Canuck Surfer Posted June 20, 2019 Share Posted June 20, 2019 8 hours ago, Screw said: Makes no sense to retire when you can sit and collect $$$$. Bingo Which is why doctor's on retainer are a good investment... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mll Posted June 20, 2019 Share Posted June 20, 2019 4 hours ago, Gnarcore said: If he does retire could we get him back and buy him out for a lesser cap hit? The buyout would have a higher cap hit than the recapture penalty. The buyout cap hit would be entirely on the Canucks' books as Florida would be out of the equation. Luongo's salary is now under his cap hit as the contract was front loaded. It increases the buyout cap hit as it's cap hit minus salary savings. So the less the remaining salary owed, the lower the savings and the higher the buyout cap hit. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
grandmaster Posted June 20, 2019 Share Posted June 20, 2019 1 hour ago, 48MPHSlapShot said: Just a reminder that the NHL had the option to reject the Luongo contract when it was announced. They chose not to. They instead chose to punish us retroactively for utilizing a loophole that existed in the CBA. So true... 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mll Posted June 20, 2019 Share Posted June 20, 2019 (edited) 7 hours 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. Aquilini signed off on the CBA. It was approved unanimously by the Board of Governors. The recapture penalties in the CBA were introduced for those contracts signed earlier and he knew there was Luongo. New contracts can't be structured that way. Mike Richards signed his contract in 2007, Luongo in 2009. LA has a recapture penalty on their books. Teams were offered an out with the compliance buyouts. Buffalo (Ehrhoff) and NYR (Brad Richards) used them to get rid of their own recapture contracts. Edited June 20, 2019 by mll Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
grandmaster Posted June 20, 2019 Share Posted June 20, 2019 1 minute ago, mll said: Why would Aquilini challenge it - he signed off on the CBA. It was approved unanimously by the Board of Governors. The recapture penalties in the CBA were introduced for those contracts signed earlier and he knew there was Luongo. New contracts can't be structured that way. Mike Richards signed his contract in 2007, Luongo in 2009. LA has a recapture penalty on their books. Teams were offered an out with the compliance buyouts. Buffalo (Ehrhoff) and NYR (Brad Richards) used them to get rid of their own recapture contracts. Are you sure that was unanimous? I can’t see why Aquilini would sign off on that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mll Posted June 20, 2019 Share Posted June 20, 2019 2 minutes ago, grandmaster said: Are you sure that was unanimous? I can’t see why Aquilini would sign off on that. It was announced as such by Jeremy Jacobs, the Chairman of the Board of Governors. https://www.nhl.com/news/statement-from-jeremy-jacobs-boston-bruins-owner-and-chairman-of-nhl-board-of-governors/c-649592 "On behalf of the National Hockey League's Board of Governors, I am pleased to report that today we unanimously voted to ratify a new Collective Bargaining Agreement with the National Hockey League Players' Association. Which means, to our fans all around the globe, hockey is back." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
grandmaster Posted June 20, 2019 Share Posted June 20, 2019 1 hour ago, mll said: It was announced as such by Jeremy Jacobs, the Chairman of the Board of Governors. https://www.nhl.com/news/statement-from-jeremy-jacobs-boston-bruins-owner-and-chairman-of-nhl-board-of-governors/c-649592 "On behalf of the National Hockey League's Board of Governors, I am pleased to report that today we unanimously voted to ratify a new Collective Bargaining Agreement with the National Hockey League Players' Association. Which means, to our fans all around the globe, hockey is back." Jeremy Jacobs. The Chairman and owner of the Boston Bruins who pressured the NHL to wreck the Canucks chances of a Stanley Cup in 2011... - obvious refereeing bias - unprecedented extreme suspension in Rome for a one second late hit Not surprised he fleeced Aqulini into the CBA like that. 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Generational.EP40 Posted June 20, 2019 Share Posted June 20, 2019 How’s this for a thought: with the Canucks interested in Hoffman, what if the Canucks took on Lu’s contract as well and LTIR’d him until it expires where he can then officially retire? ...us being the Canucks, we can afford to pay him as he sits out his last remaining years whereas Florida can’t. It’d also be less/very minimal additional value we’d have to give to Florida since the point of them making Hoffman available is to clear cap for FA. Hoffman is going to be a UFA the following summer so us taking on Lu clears maximum cap for the Panthers to do what they want. That alone might even be a deal breaker with how teams are panicking to manage their cap since the cap won’t be raising much. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
khay Posted June 20, 2019 Share Posted June 20, 2019 9 hours ago, coastal.view said: 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 So, Aquillini should have stood his ground and refuse to sign the CBA unless they remove the cap recapture penalty, against other owners and Gary "has a very long memory" Bettman? Vancouver Canucks is a business that brings him a great deal of profit and I'm sure Aquillini was just eager to get the league back on. The cap recapture was a problem that would only manifest many years later so he chose to make money and worry about that problem later. In fact, that's a problem that his GM would have to worry about not him. A GM who did not have any say on cap recapture rule. From Luongo's point of view, there is nothing to complain regarding the cap recapture penalty. It does not affect the players who already signed those long deals. Bettman was made to look like a fool by the GMs that took advantage of the loophole so he introduced this rule to exact revenge, knowing full well that this rule is of little concern to the owners and the players. It was a sly move and it affected the fans. These fans that invest large amount of time and money to cheer on their team and whose mood swings widely depending on how his/her team performs. Those fans had no say in the CBA agreement so they have every right to be butthurt and complain if they want. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mll Posted June 20, 2019 Share Posted June 20, 2019 2 hours ago, khay said: So, Aquillini should have stood his ground and refuse to sign the CBA unless they remove the cap recapture penalty, against other owners and Gary "has a very long memory" Bettman? Vancouver Canucks is a business that brings him a great deal of profit and I'm sure Aquillini was just eager to get the league back on. The cap recapture was a problem that would only manifest many years later so he chose to make money and worry about that problem later. In fact, that's a problem that his GM would have to worry about not him. A GM who did not have any say on cap recapture rule. From Luongo's point of view, there is nothing to complain regarding the cap recapture penalty. It does not affect the players who already signed those long deals. Bettman was made to look like a fool by the GMs that took advantage of the loophole so he introduced this rule to exact revenge, knowing full well that this rule is of little concern to the owners and the players. It was a sly move and it affected the fans. These fans that invest large amount of time and money to cheer on their team and whose mood swings widely depending on how his/her team performs. Those fans had no say in the CBA agreement so they have every right to be butthurt and complain if they want. There were other teams with such contracts too. Boston - Savard, Chara (the contract ended in 2018) Buffalo - Ehrhoff (they used a compliance buyout) Chicago - Keith, Hossa Detroit - Franzen, Zetterberg, Kronwall LAK - Carter, Quick, Mike Richards (recapture penalty on the books) Minnesota - Parise, Suter Nashville - Weber NYR - Brad Richards (they used a compliance buyout) Pittsburgh - Crosby Tampa - Ohlund 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
khay Posted June 20, 2019 Share Posted June 20, 2019 25 minutes ago, mll said: There were other teams with such contracts too. Boston - Savard, Chara (the contract ended in 2018) Buffalo - Ehrhoff (they used a compliance buyout) Chicago - Keith, Hossa Detroit - Franzen, Zetterberg, Kronwall LAK - Carter, Quick, Mike Richards (recapture penalty on the books) Minnesota - Parise, Suter Nashville - Weber NYR - Brad Richards (they used a compliance buyout) Pittsburgh - Crosby Tampa - Ohlund True. Thanks for the list. But note that the players that were bought out were already underperforming in comparison to their salary (Ehrhoff, Brad Richards). Mike Richards is an exception due to the nature surrounding his contract termination. The other teams were eager to get the season going as all of these were playoff/cup contenders (even Minnesota, who just signed Parise and Sutter so they had some cup aspirations as well). The fact is that to the owners, starting the league so that they can start making money was more important than cap recapture, which was introduced so that Bettman to keep his ego up. If I'm an owner, I'm thinking that cap recapture may not even be a problem and only a problem 7+ years later. Should they have stalled signing a CBA for a problem that may or may not exist 7+ years later? I think cap recapture penalty was a sly move by Bettman and the fact that it may come back to haunt just the Canucks seems unfair. Having said that, I don't think it will affect the Canucks. I'm sure Luongo is going on LTIR. 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wai_lai416 Posted June 20, 2019 Share Posted June 20, 2019 I'm sure theres more to oh I have a lingering issue and want to go on LTIR.. otherwise everyone would be going on LTIR instead of retiring or getting bought out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BenDrinkin Posted June 20, 2019 Share Posted June 20, 2019 If the Canucks are the 1st team punished with the recapture rule, I'm quitting watching the NHL. I've already cut down watching by 70% so it won't be that hard. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
coastal.view Posted June 20, 2019 Share Posted June 20, 2019 6 hours ago, khay said: So, Aquillini should have stood his ground and refuse to sign the CBA unless they remove the cap recapture penalty, against other owners and Gary "has a very long memory" Bettman? Vancouver Canucks is a business that brings him a great deal of profit and I'm sure Aquillini was just eager to get the league back on. The cap recapture was a problem that would only manifest many years later so he chose to make money and worry about that problem later. In fact, that's a problem that his GM would have to worry about not him. A GM who did not have any say on cap recapture rule. From Luongo's point of view, there is nothing to complain regarding the cap recapture penalty. It does not affect the players who already signed those long deals. Bettman was made to look like a fool by the GMs that took advantage of the loophole so he introduced this rule to exact revenge, knowing full well that this rule is of little concern to the owners and the players. It was a sly move and it affected the fans. These fans that invest large amount of time and money to cheer on their team and whose mood swings widely depending on how his/her team performs. Those fans had no say in the CBA agreement so they have every right to be butthurt and complain if they want. finally we get to the heart of the issue i appreciate your recollection of these details calculated risks were taken by owners as they only had a chance to be burned by this recapture rule and most have managed to avoid it Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Psycho_Path Posted June 20, 2019 Share Posted June 20, 2019 What happened to our last goalie to wear #1? He's Luongone Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
danaimo Posted June 21, 2019 Share Posted June 21, 2019 Maybe someone here has the answer to this. If Luongo is traded back from Fla to Van does the recapture penalty become moot? I'm sure that I read somewhere that this would be the case. In which case he could either go on LTIR or simply retire without impacting the Canucks cap space. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wai_lai416 Posted June 21, 2019 Share Posted June 21, 2019 12 hours ago, danaimo said: Maybe someone here has the answer to this. If Luongo is traded back from Fla to Van does the recapture penalty become moot? I'm sure that I read somewhere that this would be the case. In which case he could either go on LTIR or simply retire without impacting the Canucks cap space. No you still have to pay the recapture regardless what team Luongo goes to if he ends up retiring. I'd think if Luongo was to go on LTIR whoever pays the salary I'm guessing insurance will do some investigation to make sure its legitimate not like oh I'll just go on LTIR to end my career. Whether Luongo retires or not I'd think will prolly have to wait till after July 1st and see where bovoroski goes Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fan since 82 Posted June 21, 2019 Share Posted June 21, 2019 Surely the Canucks could take this to court. They signed a contract with a guy, and the contract was approved by the league. It doesn't seem like a legal thing to then have the league turn around and penalise the Canucks for making a deal that was withing the guidlines at the time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gurn Posted June 21, 2019 Share Posted June 21, 2019 5 minutes ago, Fan since 82 said: Surely the Canucks could take this to court. They signed a contract with a guy, and the contract was approved by the league. It doesn't seem like a legal thing to then have the league turn around and penalise the Canucks for making a deal that was withing the guidlines at the time. The league, through central bargaining changed the rules and both the players Association and the owners of the Canucks agreed to the changes. Imo court action gets tossed out. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kobayashi Maru Posted June 21, 2019 Share Posted June 21, 2019 Can Luongo and the Canucks/Panthers mutually terminate the rest of the contract. Luongo loses out on some cash but it was all frontloaded so maybe he does both teams a solid. Unlikely but possible? 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