Nuxfanabroad Posted June 12, 2014 Share Posted June 12, 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. The CONSTITUTION?! Isn't that some ol'rag that the NSA used to wipe their collective ****holes? The "pursuit of happiness" is a "right" for major US markets, the rest of us get Bettman revisions & impossible small print. As a fan, I've gotta' 'lawyer up' to cheer on my boys.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jiggs50 Posted June 12, 2014 Share Posted June 12, 2014 No need to be worried. The cba rules and crap will probably change. If the league does try to impose any penalties I can see lawsuits etc etc.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nuxfanabroad Posted June 12, 2014 Share Posted June 12, 2014 "All animals are equal(eg:'Yotes, Bruins); yet SOME are more equal than others. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oldnews 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 You evidently didn't read very much - any idea how many contracts this actually effects? Scapegoating Gillis is ridiculous. Carter, Chara, Crosby, Doughty, Ehrhoff, Erat, Franzen, Hossa, Keith, Kronwall, Malone, Myers, Ohlund, Parise, Quick, Richards, Richards, Savard, Spezza, Suter, Weber, Zetterberg. By this standard, that's a whole lot of GMs (some pretty damn good ones) who turned their teams into a "joke". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oldnews Posted June 12, 2014 Share Posted June 12, 2014 The CONSTITUTION?! Isn't that some ol'rag that the NSA used to wipe their collective ****holes? The "pursuit of happiness" is a "right" for major US markets, the rest of us get Bettman revisions & impossible small print. As a fan, I've gotta' 'lawyer up' to cheer on my boys.... If the Constitution is toilet paper, then the CBA is a dog diaper. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nuxfanabroad Posted June 12, 2014 Share Posted June 12, 2014 If the Constitution is toilet paper, then the CBA is a dog diaper. Gotta confess..it was enjoyable to see Donald Fehr treat Bettman like he was E.T. with an infectious disease.(lots of 'calling home' too) But I never pondered the symbolic escalators deeply enough... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
We Are All Cynics Posted June 12, 2014 Share Posted June 12, 2014 lol. I like how Luongo gets his own page. I don't see Luongo retiring unless he absolutely has to. But he hates Vancouver now so I wouldn't be surprised if he drops that last years 8 mill cap hit on us... Wouldn't be the first time Luongo cost the Canucks by slipping 8 on us! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
erkayloomeh Posted June 12, 2014 Share Posted June 12, 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.and the alternative would have been to let luongo walk for nothing in which case we would all still be crying about that. Gmmg didn't have much choice. Seems to me Luo is the one ppl should be pissed at. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Martin Frk Posted June 12, 2014 Share Posted June 12, 2014 Classic MG! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Neko Posted June 12, 2014 Share Posted June 12, 2014 I hated that contract since the day it was signed, Luongo himself said a couple years ago that he regretted signing that because it's kind of a lose-lose for both the team and him since he also agreed on a NTC. Of course this is damage done by Gillis. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
apollo Posted June 12, 2014 Share Posted June 12, 2014 Oh my god it just gets even worse and worse huh? First we lose our most prolific goaltender this city has ever seen then we get nothing in return then we get stuck with a million and change in cap space and now to top it off we could get hit for 8 mill ?!?!? while Florida gets a superstar goaltender for 4 million a year ? Tallon made a phenomenal deal. I said it before and I'll say it again... This is going to be the worst deal in canucks history. Not just on the ice but also off the ice. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BI3KSA- Posted June 12, 2014 Share Posted June 12, 2014 Should have made him happy so he could stay here and make sure the $8m time bomb doesn't explode ... but no, Tortorella had to sit him for the HC because of a myopic decision to win one game. I'll take the chance at the 8 mil for one season over paying the 5.33 mil till 2022... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChuckNORRIS4Cup Posted June 12, 2014 Share Posted June 12, 2014 GMMG out GM'ed again! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DefCon1 Posted June 12, 2014 Share Posted June 12, 2014 Three cheers for MG Thats not really MG's fault. The NHL and that idiot Burke retroactively changed the Luongo contract. Nobody saw it coming and I didn't know the NHL was this bush league that they could simply change the rules of a contract that was signed many years ago. The Canucks should appeal the penalty if Luongo ever retired sooner than the end of his contract just like NJD. Never really liked how Bettman and his cronies run the league, like its some kind of a mafia group with some GMs getting more preferential treatment than others. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ice orca Posted June 12, 2014 Share Posted June 12, 2014 I thought it was the time Lou had to pull himself of the ice to get rid of the Ticking Time Bomb. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dazzle Posted June 12, 2014 Share Posted June 12, 2014 http://www.reddit.com/r/canucks/comments/27q6dt/anyone_else_worried_about_the_ticking_timebomb_on/ Anyone else worried about the ticking timebomb on Luongo? (self.canucks) submitted 2 days ago by proudcanucklehead From what I understand. One of the implications of burke putting in the "Luongo rule" in the last cba was that if Lu retires before he finishes his contract (in 8 yrs I believe). The nucks are hit with the cap benefit we receiced from frontloading his contract. So if he retires today. We are hit with 1 million in cap recapture penalty for the next 8 years. But say. He decides to retired with one year left on his contract. We could have as high as an 8 mil cap hit in one year (when subban/horvat/shinkaruk are in their prime) im hoping it doesn't come back to bite us. But that scares the bejesus outta me http://www.sbnation.com/nhl/2014/3/4/5471304/roberto-luongo-trade-canucks-rebuild-panthers After Roberto Luongo trade, what is Canucks' plan? By Adam Gretz on Mar 4 2014, 6:47p 1 Greg M. Cooper-USA TODAY Sports The Vancouver Canucks went from having Roberto Luongo and Cory Schneider to having neither one of them in less than a year. That was unexpected. Tweet (11) Share (29) Share 1 Comment One year ago the Vancouver Canucks had the mother of all goaltending controversies. Vancouver Canucks blog Nucks Misconduct Florida Panthers blog Litter Box Cats With Roberto Luongo and Cory Schneider on the same team they not only had two starters, but two of the best in the entire league at the position. It was pretty much assumed that at some point one of them was going to have to go. Less than a year later, they're both gone. First it was Schneider in a shocking draft-day trade that sent the former first-round pick to the New Jersey Devils in exchange for the No. 9 overall pick in the 2013 draft. The Canucks used that pick on forward Bo Horvat. Then, on Tuesday, less than 24 hours before the 2014 trade deadline, it was Luongo going back to the Florida Panthers, the team Vancouver acquired him from prior to the 2006-07 season, in return for goalie Jacob Markstrom and forward Shawn Matthias. Of all the scenarios that seemed possible for this situation a year ago this ... well, this was not one of them. The trade of Luongo ends what had been a wild seven-plus year run in Vancouver, a tenure that featured some drama, non-stop trade rumors toward the end, a lot of wins, and a team that was one Game 7 on home ice away from winning what would have been the first Stanley Cup in franchise history. And now it's over. A Luongo trade has seemingly been in the works for more than a year now, but it was almost assume that when it finally happened the Canucks would simply insert Schneider into the No. 1 role and continue to have one of the better goalies in the league. Instead, at least for the time being, they will move on with Markstrom and Eddie Lack. On one hand, they are both young, cheap, talented, and have potential. They're also completely unproven and as we've seen time and time again with young goalies, those guys can be complete wild cards. Yes, Lack has been outstanding in his limited action this season, and it's matched up well with the numbers he posted in the AHL before joining the Canucks, but it's such a small sampling of games that it's almost impossible to project. General managers and scouts, even the best ones, get fooled by young goalies constantly. Markstrom has been on the radar for quite a while as one of the top goalie prospects in the league but has disappointed in his early NHL career. Along with the future uncertainty in net, there is also the potential cap recapture penalties the Canucks could face down the line if/when Luongo retires before the end of his current deal. Like, say, if he were to retire in 2021. Good luck with all of that. But if this was going to be the ultimate endgame for Vancouver, what was the point of trading Schneider at last year's draft? Did they view Bo Horvat (or any other prospect at that pick) so highly that it was worth trading what was supposed to be their long-term answer in net? Especially if there was still a chance that Luongo was going to be leaving town? Get the latest rumors, news & analysis It all seems very suspect, almost as if there was never really a plan in place and the team just backed its way into a complete rebuild. In the aftermath of all of this the Canucks are left with a smoldering crater in their crease as the team turned its two starting goalies -- again, two of the best in the league -- into a top-10 pick, a disappointing (to this point) goalie prospect, and a third-liner. All in less than a year. With Ryan Kesler seemingly on his way out of town -- if not before the trade deadline on Wednesday, almost certainly before the start of next season -- and the Sedin twins looking as if they are starting to break down, both physically and in terms of their point production, it appears the Canucks' championship window is in the process of slamming shut. It's just a matter of how long it's going to take for them to rebuild the organization into something that opens it back up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gollumpus Posted June 12, 2014 Share Posted June 12, 2014 You evidently didn't read very much - any idea how many contracts this actually effects? Scapegoating Gillis is ridiculous. Carter, Chara, Crosby, Doughty, Ehrhoff, Erat, Franzen, Hossa, Keith, Kronwall, Malone, Myers, Ohlund, Parise, Quick, Richards, Richards, Savard, Spezza, Suter, Weber, Zetterberg. By this standard, that's a whole lot of GMs (some pretty damn good ones) who turned their teams into a "joke". Agree. It's interesting to see the amount of re-interpretation of a revisionist history that comes out in these topics. regards, G. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nino Posted June 12, 2014 Share Posted June 12, 2014 I don't get your subject heading Luongo's ticking time bomb. Are you saying Luongo has a ticking time bomb? Or are you saying Luongo is a ticking time bomb? Note to evreyone, don't be this guy!!! FYI I don't see a problem with the heading, luongos ticking time bomb would imply that he has a ticking time bomb and if you were to think about it put two and to together and actually read the post you may see that he's talking about his contract. So if you think about it Lou's time bomb that he has is his contract, get it? It's time for you to retire officer and I don't think the board needs a replacement. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nino Posted June 12, 2014 Share Posted June 12, 2014 Thats not really MG's fault. The NHL and that idiot Burke retroactively changed the Luongo contract. Nobody saw it coming and I didn't know the NHL was this bush league that they could simply change the rules of a contract that was signed many years ago. The Canucks should appeal the penalty if Luongo ever retired sooner than the end of his contract just like NJD. Never really liked how Bettman and his cronies run the league, like its some kind of a mafia group with some GMs getting more preferential treatment than others. The way MG devastated this team everything is his fault. You find gum stuck to the bottom of your shoe it's his fault. On a serious note I feel it is a little his fault and I've talked about it in the past. MG is a lawer and knew he was bending the rules as a lawer he should have also known that the league had the power to change its rules and finding a way to punish the rule benders could be a possibility. He's a lawyer how could he not its a lawers job to cross every T and for every I. There was a risk involved and he had to know it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sedinery55 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. Totally agree. If the owners would have been able to swallow the 22 million or so owed the Bobby Lu on the buy out, then the team would have been in a much different scenario. Perhaps certain two way centers wouldn't have lost confidence in the organization. Perhaps the Canucks wouldn't be asking themselves how you fall from President's trophy winners in back to back seasons with a Stanley cup finals appearance to missing the playoffs in three years. Think about a tandem of Schneider and Lack. Much more solid. We wouldn't have had Bo Horvat, but at the same time, you never know what other deals might have been on the table for MG and company at last years draft. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.