Jim Benning: June 27th, 2019 (Recapture penality/free agency)

[oldnews]

17 hours ago, Baggins said:

Not the same situation. The majority of the owners were in favor of the clause, and the NHLPA voted to accept it. 

It doesn't necessarily matter what a  majority owners favour if/when it comes to a legal challenge.

 

The same thing regarding the NHLPA accepting it - for example, you can sign and agree to a rental agreement that isn't necessarily in your best interest, but if that agreement violates/does not conform to the tenancy act, it isn't binding.  The law in the end, if there is a dispute, decides the legality of agreements, contracts, not the parties involved.

 

Aside from the retroactive nature of it - a backward penalizing 'rule' after both the CBA did not prohibit it, and the league approved those deals....

There are also other grounds on which aspects of the CBA could be challenged - if there were a will.

 

ie.

 

https://nelliganlaw.ca/blog/labour-law/nhl-collective-bargaining-agreement-violate-canadian-human-rights-legislation/

 

It does not sound from Benning's tone like there is an appetite to challenge this - which is somewhat unfortunate because I would want to see pushback on a 'rule' that has been circumvented without any real pushback from the league. 

Bettman babble about these deals having circumvented the 'spirit' of the CBA is highly ironic, when Hossa allergies circumvent the 'spirit' of the recapture penalty.

There is also a question of whether the Canucks specifically consented to the Luongo-rule.

 

I don't like it - don't like the selective and unpoliced nature of it, particularly with the chest-thumping around imposing the retroactive rule in the first place.

I would want to see more pushback on this.

 

 

Edited June 28, 2019 by oldnews

[Baggins]

4 minutes ago, oldnews said:

It doesn't necessarily matter what a  majority owners favour if/when it comes to a legal challenge.

 

The same thing regarding the NHLPA accepting it - for example, you can sign and agree to a rental agreement that isn't necessarily in your best interest, but if that agreement violates/does not conform to the tenancy act, it isn't binding.  The law decides the legality of agreements, not necesarily the parties involved.

 

Aside from the retroactive nature of it - a backward penalizing 'rule' after both the CBA did not prohibit it, and the league approved those deals....

There are also other grounds on which aspects of the CBA could be challenged - if there were a will.

 

ie.

 

https://nelliganlaw.ca/blog/labour-law/nhl-collective-bargaining-agreement-violate-canadian-human-rights-legislation/

 

It does not sound from Benning's tone like there is an appetite to challenge this - which is somewhat unfortunate because I would want to see pushback on a 'rule' that has been circumvented without any real pushback from the league. 

Bettman babble about these deals having circumvented the 'spirit' of the CBA is highly ironic, when Hossa allergies circumvent the 'spirit' of the recapture penalty.

There is also a question of whether the Canucks specifically consented to the Luongo-rule.

 

I don't like it - don't like the selective and unpoliced nature of it, particularly with the chest-thumping around imposing the retroactive rule in the first place.

I would want to see more pushback on this.

 

 

Is a negotiated union contract the same as a tenancy agreement?

 

As to Hossa it's a double edged sword. Chicago doesn't take the recapture penalty, and they do get LTI cap relief, but they also have to pay his actual salary until the deal runs out.

[Kevin Biestra]

12 hours ago, AlwaysACanuckFan said:

Hopefully not like Semin

 

But more like Sea Bass

 

 

[IBatch]

19 hours ago, ItTakesAnArmy said:

Ya but don't take the ship down with you

Nah that’s usually the next GMs job in a situation like this...

 

 

[oldnews]

7 hours ago, Baggins said:

Is a negotiated union contract the same as a tenancy agreement?

 

 

yes it is in the sense we are talking here.

It is an analogy - a tenancy agreement is not law - it is a tenancy agreement between two parties. If disputed, it has to conform to the tenancy act or it's a worthless document.

Likewise -  union contracts, collective bargaining agreements - have to conform to labour law - and the human rights code, etc   A collective bargaining agreement is not "law" - it is an agreement, that is subject to law.

 

If this recapture penalty were disputed, it could potentially be rejected on a few different grounds - one, that it is a retroactive penatly - ex post facto - something that is unconstitutional in the United States.  It  could also be rejected on the grounds  - like those of the 35+ year old rule/exceptions in the CBA - that it creates discriminatory conditions against older players in the NHL. 

Is there a will to break rank and dispute it?  Who knows. 

But there is also the additional ground - not as 'legal' but certainly mitigating, that other teams have circumvented this instrument in any event, with no consequence - which additionally makes this selective application of the recapture infuriating.

[spook007]

18 hours ago, GreyHatnDart said:

Man that guy had Semin all over him. 

 

...I’ll show myself out. 

 

 

Edited June 29, 2019 by spook007

[Ghostsof1915]

23 hours ago, Rush17 said:

Perhaps fear is the best method. 

 

 

Our main weapon is surprise, and fear.

Our two main weapons are fear, and surprise, and ruthless efficiency......

Our three main weapons are.....

 

 

[Baggins]

8 hours ago, oldnews said:

yes it is in the sense we are talking here.

It is an analogy - a tenancy agreement is not law - it is a tenancy agreement between two parties. If disputed, it has to conform to the tenancy act or it's a worthless document.

Likewise -  union contracts, collective bargaining agreements - have to conform to labour law - and the human rights code, etc   A collective bargaining agreement is not "law" - it is an agreement, that is subject to law.

 

If this recapture penalty were disputed, it could potentially be rejected on a few different grounds - one, that it is a retroactive penatly - ex post facto - something that is unconstitutional in the United States.  It  could also be rejected on the grounds  - like those of the 35+ year old rule/exceptions in the CBA - that it creates discriminatory conditions against older players in the NHL. 

Is there a will to break rank and dispute it?  Who knows. 

But there is also the additional ground - not as 'legal' but certainly mitigating, that other teams have circumvented this instrument in any event, with no consequence - which additionally makes this selective application of the recapture infuriating.

I don't see it as retroactive penalty as there is no penalty at all if the player completes his contact. Lou's contract wasn't altered at all. It's simply a new clause that only occurs if a player doesn't complete a contract that gave a team a clear cap advantage. Well, Lou's deal gave us a clear cap advantage. We got the benefit, now we pay the price. I honestly don't have a problem with that. But then I was one of the few that didn't like the deal when it was signed and called it what it was - cap circumvention. It played out as I predicted with those final low cost years that brought the cap hit down not being played.

 

I don't see how it's selective. NJ has had a cap penalty for years, and will for years to come. Smaller yes, but Kovi packed it in early into the deal minimizing their cap benefit. Pronger and Hossa both packed it in on LTI. As a result their contracts stayed on the books and both teams get LTI cap relief for those deals. The penalty is both teams had to pay those players their salary for the remaining years. Not so much a penalty to the team, but certainly a penalty to the owner thinking those years wouldn't be played or paid. It may not be the penalty you want, but a penalty nonetheless.

 

I honestly don't see Benning disputing the cap hit. Owners locked out the players to get these clauses, so it would certainly look bad for a team to dispute the clause. Ultimately it's highly unlikely to have any great effect on us over the next three years. So why bother?

[Quint]

On 6/27/2019 at 9:59 PM, mll said:

Nashville matched an offer sheet courtesy of Philadelphia.  They had just lost Suter to free agency and there was no way they would let Weber go.  They also could have paid Weber his 14M and still be well under the cap.  

 

Are you saying that is somehow a mitigating factor? If so please show where the language of the CBA indicates that.

[apollo]

On 6/27/2019 at 7:11 PM, Jimmy McGill said:

Jim's taking it a lot better than I am. 

There's no way we know the full story... 

 

Either Jim has 0 back bone to fight the league on this... Or they've made some sort of deal behind closed doors? 

 

Maybe they've told him just take the cap hit for this year and we'll take the final two years off? 

 

Or maybe aquaman is strapped for cash and he's said this is a good way he can save 9 million? 

 

No clue but there has to be something else to it... 

 

You can't just accept an astronomical cap hit like this... Its 12x what NJD is paying for Kovalchuks deal which was far more corrupt 

[Phat Fingers]

On 6/27/2019 at 11:15 PM, Gnarcore said:

The rumors that Lou wanted to go onto LTIR and Florida forced a retirement has left a bitter taste in my mouth. There should be recourse here for our team. Instead we're just going to accept this bull$&!#. 

If true, &^@# Florida

 

 

[JM_]

3 hours ago, apollo said:

There's no way we know the full story... 

 

Either Jim has 0 back bone to fight the league on this... Or they've made some sort of deal behind closed doors? 

 

Maybe they've told him just take the cap hit for this year and we'll take the final two years off? 

 

Or maybe aquaman is strapped for cash and he's said this is a good way he can save 9 million? 

 

No clue but there has to be something else to it... 

 

You can't just accept an astronomical cap hit like this... Its 12x what NJD is paying for Kovalchuks deal which was far more corrupt 

the NHL isn't a democracy, its a club. We're not in the inner clique. 

[Baggins]

6 hours ago, Jimmy McGill said:

the NHL isn't a democracy, its a club. We're not in the inner clique. 

Of course it's a democracy. The board of governors (the owners or their assigned rep) vote on what they want in the contract. Clearly the majority wanted this clause. It's the same with rules changes. This is why I find it so funny that Bettman gets booed everywhere he goes. He wouldn't have his job if he wasn't doing what the majority of the owners wanted. 

[Baggins]

10 hours ago, apollo said:

You can't just accept an astronomical cap hit like this... Its 12x what NJD is paying for Kovalchuks deal which was far more corrupt 

3m isn't exactly astronomical. Kovi retired really early into his deal. Thus the lower penalty. We'd have a lower penalty as well if Lou had retired a just a few years in. The earlier into the deal the lower the cap penalty and the longer the penalty lasts. We got more benefit from the cap circumvention than NJ did, Lou played more of the contract = higher penalty.

[Phat Fingers]

11 hours ago, Baggins said:

3m isn't exactly astronomical. Kovi retired really early into his deal. Thus the lower penalty. We'd have a lower penalty as well if Lou had retired a just a few years in. The earlier into the deal the lower the cap penalty and the longer the penalty lasts. We got more benefit from the cap circumvention than NJ did, Lou played more of the contract = higher penalty.

All this means this year is bye bye Spooner.  I can live with it for now.  Next season and the one after, if the team has to lose one of its key young players as a result.  

[JM_]

12 hours ago, Baggins said:

Of course it's a democracy. The board of governors (the owners or their assigned rep) vote on what they want in the contract. Clearly the majority wanted this clause. It's the same with rules changes. This is why I find it so funny that Bettman gets booed everywhere he goes. He wouldn't have his job if he wasn't doing what the majority of the owners wanted. 

pretty sure Aquilini gets booed too  yes of course Bettman does what most owners want, but that often doesn't align with what fans want. 

[Baggins]

2 hours ago, Jimmy McGill said:

pretty sure Aquilini gets booed too  yes of course Bettman does what most owners want, but that often doesn't align with what fans want. 

Well fans didn't pay the price to own a team. Owners will do what's in their best interest.