18W-40C-6W Posted June 19, 2019 Share Posted June 19, 2019 2 minutes ago, Screw said: Makes no sense to retire when you can sit and collect $$$$. Exactly, so he'll go on LTIR because he's not fit to play/can't pass his medical and everyone is happy 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mll Posted June 19, 2019 Share Posted June 19, 2019 (edited) 16 minutes ago, the grinder said: its a penalty and that how it works And those numbers are incorrect. The recapture penalty is [ sum of salaries paid less sum of the cap hits ] divided by the remaining years. The Canucks have retained 15% of salary and therefore 15% of the cap hit (800K). So each year that difference between total salary and total cap hits gets adjusted. 15% of the salary paid gets added to the total salaries paid and 800K gets added to the total of the cap hits. Take any year and multiply "penalty term" by the recapture penalty and you will always get ~8.52M and that's not possible. That 8.52M is the amount of the penalty at the date of the trade. It would have stayed constant if there hadn't been a retention but there is one. Edited June 19, 2019 by mll Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MystifyNCrucify Posted June 19, 2019 Share Posted June 19, 2019 Pending a physical, trade a 7th and a bag of pucks for luongo. Trade markstrom, goldi, and a third for Ristolainen. Run with lou and demko for a year. Am i doing this right? Should i write this up in the proposals section? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the grinder Posted June 19, 2019 Share Posted June 19, 2019 1 minute ago, mll said: And those numbers are incorrect. The recapture penalty is [ sum of all salary paid less sum of the cap hits ] divided by the remaining years. The Canucks have retained 15% of salary and therefore 15% of the cap hit (800K). So each year that difference between total salary and total cap hits gets adjusted. 15% of the salary paid gets added to the total salary and 800K gets added to the total of the cap hit. Take any year and multiply "penalty term" by the recapture penalty and you will always get 8.52M and that's not possible. That 8.52M is the amount of the penalty at the date of the trade. It would have stayed constant if there hadn't been a retention but there is one. lol it called a penalty that's the number I have read it from a few different sources google it ps u answered your own question and if you look there is retention there 8.5 is the penalty Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mll Posted June 19, 2019 Share Posted June 19, 2019 2 minutes ago, the grinder said: lol it called a penalty that's the number I have read it from a few different sources google it ps u answered your own question and if you look there is retention there 8.5 is the penalty See below. New numbers: 1 hour ago, CRAZY_4_NAZZY said: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
grandmaster Posted June 19, 2019 Share Posted June 19, 2019 1 hour ago, Fanuck said: No matter what happens, I hope people remember what Lu did for this franchise and this country. Best of luck whatever decision you make Lu, you were truly great here. Best post of the year! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the grinder Posted June 19, 2019 Share Posted June 19, 2019 (edited) 6 minutes ago, mll said: See below. New numbers: ya he believes so he doesn't know , he is guessing lol good guess tho it pretty close to what I previously posted Edited June 19, 2019 by the grinder Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mll Posted June 19, 2019 Share Posted June 19, 2019 13 minutes ago, the grinder said: ya he believes so he doesn't know , he is guessing lol good guess tho it pretty close to what I previously posted 3.033M x 3 years 4.271M x 2 years 7.892M x 1 year Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the grinder Posted June 19, 2019 Share Posted June 19, 2019 2 minutes ago, mll said: 3.033M x 3 years 4.271M x 2 years 7.892M x 1 year what ever the number is its close enough it still a recapture penalty and its still gonna suck what ever number it is Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VegasCanuck Posted June 19, 2019 Share Posted June 19, 2019 1 hour ago, Warhippy said: If the league tries to hit Vancouver with any recapture I sincerely hope the Canucks take the league to arbitration over it. Jersey paid didly squat over the Kovalcash issue. The Hawks got out of Hossa, Detroit out of a few and more. Luongo's contract was signed and approved by the league under the CBA before the new rules were in place, which is why people jokingly call it the lounge rule. No court of law would ever uphold the leagues argument when they changed the rules after a legally binding contract was signed and agreed upon I've stated that exact same thing on this board a number of times and been blasted for it. I have 30 years of experience in business, you don't change the rules of an employment contract after the fact, unless you can get both employee (Luongo) and the employer (Canucks) to accept the new agreement. The original contract was ratified by the NHL, there are legal issues with trying to change how its governed, after its been accepted by the league. My guess is that an exception will be made to it if he does in fact retire. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VegasCanuck Posted June 19, 2019 Share Posted June 19, 2019 1 hour ago, mll said: The CBA was approved unanimously by the Board of Governors where each team has a representative. There's a whole section on recapture penalties with examples on how to calculate them. There's still the issue that the CBA with recapture penalties does not predate the signed contract the Canucks signed with Luongo, which was ratified by the league. @Warhippyis correct in his opinion that this would be struck down in court. If he retires, as I have stated many times in previous threads (and been flamed), there will be an exception established for this contract and it will be done quietly and out of public sight. The League, Canucks and NHLPA will reach an agreement to waive this clause of the CBA as opposed to testing its legal merit in court. It would be a really hard case for the NHL to win and considering they closed the loophole in the current CBA, they will make it go away. 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
erkayloomeh Posted June 20, 2019 Share Posted June 20, 2019 47 minutes ago, MystifyNCrucify said: Pending a physical, trade a 7th and a bag of pucks for luongo. Trade markstrom, goldi, and a third for Ristolainen. Run with lou and demko for a year. Am i doing this right? Should i write this up in the proposals section? Ide be careful with that. In two years when Demko is fully developed we will have another goalie controversy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
erkayloomeh Posted June 20, 2019 Share Posted June 20, 2019 26 minutes ago, mll said: 3.033M x 3 years 4.271M x 2 years 7.892M x 1 year So there's a penalty for 6 more years . ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
babalu Posted June 20, 2019 Share Posted June 20, 2019 (edited) 5 minutes ago, erkayloomeh said: So there's a penalty for 6 more years . ? No the 3 years is the cap hit we get for the next 3 years if he retires this year. If he retires next year it will be 4.271 for 2 years and if he retires in the final year of his contract the cap will be 7.892 for 1 year. Edited June 20, 2019 by babalu 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Warhippy Posted June 20, 2019 Share Posted June 20, 2019 25 minutes ago, VegasCanuck said: There's still the issue that the CBA with recapture penalties does not predate the signed contract the Canucks signed with Luongo, which was ratified by the league. @Warhippyis correct in his opinion that this would be struck down in court. If he retires, as I have stated many times in previous threads (and been flamed), there will be an exception established for this contract and it will be done quietly and out of public sight. The League, Canucks and NHLPA will reach an agreement to waive this clause of the CBA as opposed to testing its legal merit in court. It would be a really hard case for the NHL to win and considering they closed the loophole in the current CBA, they will make it go away. Don't forget that with New Jersey there is clear and present precedent for the league softening their stance on penalizing a team. Which occurred AFTER the new CBA was ratified 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
coastal.view Posted June 20, 2019 Share Posted June 20, 2019 (edited) 2 hours ago, brian42 said: This rule is such a joke how can Vancouver be punished for a contract which when signed did not break any rules not to mention former management, not our player etc etc. but how do you make a new rule to punish legal contracts which were already in effect. its a good rule for contracts signed after the rule came into effect but it’s ridiculous to punish a team who already signed a legal contract. Canucks didn’t make the rules they just played by them, shouldn’t be punished for being creative. you bargain such terms into the new/next collective agreement and have all players and team management/owners agree to it and then it becomes a binding term on all involved and guess what that is exactly what occured not sure how people can now complain about an agreement made by the very people who will be impacted by the agreed upon rules does not mean you have to like it but you cannot argue it was not fairly arrived at but yeah fans get butt hurt easily about things that negatively effect their team regardless of whether unfairness is really involved Edited June 20, 2019 by coastal.view 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mike27 Posted June 20, 2019 Share Posted June 20, 2019 1 hour ago, Screw said: Makes no sense to retire when you can sit and collect $$$$. Exactly.....if Luongo retires, he forfeits the remaining salary in his contract. If he goes on LTIR, he gets paid. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
5Fivehole0 Posted June 20, 2019 Share Posted June 20, 2019 2 hours ago, mll said: No they didn't. They got a penalty for terminating the contract on top of the recapture penalty. Yup, it was an easy call. LA had no right to terminate that contract. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
I.Am.Ironman Posted June 20, 2019 Share Posted June 20, 2019 1 hour ago, VegasCanuck said: I've stated that exact same thing on this board a number of times and been blasted for it. I have 30 years of experience in business, you don't change the rules of an employment contract after the fact, unless you can get both employee (Luongo) and the employer (Canucks) to accept the new agreement. The original contract was ratified by the NHL, there are legal issues with trying to change how its governed, after its been accepted by the league. My guess is that an exception will be made to it if he does in fact retire. I think the problem with the bolded is that Aquilini would have agreed to the terms of the new CBA by signing off on it as all owners need to sign. The league also provided an opportunity for teams to get out of these contracts by offering the 2 buyouts, one of which the Canucks used on David Booth IIRC. I don't think Luongo is affected or consulted at all as it is an agreement between the Canucks and the NHL, Luongo gets paid his salary either way, the penalty is in the cap recapture. 1 hour ago, VegasCanuck said: There's still the issue that the CBA with recapture penalties does not predate the signed contract the Canucks signed with Luongo, which was ratified by the league. @Warhippyis correct in his opinion that this would be struck down in court. If he retires, as I have stated many times in previous threads (and been flamed), there will be an exception established for this contract and it will be done quietly and out of public sight. The League, Canucks and NHLPA will reach an agreement to waive this clause of the CBA as opposed to testing its legal merit in court. It would be a really hard case for the NHL to win and considering they closed the loophole in the current CBA, they will make it go away. I hope you are right re the NHL not wanting it to go to court but I simply don't trust Bettman et al. It wouldn't surprise me in the slightest to see the Canucks get dinged. Double standards are plenty in this leauge... see NJ and Kovie as people have mentioned. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
24K PureCool Posted June 20, 2019 Share Posted June 20, 2019 22 minutes ago, I.Am.Ironman said: I think the problem with the bolded is that Aquilini would have agreed to the terms of the new CBA by signing off on it as all owners need to sign. The league also provided an opportunity for teams to get out of these contracts by offering the 2 buyouts, one of which the Canucks used on David Booth IIRC. I don't think Luongo is affected or consulted at all as it is an agreement between the Canucks and the NHL, Luongo gets paid his salary either way, the penalty is in the cap recapture. I hope you are right re the NHL not wanting it to go to court but I simply don't trust Bettman et al. It wouldn't surprise me in the slightest to see the Canucks get dinged. Double standards are plenty in this leauge... see NJ and Kovie as people have mentioned. Also consider the US TV deal coming up. I don't think the NHL wants to get into a long and nasty legal case that might hurt the upcoming deal. There is a chance the current CBA may be deemed void should it ever goes to court and should that happen, the NHL can kiss goodbye to the big pay day. Like Vegas said, good chance NHL is going to quietly waive it or at least significantly reduce it (or force us to forfeit a pick(s)l. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now