Matt_T83 Posted March 8, 2014 Share Posted March 8, 2014 Basically, I've seen a lot of talk about cap recapture penalties, which could impact a lot of teams. Obviously with the Luongo trade, he's all the talk right now. But pure and simple, Bettman's (pathetic small man) cap recapture clause is illegal. Why? Because with Unions and Collective Bargaining, you can't over-rule agreements from previous labour agreements (unless you declare bankruptcy, but that's another story). My roommate is a lawyer and explained it to me like this: Imagine you have a Union that negotiates great retirement pensions and benefits under an agreement. 20 years and several agreements later, all of those workers under the old Union are gone. Now the new workers want a raise. The company says sure, we could give you a raise, but we can't afford it because of these old pensions and benefits. If laws didn't protect old agreements, what stops new Unions (with new members) from saying to hell with the old contracts, scrap their pensions and benefits and give us raises!! There are a whole host of other examples, but the crux of it is: Older collective bargaining agreements and contracts may not have been made with the hindsight of future (retroactive) changes. Just because you put something in a contract doesn't mean it's legal. Bettman put it in the collective bargaining agreement, but no team should ever abide by it. They should challenge it in court, and the NHL will surely lose. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TOMapleLaughs Posted March 8, 2014 Share Posted March 8, 2014 As long as Luongo still gets paid what he's owed, the PA shouldn't take issue. I haven't read everything about recapture, but my impression is that Luongo will be fine and if anyone's screwed in the future it's the Canucks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Warhippy Posted March 8, 2014 Share Posted March 8, 2014 OK. Now here is what you would have to do. In both American and Canadian courts of law you would have to prove this. You would have to have NHLPA association as well. Added you would then have to pay pretty much all of the legal fees. During the lockout two lawyers from Ontario attempted to take the NHL to court on behalf of the fans, proving that the league knew a lockout was inevitable yet still selling season tickets before hand. They could not legally do this for a number of reasons yet apparently had enough evidence to proceed. I for one wish you the best of luck if you try as I agree, but now that Luongo is gone it is not our issue anymore and a bare $1 million + in 5 or 6 years is not something I will really worry about. Keep in mind as of now you will be going to court on behalf of Hossa, Zetterberg and maybe 2 or 3 other players. with almost 750 other NHL players saying who cares it doesn't affect us anymore. I agree with you, but hey...it is what it is. I am still more pissed off over the circumvention done by Boston and Philli over Savard and Pronger and the way Chicgao laughed through the cap by "loaning" Huet to Europe. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
smithers joe Posted March 8, 2014 Share Posted March 8, 2014 i agree....the nhl signed off on those contracts and should be grandfathered into contracts where loop holes have been closed... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EagleShield Posted March 8, 2014 Share Posted March 8, 2014 Depends on the wording in the previous CBA, but I'd agree that being punished for doing something that wasn't illegal at the time you did it is unjust. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
86Viking Posted March 8, 2014 Share Posted March 8, 2014 idont think its fair what they did. Luongo signed his contract after others did similar deal Franzen,Zetterberg, Hossa. Why did they change the rule after Luongo? I would have much rather them said re negotiate a new deal under X amount of years. Or say any contract like this from now on will have this happen to them. Its done, and for now we are payin 800k a year towards his cap, when he retires which i would think would be before the end of his deal we will then have to pay more for a period of time when the player is no longer in the league and it will count against are cap. Theres no guarantee the Cap will go up by large amounts every year. It will get too high, teams will lose too much $ and it will have to be lowered. It is what it is now, back then who knows what it would have cost us to signe Luongo to a 6yr deal, if the cap hit was 7m or under then i think the team should have tried to make that work, but they tried to take advantage of a long deal knowing he would retire, to lower the cap, and we got burned in doing so. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
86Viking Posted March 8, 2014 Share Posted March 8, 2014 Depends on the wording in the previous CBA, but I'd agree that being punished for doing something that wasn't illegal at the time you did it is unjust. Could the Canucks not have tried to fight it though? Be it in court or something. We get singles out. Look at how NJ now gets to retain their 1st round pick and gets their penalty lowered by half. Id like Gillis to email the league and say why are you changing your decision against the Devils. Maybe you should reconsider what you did to us regarding the Luongo contract... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
smithers joe Posted March 8, 2014 Share Posted March 8, 2014 i also believe that if i sign a 10 year contract but retire after 8 years...that contract should be null and void...if your not paying someone for two years, it shouldn't count against you....would my company pay me for two years at full salary while i'm retired... imo, once the loop holes are closed, cheating shouldn't happen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
86Viking Posted March 8, 2014 Share Posted March 8, 2014 Im not a big GM MG fan. But MG, bring out your inner Lawyer, i would really think he could make some noise about this in the offseason. As in April, because it sure looks like we aint making the playoffs. I would Bring up the other contracts as well as the Pronger and Savard issue. Those teams would have had major issues with the cap and they even did with the savings of those two players. Bruins won a cup with that advantage. I think they should have told us to maybe change Luongos deal to even out the salary, but then that should be said for every other player. Hossa is a prime example, hes been a big part of the hawks and may be for a couple more years. But eventually hes gonna fade off and not be worth his cap hit. This is probably been looked at or said but i really do feel the Canucks are getting the short end of the stick in this deal. We made that contract prior to when the changed the rule, how can the go back and hand pick one contract and say this applies to you? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iLLmAtlc Posted March 8, 2014 Share Posted March 8, 2014 I don't doubt the example in your OP is true but how it's even remotely analogous to cap recapture clause I'm not sure. It sounds like employment standards legislation would prevent your OP example from happening. However, the cap recapture clause does not hurt players, it's designed to punish owners. Players affected by the clause do not make a penny less than what they would have if it didn't exist. Good luck trying to find a court willing to intervene in a CBA to protect 30 billionaires from unanimously agreeing to a clause on their own accord when they could have hired any lawyer they wanted to advise them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
slappipappi Posted March 8, 2014 Share Posted March 8, 2014 You are missing the point that both the Owners and the players union agreed to the new deal, which included the recapture penalties. This is not a case of Bettman unilaterally changing something, it was by mutual agreement. Because the players union agreed to it, so did Luongo and the other players affected, How can teams challenge something they agreed to? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Neversummer Posted March 8, 2014 Share Posted March 8, 2014 Because the players union agreed to it, so did Luongo and the other players affected, How can teams challenge something they agreed to? This. They signed the new CBA with the stipulations for penalty on those long contracts. During negotiations was the time to fight it ... not after the agreement has been signed, sealed, and delivered by NHL and NHLPA. Only thing that can be done is if NHL unilaterally decide to lighten the penalty ... see Kolvachuk and NJ. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shazzam Posted March 8, 2014 Share Posted March 8, 2014 I don't know crap about law but the PA and NHL owners agreed on the new deal.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Neversummer Posted March 8, 2014 Share Posted March 8, 2014 As someone alluded to, it affects the NHLPA diddly ... not one bit financially. Players will still get paid, the penalty is on the team's cap hit so you can read into it that the majority of the owners wanted to punish the few (or one) team that tried to circumvent the spirit of the previous CBA. This is an owner, governor issue among themselves. That's probably why the NHLPA didn't put up any fuss. Even if Aqua or MG disagreed vehemently, the other 28 or 29 (under Burke's influence) must have agreed pretty strongly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
drdeath Posted March 8, 2014 Share Posted March 8, 2014 The NHL will just alter the punishment. They only worded the CBA as they did to ensure that absolutely without a doubt there wouldn't be any other super long front-loaded contracts anymore but the NHL knows they wouldn't survive much of a court challenge. In 6-8 years nobody's going to care that Vancouver (and other teams that would break the Luongo Rule) are "given a break" on the rules to prevent a legal battle. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mackcanuck Posted March 8, 2014 Share Posted March 8, 2014 This is from Mar.6, Pronger is scouting for the Flyers http://articles.philly.com/2014-03-06/sports/47938458_1_chris-pronger-paul-holmgren-flyers-practice "As time goes by, Pronger said, he has learned to accept not being on the ice. "You get a little bit older, a little bit crankier," he said, flashing his gap-toothed grin. "I'm not going to say you don't miss it. But it's less and less." Even though he will never play again, Pronger is technically on the Flyers roster; he has to remain there so the team can get salary-cap relief ($4.9 million per season through the end of 2016-17) by placing him on the long-term injured reserve list. If he retired, they would not get cap relief because of an NHL rule. Pronger was asked about the charade and the league's forcing the Flyers to pretend he might play again. "It's a question for the league and not up to me," he said. "What charade are you talking about?" His smile seemed to stretch the length of the blue line." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vcrguy Posted March 8, 2014 Share Posted March 8, 2014 The fact that fans are concerned about this, actually gives merit to why Bettman was upset about it. When Luo was on our team people kept saying there's nothing wrong with the contract and he could play into his 40's just like Brodeur is doing. Now that Luo's gone, suddenly we're concerned? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
coyotecanuck Posted March 8, 2014 Share Posted March 8, 2014 Could the Canucks not have tried to fight it though? Be it in court or something. We get singles out. Look at how NJ now gets to retain their 1st round pick and gets their penalty lowered by half. Id like Gillis to email the league and say why are you changing your decision against the Devils. Maybe you should reconsider what you did to us regarding the Luongo contract... I agree with this. The Canucks org should have, for starters, done a better job of fighting this publically. As far as most hockey fans are concerned the Canucks broke the rules with the back diving contract and recapture is the penalty. But he Canucks had to submit the contract for approval, and the NHL reluctantly signed off on it. If the governing body approves it, doesn't that then make it their responsibility ? They were the higher authority were they not? And, if memory serves they had rejected a contract previous. Anyway, my point is they should have fought this kicking and screaming in the board room. In the court and in the press. But I heard nary a peep. All I can think is that maybe they knew all along that if challenged this recapture BS won't stand up under scrutiny. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
coyotecanuck Posted March 8, 2014 Share Posted March 8, 2014 The fact that fans are concerned about this, actually gives merit to why Bettman was upset about it. When Luo was on our team people kept saying there's nothing wrong with the contract and he could play into his 40's just like Brodeur is doing. Now that Luo's gone, suddenly we're concerned? I for one was always concerned about it and I was shocked when the Canucks rolled over and played dead on this issue. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Curmudgeon Posted March 9, 2014 Share Posted March 9, 2014 I for one was always concerned about it and I was shocked when the Canucks rolled over and played dead on this issue. How do you know that? My guess is that they were especially vocal about the potentially staggering hit on their future salary commitments, but remember this: just as the players had to vote to accept the agreement, so too did all 30 governors. I am sure there were players who voted against acceptance, but majority rules. I am sure there were also individual teams that didn't vote to accept the deal, but again, majority ruled. And realistically, why wouldn't the rest of the governors want to stick it to a team that made a deal that was so blatant a cap circumvention that it p.o.'ed Bettman and spoiled it for everyone? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.