Popular Post higgyfan Posted June 19, 2019 Popular Post Share Posted June 19, 2019 Loungo needs to come out of the closet and admit to the hockey world that he has a serious allergy to his jock strap and can no longer play hockey. 5 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
24K PureCool Posted June 19, 2019 Share Posted June 19, 2019 (edited) We have MG willing to go to court if they ever impose the recapture penalty. I think we will be fine. MG is a lawyer and have a lot of time on his hand. Edited June 19, 2019 by 24K PureCool 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Warhippy Posted June 19, 2019 Share Posted June 19, 2019 3 minutes ago, mll said: No they didn't. They got a penalty for terminating the contract on top of the recapture penalty. One has to wonder what those cap hits would be worth if they are in fact possible to trade (unsure if they can be though) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Elias Pettersson Posted June 19, 2019 Share Posted June 19, 2019 6 minutes ago, mll said: No they didn't. They got a penalty for terminating the contract on top of the recapture penalty. You are correct... RECAPTURE PENALTY (1) 2019-20 2020-21 2021-22 2022-23 2023-24 2024-25 2025-26 Richards, Mike $1,320,000 TOTAL $1,320,000 TERMINATED (1) 2019-20 2020-21 2021-22 2022-23 2023-24 2024-25 2025-26 Richards, Mike $250,000 $700,000 $900,000 $900,000 $700,000 $700,000 $600,000 TOTAL $250,000 $700,000 $900,000 $900,000 $700,000 $700,000 $600,000 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mll Posted June 19, 2019 Share Posted June 19, 2019 2 minutes ago, Warhippy said: If the league tries to hit Vancouver with any recapture I sincerely hope the Canucks take the league to arbitration over it. Jersey paid didly squat over the Kovalcash issue. The Hawks got out of Hossa, Detroit out of a few and more. Luongo's contract was signed and approved by the league under the CBA before the new rules were in place, which is why people jokingly call it the lounge rule. No court of law would ever uphold the leagues argument when they changed the rules after a legally binding contract was signed and agreed upon The CBA was approved unanimously by the Board of Governors where each team has a representative. There's a whole section on recapture penalties with examples on how to calculate them. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VegasCanuck Posted June 19, 2019 Share Posted June 19, 2019 9 minutes ago, mll said: The 800K would disappear from the books and be replaced by the ~3M recapture penalty. So, could be worse... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JM_ Posted June 19, 2019 Share Posted June 19, 2019 fitting/poetic? &$^& off Bob. 1 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Warhippy Posted June 19, 2019 Share Posted June 19, 2019 6 minutes 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. Yes, it was ratified and voted on unanimously. But this deal was also ratified and accepted by the league prior to the new CBA being created. Meaning that in essence the league is arbitrarily going back on agreed upon contracts it had signed and accepted in good faith. If the Canucks challenge, this cap recapture will be stricken down. The league has certainly given up the ol punishment schtick in the past on a number of teams. Jersey most recently 1 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BPA Posted June 19, 2019 Share Posted June 19, 2019 The Mike Richards situation is a bit different. LA terminated the contract. NHLPA stepped in. LA did not want to go to Arbitration and they reached a settlement. The recapture penalty is part of that settlement. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the grinder Posted June 19, 2019 Share Posted June 19, 2019 well rl retires this year its 2.8 for 3 years next year 4.2 for 2 years and the last year is 8.5 for one year yikes so poison number 1 it is retire now roberto Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dannydog Posted June 19, 2019 Share Posted June 19, 2019 7 minutes ago, Jimmy McGill said: fitting/poetic? &$^& off Bob. Ya, what's with that? Thats a pretty douche bag thing to throw out there. 2 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Provost Posted June 19, 2019 Share Posted June 19, 2019 20 minutes 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 They can’t really do that because it was something included in the next CBA that they signed onto m. The time fight it was then. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mll Posted June 19, 2019 Share Posted June 19, 2019 1 minute ago, Warhippy said: Yes, it was ratified and voted on unanimously. But this deal was also ratified and accepted by the league prior to the new CBA being created. Meaning that in essence the league is arbitrarily going back on agreed upon contracts it had signed and accepted in good faith. If the Canucks challenge, this cap recapture will be stricken down. The league has certainly given up the ol punishment schtick in the past on a number of teams. Jersey most recently By signing the CBA all the owners accepted to penalise those contracts. The examples in the CBA are obviously about contracts signed before 2013. Mike Richard signed in 2007 and has a recapture penalty. Luongo signed in 2009. The league also offered an out by allowing 2 compliance buyouts. Buffalo bought out Ehrhoff to get out of the recapture contract. NYR did the same with Brad Richards who also had a recapture contract. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HKSR Posted June 19, 2019 Share Posted June 19, 2019 If Lu doesn't retire and goes straight to LTIR, u can bet a part of him is doing it for the Canucks sake. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mll Posted June 19, 2019 Share Posted June 19, 2019 3 minutes ago, the grinder said: well rl retires this year its 2.8 for 3 years next year 4.2 for 2 years and the last year is 8.5 for one year yikes so poison number 1 it is retire now roberto Those numbers are wrong because they don't take into account that the Canucks retained 15% of the contract. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the grinder Posted June 19, 2019 Share Posted June 19, 2019 (edited) 5 minutes ago, mll said: Those numbers are wrong because they don't take into account that the Canucks retained 15% of the contract. no they are not wrong I just checked it that number is the salary cap recapture penalty florida part is 1,2 for 3 years 73,000 for 2 0 for the 3rd year Edited June 19, 2019 by the grinder Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brian42 Posted June 19, 2019 Share Posted June 19, 2019 (edited) 1 hour ago, HKSR said: If Lu doesn't retire and goes straight to LTIR, u can bet a part of him is doing it for the Canucks sake. Agreed but he would have to do it for 3 years otherwise the Canucks get hit really hard in the last year. Edited June 19, 2019 by brian42 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mll Posted June 19, 2019 Share Posted June 19, 2019 Just now, the grinder said: no they are not wrong I just checked it It's not possible for them to be correct. There's obviously some rounding issues but the total owed cannot be the same regardless of the year he retires. 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: It's not possible for them to be correct. There's obviously some rounding issues but the total owed cannot be the same regardless of the year he retires. its a penalty and that how it works Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post Screw Posted June 19, 2019 Popular Post Share Posted June 19, 2019 Makes no sense to retire when you can sit and collect $$$$. 1 4 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