Provost Posted June 11, 2014 Share Posted June 11, 2014 I haven't taken any law classes in a while but that was my take. If in the end the Canucks, and the players agreed in a vote to ratify the new agreement then they've essentially accepted all the new rules that go with it. I know labour law pretty well, but not contract law. I am just going from some other cases where people "seemed" to have solid anti-trust cases that went nowhere. One current example is the Clippers owner, he wants to sue for being forced to sell his team. No legal expert believes he has a chance in court. The Balsillie case was used an an argument... under normal business circumstances he couldn't have been blocked from buying the Coyotes, but because it is a sports league they have tons of leeway. In that case the owner actually lost money because he wasn't allowed to sell. The Clippers owner has no chance because of the same principles PLUS he has to prove damages. Getting $2 billion for a team that he paid like $75 million for makes it hard to show damages. If judges don't want to wade into territory that involves hundreds of millions, they aren't going to step on the league rights for a little contract issue like this. At best, the Canucks could petition the Commissioner at the time to undo the penalty. This could be a reasonable argument if Luongo actually did play out to near the end of his contract. It really couldn't be considered a circumvention attempt if he actually fulfilled the contract terms. If he plays any of those $1 million "real" dollar years and our penalty is over $3 million, we have an argument. I could easily see the league allowing us to spread that penalty over double the time or waive it entirely under those circumstances. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VegasCanuck Posted June 11, 2014 Share Posted June 11, 2014 He'll develop a really nasty hang nail that will prevent him from continuing to play and we'll take advantage of the same loophole that Philly did! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vancanwincup Posted June 11, 2014 Share Posted June 11, 2014 Perfect? Ah no...it was a stupid and ridiculous contract the day it was signed. Term was way too long...who is good for 12 years? not even Gretzky. That contract will cost the owners for years and cost us Cory Schneider too. But still...it was total BS that the league imposed penalties on contracts that were legal and approved at the time they were signed. Complete BS. Gretzky has good for 20 years. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DarthNinja Posted June 11, 2014 Share Posted June 11, 2014 Can't blame MG on this one at all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thema Posted June 11, 2014 Share Posted June 11, 2014 If you believe that Luongo is going to play the last years of his contract for effectively zero "real" dollars you are almost certainly mistaken. That is why the league decided against these contracts... there is no intention of the player to play the years where their salary drops down to nothing. Funny I remember when the contract was signed roughly 90% of CDC swore that Lou would play out the whole contract. Guess this is what "thinking outside the box" gets you... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
73 Percent Posted June 11, 2014 Share Posted June 11, 2014 where does the money go that the canucks would have to pay? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
qwijibo Posted June 11, 2014 Share Posted June 11, 2014 where does the money go that the canucks would have to pay?They don't actually pay anything, it's just a penalty that's applied to the team's salary cap Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
73 Percent Posted June 11, 2014 Share Posted June 11, 2014 They don't actually pay anything, it's just a penalty that's applied to the team's salary capso its an imaginary salary and would sct similar to a buyout. that sucks. I wonder if we could pay Luongo a mill or 2 under the table to bot retire. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peaches5 Posted June 11, 2014 Share Posted June 11, 2014 I believe the NHL will lessen the cap hit if a team actually has to deal with this I mean this is grounds for an owner to sue the league. Its just absolutely ridiculous and the NHL would look bad if it had owners suing it over this crap. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Desjardins' Mustache Posted June 11, 2014 Author Share Posted June 11, 2014 so its an imaginary salary and would sct similar to a buyout. that sucks. I wonder if we could pay Luongo a mill or 2 under the table to bot retire. Haha LOL Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dogbyte Posted June 11, 2014 Share Posted June 11, 2014 I know labour law pretty well, but not contract law. I am just going from some other cases where people "seemed" to have solid anti-trust cases that went nowhere. One current example is the Clippers owner, he wants to sue for being forced to sell his team. No legal expert believes he has a chance in court. The Balsillie case was used an an argument... under normal business circumstances he couldn't have been blocked from buying the Coyotes, but because it is a sports league they have tons of leeway. In that case the owner actually lost money because he wasn't allowed to sell. The Clippers owner has no chance because of the same principles PLUS he has to prove damages. Getting $2 billion for a team that he paid like $75 million for makes it hard to show damages. If judges don't want to wade into territory that involves hundreds of millions, they aren't going to step on the league rights for a little contract issue like this. At best, the Canucks could petition the Commissioner at the time to undo the penalty. This could be a reasonable argument if Luongo actually did play out to near the end of his contract. It really couldn't be considered a circumvention attempt if he actually fulfilled the contract terms. If he plays any of those $1 million "real" dollar years and our penalty is over $3 million, we have an argument. I could easily see the league allowing us to spread that penalty over double the time or waive it entirely under those circumstances. Yeah good examples. I always pay attention to you when it comes to legal matters. Actually all your posts are pretty darn good. It's a real unique business that doesn't really seem to fit into any paradigm. I agree, as a judge I'd probably wouldn't want to get near it either. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brocklovich Posted June 11, 2014 Share Posted June 11, 2014 Since he will play a few seasons in Florida wont they also have a portion of that cap hit? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oldnews Posted June 11, 2014 Share Posted June 11, 2014 Has been discussed a lot on these boards, but OP is rather new here, so no harm in reopening the discussion. Imo this is yet another example of how poor NHL administration can be at times. There was an existing CBA when those deals were signed - the NHL could and should have intervened and refused to ratify those deals at the time. They did not. Retroactively attempting to punish teams after the fact is not only hypocritical, given their inaction when they were charged to evaluate those contracts, but also, imo their 'rule'/decision doesn't really have a legal leg to stand on. If this decision were challenged, I doubt it would stand up. In a general legal sense, laws that retroactively change the legal consequences of an action or relationship that existed before the law was enacted (Ex post facto laws) are forbidden by the US Constitution and those of Parliamentary democracies (like Canada). No punishment without a pre-existing law is the principle. The NHL's retroactive "Luongo rule" / cap recapture penalty is that type of instrument. Ex post facto laws are expressly forbidden by the United States Constitution in Article 1, Section 9, Clause 3 In Canada, ex post facto criminal laws are constitutionally prohibited by section 11(g) of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Whether there is or should be a difference in contract law is debatable, but as far as I'm concerned, the principle is the same. A challenge in either jurisdiction imo should have a fairly good chance of success, particularly given the fact that the NHL itself was required to approve those contracts at the time in order for them to take effect, and did so. A contradictory (mickey mouse) move on the part of the NHL that should be abandoned imo. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nuck nit Posted June 11, 2014 Share Posted June 11, 2014 Luo was on his way out the door,no matter what.Tootsie expedited his departure but that is as it was meant to be. Ultimately,Luo got to go where he wanted to go and it ended up perfectly for him. .....the slight by Canucks coach John Tortorella led to a series of events that resulted in Luongo’s trade to the Florida Panthers on Tuesday. The ball started rolling with a conversation between Pat Brisson, the agent of the former Canucks goaltender, and Canucks general manager Mike Gillis. “If Lu had played Sunday the talks with the Canucks might have taken place at a later time,” Brisson told QMI Agency. “Therefore, it gave us a reason to discuss his status.” http://www.torontosun.com/2014/03/05/agent-luongo-benching-catalyst-for-canucks-panthers-trade Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nuxfanabroad Posted June 12, 2014 Share Posted June 12, 2014 That's what happens when u try to find loopholes. Aquilini could've saved all this by buying out Luongo but remember he agreed to this route and dumping Schneider instead. So you're FORCED into dumping 25 mill into a river, because rules were changed, mid-stream?! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nuxfanabroad Posted June 12, 2014 Share Posted June 12, 2014 AWAKE Burkey! Some religion should tell this lump there's a HARD CAP on how many fattarses getta' squeeze into Heaven. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oldnews Posted June 12, 2014 Share Posted June 12, 2014 At best, the Canucks could petition the Commissioner at the time to undo the penalty. This could be a reasonable argument if Luongo actually did play out to near the end of his contract. It really couldn't be considered a circumvention attempt if he actually fulfilled the contract terms. If he plays any of those $1 million "real" dollar years and our penalty is over $3 million, we have an argument. I could easily see the league allowing us to spread that penalty over double the time or waive it entirely under those circumstances. This is a good point imo. if he retires early, the penalty is spread out and not all that significant, particularly if the cap continues to rise at the pace it has, otherwise, the contradiction you point out comes into effect. In either event, I don't see this penalty being particularly defensible or all that significant. I think this will have to be revisited and dispensed with. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
THERETOOL Posted June 12, 2014 Share Posted June 12, 2014 as i read this it just blows my mind how many of the posters were defending mike gillis ... He turned this team into a joke .. And the Aquilinis were only part of the problem .. God help us Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oldnews Posted June 12, 2014 Share Posted June 12, 2014 What's ironic is that after all the pissing and moaning about Luongo's contract and backdiving contracts in general, and nothing done about them at the time, the NHL then went ahead and approved yet another one, Ehrhoff's, a year later. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
THERETOOL Posted June 12, 2014 Share Posted June 12, 2014 What's ironic is that after all the pissing and moaning about Luongo's contract and backdiving contracts in general, and nothing done about them at the time, the NHL then went ahead and approved yet another one, Ehrhoff's, a year later. you are spot on ... doesn't seem balanced does it ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.