McBackup Posted September 21, 2017 Share Posted September 21, 2017 On 9/18/2017 at 9:20 AM, coastal.view said: why do people keep suggesting this it is idiocy the league teams, league management, players all agreed to this outcome in the last collective agreement so you think the canucks should sue themselves for being stupid? there is no one to sue here everyone agreed to a new collective agreement containing these terms end of story And the league is letting certain teams off the hook while the sword of Damocles remains over other's heads. I don't want the Canucks to try to sue the league but surely someone who posts exclusively in bad poems can see that there is some nuance here and plenty to be apprehensive about. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Toews Posted September 21, 2017 Share Posted September 21, 2017 4 hours ago, Bitter Melon said: And the league is letting certain teams off the hook while the sword of Damocles remains over other's heads. I don't want the Canucks to try to sue the league but surely someone who posts exclusively in bad poems can see that there is some nuance here and plenty to be apprehensive about. Maybe we should actually wait and see what happens with the Luongo situation before complaining about it? Any player that has played professional sports for a decade and a half plus is going to have some injury issue that justifies them going on LTIR. Goaltenders especially considering how demanding the position is, most of them have issues whether it is groin or hips or a bad back etc. Luongo certainly isn't going to say no to that extra bit of dough coming his way for sitting at home. I don't subscribe to the ridiculous theory that the NHL has some sort of vendetta against the Canucks and is specifically out to screw this organization. I will let the tinfoil hat conspiracy theorists fret over something that is never going to come to pass. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Canucklehead53 Posted September 21, 2017 Share Posted September 21, 2017 On 2017-09-18 at 0:42 PM, Ronaldoescobar said: This^ Dont know what they were thinking but they signed the deal, but if Lou retires the Canucks deserve to be punished to the full extent permissible. They did this to themselves. Except when an officer is investigation someone who broke the law, it is the law at the time of offence that is used not the current one. So in essence, the canucks made this contract prior so those ramification should be void...in my opinion. Not a lawyer or anything. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
coastal.view Posted September 21, 2017 Share Posted September 21, 2017 6 hours ago, Bitter Melon said: And the league is letting certain teams off the hook while the sword of Damocles remains over other's heads. I don't want the Canucks to try to sue the league but surely someone who posts exclusively in bad poems can see that there is some nuance here and plenty to be apprehensive about. perhaps the canucks and lou need to come up with a creative solution as well that the league might be ok with but thoughts of suing the league over this issue are pointless Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ronaldoescobar Posted September 21, 2017 Share Posted September 21, 2017 33 minutes ago, Canucklehead53 said: Except when an officer is investigation someone who broke the law, it is the law at the time of offence that is used not the current one. So in essence, the canucks made this contract prior so those ramification should be void...in my opinion. Not a lawyer or anything. Absolutely agree, but I think i remember hearing (and I could be wrong) that they spoke of these types of existing contracts during the negotiations and decided they would be penalized retroactively. That is where my statement regarding them signing the deal came from. Not the original contract (which probably wasnt the smartest idea anyway) but the fact they signed the CBA deal that would allow them to be punished for it if it came down to it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Toews Posted September 21, 2017 Share Posted September 21, 2017 23 minutes ago, Ronaldoescobar said: Absolutely agree, but I think i remember hearing (and I could be wrong) that they spoke of these types of existing contracts during the negotiations and decided they would be penalized retroactively. That is where my statement regarding them signing the deal came from. Not the original contract (which probably wasnt the smartest idea anyway) but the fact they signed the CBA deal that would allow them to be punished for it if it came down to it. I am not sure what exactly was said at the time but when a new CBA gets signed any changes to the CBA have always affected all contracts regardless of when they were signed. Certain GMs may have asked for exceptions made on contracts signed before the CBA was signed but they were likely denied that request. My point is that it's not that the league said "Well we have to punish these teams for signing those contracts". They changed the rules to prevent such contracts but did not let teams off the hook for contracts signed prior to the CBA. The prevailing opinion seems to be that cap recapture was put in place as a punitive measure when IMO it is a preventive measure. This is why the league is letting teams off the hook by allowing them to put players on LTIR. Luongo as goaltender and having player 17 years will definitely have some issues. This is a guy that has already missed significant time over his knees. People seem to be stressing out over something that will be a complete non-issue in the end. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Canucklehead53 Posted September 21, 2017 Share Posted September 21, 2017 46 minutes ago, Ronaldoescobar said: Absolutely agree, but I think i remember hearing (and I could be wrong) that they spoke of these types of existing contracts during the negotiations and decided they would be penalized retroactively. That is where my statement regarding them signing the deal came from. Not the original contract (which probably wasnt the smartest idea anyway) but the fact they signed the CBA deal that would allow them to be punished for it if it came down to it. Interesting, if that's true then there you go... Thanks Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mll Posted September 21, 2017 Share Posted September 21, 2017 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ossi Vaananen Posted September 21, 2017 Share Posted September 21, 2017 19 minutes ago, mll said: was just going to post. I'm looking forward to the results. Someone must have filed a complaint with the league in regards to the mythical 'Robidas Island'. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dekey Pete Posted September 21, 2017 Share Posted September 21, 2017 1 hour ago, mll said: I truly hope this blows up in the Leaf's face! Then again, what Lupul posts to his instagram doesn't really mean anything in terms of whether he's medically fit to play or not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.