[LeaferSutherland]

Bruce Garrioch

Quote

If you don't think this is any big deal, it's going to be a large part of the discussion during GMs meetings Tuesday and Wednesday in Toronto.

"Essentially, the league is investigating every deal that takes a player past the age of 40," a league source told Sun Media.

Quote

If found guilty once the investigation is completed, the teams involved could be fined up to $5 million or lose draft picks. There's just one problem: The NHLPA has no executive director and isn't co-operating as the league has requested paperwork.

If found guilty, what would be the suitable punishment?

[Tashimojo]

How is the NHL going to find anyone guilty in these contracts?? They are all legal under the current CBA and the NHL approved them.

[LeaferSutherland]

Tashimojo, on Nov 8 2009, 10:19 AM, said:

How is the NHL going to find anyone guilty in these contracts?? They are all legal under the current CBA and the NHL approved them.

All the NHL needs to prove is that there was discussion of retirement between GM and agent prior to the end of the contract.

If that can be done, the League will see the contract as being farcical.

[Tashimojo]

LeaferSutherland, on Nov 8 2009, 09:16 AM, said:

All the NHL needs to prove is that there was discussion of retirement between GM and agent prior to the end of the contract.

If that can be done, the League will see the contract as being farcical.

And yet no rules were broken so if an owner decides he doesn't want to be fined $5 million and takes this to court... what does the NHL have to stand on?

[LeaferSutherland]

Tashimojo, on Nov 8 2009, 11:20 AM, said:

And yet no rules were broken so if an owner decides he doesn't want to be fined $5 million and takes this to court... what does the NHL have to stand on?

The fact that a 14 year contract was signed with the understanding that only 8 of those years were in play.

I don't see an owner suing the NHL over this. And given that the player will not be penalized, I don't see him raising a stink either.

[Tashimojo]

LeaferSutherland, on Nov 8 2009, 09:22 AM, said:

The fact that a 14 year contract was signed with the understanding that only 8 of those years were in play.

I don't see an owner suing the NHL over this. And given that the player will not be penalized, I don't see him raising a stink either.

An owner wouldn't want to avoid paying five million dollars for not breaking any rules? That's a lot of cash to not care about. And it's not illegal to have a contract with the understanding that part of it is not going to count. Nor is it against the CBA... so I really don't see how the NHL thinks it can go about this.

[LeaferSutherland]

Tashimojo, on Nov 8 2009, 11:25 AM, said:

An owner wouldn't want to avoid paying five million dollars for not breaking any rules? That's a lot of cash to not care about. And it's not illegal to have a contract with the understanding that part of it is not going to count. Nor is it against the CBA... so I really don't see how the NHL thinks it can go about this.

The fact that this story refuses to go away, has me believing that someone is going to pay for this one way or another.

While 5 million dollars is nothing to sniff at, it is their peers that are having a problem with this. And if there is something we've all learned this past summer, keeping the BoG happy is a good thing if you want to be a part of that BoG.

[Tashimojo]

LeaferSutherland, on Nov 8 2009, 09:30 AM, said:

While 5 million dollars is nothing to sniff at, it is their peers that are having a problem with this. And if there is something we've all learned this past summer, keeping the BoG happy is a good thing if you want to be a part of that BoG.

True, but maybe I'm wrong here, don't several members of the BoG have players signed under these contracts? What happens if the NHL tries to fine 10 teams? All those guys are gonna just go, "Ok, we should all have to pay for not breaking the rules..."

And how much of a farce would it be if the NHL only fines over one or two of these contracts?

I don't like these contracts myself, they completely destroy the point of having a salary cap. But it's a loophole that needs to be closed, not one that the NHL can try and correct while leaving the CBA the way it is.

[Chris TMC]

IMO you cant say this isnt breaking rules... if there is a nudge-nudge-wink-wink between a team and a player that however many years at the end of a contract are all make-pretend and they only exist to allow the player to stock up money early while fraudulently lowering the teams cap hit, yes that IS a problem and yes it should be punished. You cant have secret agreements and then make it look different on paper.

But I do agree that the NHL was STUPID for approving of contracts like that in the first place. They could have done something about it right then and there, but didnt have the guts or integrity to do so.

This point has been edited by Chris TMC: 08 November 2009 - 11:37 AM

[Tashimojo]

Chris TMC, on Nov 8 2009, 09:36 AM, said:

IMO you cant say this isnt breaking rules... if there is a nudge-nudge-wink-wink between a team and a player that however many years at the end of a contract are all make-pretend and they only exist to allow the player to stock up money early while fraudulently lowering the teams cap hit, yes that IS a problem and yes it should be punished. You cant have secret agreements and then make it look different on paper.

But I do agree that the NHL was STUPID for approving of contracts like that in the first place. They could have done something about it right then and there, but didnt have the guts or integrity to do so.

It doesn't break any rules. That's why it's a loophole. They need to make a rule that these contracts would be breaking.

[Tashimojo]

Well I found this article that describes how these contracts could be deemed illegal by the NHL under the current CBA.

Quote

... the practice is arguably exactly the kind of action made impermissible by Article 26, the article governing circumvention. Consider the following “Example” of circumvention as set forth in Section 26.15(a) of the CBA:

“A Club has a Club Salary that would exceed the Upper Limit, other than through the Bona-Fide Long-Term Injury/Illness Exception or the “Performance Bonus Cushion,” such as by virtue of an undisclosed agreement or undisclosed payment to Players on its roster.”
Thus, there is no doubt: long-term contracts accompanied by a mutual understanding that the player would retire before the contract’s term expired are prohibited, though not expressly, by the current agreement that governs the business of the NHL. Proving that teams and players came to such understandings is the tricky part.

It'll still be a farce if only one or two of these contracts end up seeing teams getting fined. The loophole needs to be closed.

This point has been edited by Tashimojo: 08 November 2009 - 11:54 AM

[exwhaler]

Article 26 of the CBA lays out the various rules about circumvention. If the NHL determines that any of these contracts was a willful circumvention of the salary cap, they have the legal grounds to determine punishment for both club and player.

Quote

26.3 Circumventions.
(a) No Club or Club Actor, directly or indirectly, may: (i) enter into any agreements, promises, undertakings, representations, commitments, inducements, assurances of intent, or understandings of any kind, whether express, implied, oral or written, including without limitation, any SPC, Qualifying Offer, Offer Sheet or other transaction, or (ii) take or fail to take any action whatsoever, if either (i) or (ii) is intended to or has the effect of defeating or Circumventing the provisions of this Agreement or the intention of the parties as reflected by the provisions of this Agreement, including without limitation, provisions with respect to the financial and other reporting obligations of the Clubs and the League, Team Payroll Range, Player Compensation Cost Redistribution System, the Entry Level System and/or Free Agency.

(i) Any act by a Club Actor that, if committed by the Club would constitute a Circumvention, shall be imputed to the Club and shall be deemed to be a Circumvention by the Club.

(:lol: No Player or Player Actor, directly or indirectly, may: (i) enter into any agreements, promises, undertakings, representations, commitments, inducements, assurances of intent, or understandings of any kind, whether express, implied, oral or written, including without limitation, any SPC, Qualifying Offer, Offer Sheet or other transaction, or (ii) take or fail to take any action whatsoever, if the Player knows or reasonably should have known (measured by the objective standard of the "reasonable Player under the circumstances") that either (i) or (ii) is intended to and has the effect of defeating or Circumventing the provisions of this Agreement or the intention of the parties as reflected by the provisions of this Agreement, including without limitation, provisions with respect to the Team Payroll Range, the Entry Level System and/or Free
Agency.

[Avsfreak18]

the NHL cant approve the contracts, then go and crucify the parties involved and save any face in all of this

[Bean]

For the specific potential cases that the player and team determined that the player is going to retire earlier than the contract length, the punishments shouldn't be a fine of money. The punishment should be the voiding of the Cap hit lowering contract years, making the contract fully valid for those years. Hitting the team where it hurts, potentially putting them over the Salary Cap and unable to make other signings.

[Vader]

From the article:

Quote

League sources say not only is the NHL studying the deals signed last summer by Chicago winger Marian Hossa (12 years, $62.8 million US) and Philadelphia defenceman Chris Pronger ( seven years, $34.9 million), the NHL also wants details on Roberto Luongo's 12-year, $64-million deal with the Canucks, completed in September.

They want details on the contracts? Shouldn't they have asked for that information before they approved them? Like others have said, the league can't go back and punish teams for the contracts currently in effect without looking like assholes, since the league already approved the contracts. Close the loophole for future contracts, but don't change your mind when teams work the loophole while its open.

[LeaferSutherland]

Tashimojo, on Nov 8 2009, 11:53 AM, said:

It'll still be a farce if only one or two of these contracts end up seeing teams getting fined. The loophole needs to be closed.

I don't think it's the NHL's goal to punish the guilty, as much as it is to give reason that prevents others from following suit.

So if they can only find enough proof for one case, I'd be completely satisfied with it.

[Avsfreak18]

not to stir a political fire, but this is like the US government just writing the banks checks without any rules

the League would be best to end investigations, close the loopholes, and not embarrass themselves

[exwhaler]

Vader, on Nov 8 2009, 04:56 PM, said:

From the article:


They want details on the contracts? Shouldn't they have asked for that information before they approved them? Like others have said, the league can't go back and punish teams for the contracts currently in effect without looking like assholes, since the league already approved the contracts. Close the loophole for future contracts, but don't change your mind when teams work the loophole while its open.

The problem is that, technically, there's nothing wrong with the contracts, which is why they were approved. But investigations of circumvention do not follow the same process, because (a) information could come to light after the contracts have been approved and (b ) it can take months to conductl the investigation (as it has). Contract approval and postmortim investigations are two entirely separate legal processes.

All the teams and GMs know what the CBA says, and they knew the risks of violating Article 26 by trying to exploit a loophole to circumvent the salary cap. The legal language is there in the CBA to discourage GMs from doing that. Excusing them from failing is no excuse. The NHL has every legal right, and the teams know it. They, and the players, agreed to it.