

 

I apologize if this was already brought up as I haven't been reading all the posts, but the question to me isn't whether he is going to be playing at 44, the question is whether he would be playing for the salary at the back end of the deal. My guess is that even if it isn't pre-arranged, Kovalchuk would threaten to retire or jump to whatever alernative league if he wasn't bought out once the salary dropped to those ridiculous numbers.

[static70]

Circumstantial is all it is. Nobody can say Kovy won't be playing at that age.

Gordie Howe was 52 when he retired.

Hasek is 45 years old and still playing in the KHL.

Chelios was 48 in his last year playing.

Lidstrom is 40 and still playing.

Brodeur, 38.

Mark Recchi, still playing age 43.

Shanahan, 41 yrs old.

Matt Schneider, 41 yrs old.

Rob Blake, 40.

and Messier, 43

But that is the point chz. The CBA clearly states "circumstantial evidence" in it. I am with you on your reasoning and have even stated that Kovy and the Devils will get thier way, but I am going to take a stab at the fact that they will be forced to modify the existing contract or re-write an entirely new one with different parameters on the back end of the contract itself.

[spndnchz]

I apologize if this was already brought up as I haven't been reading all the posts, but the question to me isn't whether he is going to be playing at 44, the question is whether he would be playing for the salary at the back end of the deal. My guess is that even if it isn't pre-arranged, Kovalchuk would threaten to retire or jump to whatever alernative league if he wasn't bought out once the salary dropped to those ridiculous numbers.

 

"if the Player knows or reasonably should have known"

 

Is it not reasonable to assume that Kovy, when he's 42, 43 years old will be worth very little? Guys like Selanne, Chelios, Recchi, make very little and they're younger than 44. I would consider it reasonable to think Kovy won't be worth 10 million and won't be worth more than a million at that age.

 

That said, I think they found the loophole and played it well. But proving it is unreasonable to think TODAY that he won't be playing tomorrow is impossible.

 

One of the authors of the CBA, and player agent Ian Pulver said "I can tell you that during bargaining, that the league was not successful in negotiating rules to limit the length of contract a player can sign with a club, so the NHL is going to have to show evidence that the club and the player were trying to defeat rules in the collective agreement, because they can't certainly prove that a player will not play when he's 44 years old.

[shrader]

Circumstantial is all it is. Nobody can say Kovy won't be playing at that age.

Gordie Howe was 52 when he retired.

Hasek is 45 years old and still playing in the KHL.

Chelios was 48 in his last year playing.

Lidstrom is 40 and still playing.

Brodeur, 38.

Mark Recchi, still playing age 43.

Shanahan, 41 yrs old.

Matt Schneider, 41 yrs old.

Rob Blake, 40.

and Messier, 43

 

Only 3 of those names actually played at 44 or beyond, so the rest say absolutely nothing. Hasek and Howe both bounced in and out of retirement, so I'm not sure that says much of anything either. So quickly, your list has already been reduced to just one person.

[spndnchz]

But that is the point chz. The CBA clearly states "circumstantial evidence" in it. I am with you on your reasoning and have even stated that Kovy and the Devils will get thier way, but I am going to take a stab at the fact that they will be forced to modify the existing contract or re-write an entirely new one with different parameters on the back end of the contract itself.

 

 

26.13 ( b) The System Arbitrator may find a Circumvention has occurred based on direct or circumstantial evidence, including without limitation, evidence that an SPC or any provision of an SPC cannot reasonably be explained in the absence of conduct prohibited by this Article 26. The investigation and findings of the Investigator pursuant to Section 26.10 shall be fully admissible in any proceeding before the System Arbitrator under this Section 26.13.

 

The circumstantial evidence being other players are still playing or have played that long, for that kind of money.

Current players at this late age that do play for that money are considered reasonable and not circumventing at this time.

The circumstantial evidence supports the reasonable explanation that the CBA is not being circumvented.

 

How's that?

 

I think the NHLPA will file a grievance. They're probably getting the case ready as we speak.