alt kilgore Posted June 28, 2019 Share Posted June 28, 2019 (edited) 37 minutes ago, Kevin Biestra said: I think there's a chance the league will just give the Canucks a mulligan on this one. I mean, if the Devils / Kovalchuk thing can be weaseled out of with no consequences... That was pretty much the most egregious situation imaginable, and then completely avoided for no discernable logical or legal reason. Canucks may as well take a shot and bring up ridiculous precedents like that. Yup. I don't get why Jim Benning hasn't or can't fight harder against this. The fact that it was a retroactive penalty based on a decision by Bettman and other owners should count for something. New Jersey with Kovalchuk. A little different circumstances but still, they appealed and got a reduction of their penalty. Why do we get this shrug of the shoulders and "there's nothing we can do about it"? https://www.cbc.ca/sports/hockey/nhl/nhl-reduces-punishment-for-devils-ilya-kovalchuk-deal-1.2562583 The New Jersey Devils won't have to forfeit a first-round pick after all for attempting to circumvent the salary cap by signing Ilya Kovalchuk to a 17-year deal in 2010, the NHL announced Thursday. The league originally docked the club a first-round pick in either 2011, 2012, 2013 or 2014 along with a third-rounder in 2011 and US$3 million for trying to give the Russian star a contract that lasted until his mid-40s just to even out the cap hit. The Devils recently applied to the league for reconsideration and relief from a portion of the original penalty, citing primarily changes in circumstances which, in the club's view, changed the appropriateness of the sanctions. . . Edited June 28, 2019 by kilgore Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alflives Posted June 28, 2019 Share Posted June 28, 2019 Just now, kilgore said: Yup. I don't get why Jim Benning hasn't or can't fight harder against this. The fact that it was a retroactive penalty based on a decision by Bettman and other owners should count for something. New Jersey with Kovalchuk. A little different circumstances but still, they appealed and got a reduction of their penalty. Why do we get this shrug of the shoulders and "there's nothing we can do about it"? https://www.sportsnet.ca/hockey/nhl/devils-kovalchuk-0-3/ The New Jersey Devils won't have to forfeit a first-round pick after all for attempting to circumvent the salary cap by signing Ilya Kovalchuk to a 17-year deal in 2010, the NHL announced Thursday. The league originally docked the club a first-round pick in either 2011, 2012, 2013 or 2014 along with a third-rounder in 2011 and US$3 million for trying to give the Russian star a contract that lasted until his mid-40s just to even out the cap hit. The Devils recently applied to the league for reconsideration and relief from a portion of the original penalty, citing primarily changes in circumstances which, in the club's view, changed the appropriateness of the sanctions. That's true, but wasn't that all done quietly? I think the Canucks are pursuing a remedy to the cap recapture, but it's being done quietly. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WeneedLumme Posted June 28, 2019 Share Posted June 28, 2019 There are two types of circumvention: legal and illegal. It would be similar to to arranging your affairs to minimize your income taxes. Doing it in compliance with the law is tax avoidance and is totally legal. Doing it contrary to the law is tax evasion, and is illegal. Introducing rules that retroactively change tax avoidance strategies into tax evasion (and imposing substantial penalties) is reprehensible and unconscionable. That is what the NHL has chosen to do to the Canucks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alt kilgore Posted June 28, 2019 Share Posted June 28, 2019 1 minute ago, Alflives said: That's true, but wasn't that all done quietly? I think the Canucks are pursuing a remedy to the cap recapture, but it's being done quietly. I really hope you are right. But they've already stated publicly that there's nothing they can do. (I corrected that link to where it should be BTW) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alflives Posted June 28, 2019 Share Posted June 28, 2019 Just now, kilgore said: I really hope you are right. But they've already stated publicly that there's nothing they can do. (I corrected that link to where it should be BTW) Of course, if the Canucks are pursuing the issue privately, they should be saying publicly there is nothing they can do. If they say something publicly then it's not private any more, right? This is an issue that would be above JB anyway. This is a governor issue, so Aquilini would be involved. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baggins Posted June 28, 2019 Share Posted June 28, 2019 (edited) 10 minutes ago, kilgore said: Yup. I don't get why Jim Benning hasn't or can't fight harder against this. The fact that it was a retroactive penalty based on a decision by Bettman and other owners should count for something. New Jersey with Kovalchuk. A little different circumstances but still, they appealed and got a reduction of their penalty. Why do we get this shrug of the shoulders and "there's nothing we can do about it"? https://www.sportsnet.ca/hockey/nhl/devils-kovalchuk-0-3/ The New Jersey Devils won't have to forfeit a first-round pick after all for attempting to circumvent the salary cap by signing Ilya Kovalchuk to a 17-year deal in 2010, the NHL announced Thursday. The league originally docked the club a first-round pick in either 2011, 2012, 2013 or 2014 along with a third-rounder in 2011 and US$3 million for trying to give the Russian star a contract that lasted until his mid-40s just to even out the cap hit. The Devils recently applied to the league for reconsideration and relief from a portion of the original penalty, citing primarily changes in circumstances which, in the club's view, changed the appropriateness of the sanctions. You're referring to the NJ penalty for the initial 17 year contract deemed circumvention. They do have a cap recapture penalty on that deal as well. The scale was balanced a bit in the last lockout and the new CBA via the cap recapture penalty, which retroactively punished teams that gave out these cheating deals. The Devils, for example, have a cap recapture penalty of $250,000 annually through 2025, a.k.a. dead cap space. Which is below minimum wage for the NHL, but hey, Kovalchuk just so happened to retire at a point in his deal where cap recapture wasn't an issue. https://ca.sports.yahoo.com/blogs/nhl-puck-daddy/nhl-lets-nj-devils-off-hook-for-ilya-kovalchuk-contract-punishment-181853523.html They got off cheap because Kovi retired early into the deal. Edited June 28, 2019 by Baggins Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alt kilgore Posted June 28, 2019 Share Posted June 28, 2019 4 minutes ago, Baggins said: You're referring to the NJ penalty for the initial 17 year contract deemed circumvention. They do have a cap recapture penalty on that deal as well. The scale was balanced a bit in the last lockout and the new CBA via the cap recapture penalty, which retroactively punished teams that gave out these cheating deals. The Devils, for example, have a cap recapture penalty of $250,000 annually through 2025, a.k.a. dead cap space. Which is below minimum wage for the NHL, but hey, Kovalchuk just so happened to retire at a point in his deal where cap recapture wasn't an issue. https://ca.sports.yahoo.com/blogs/nhl-puck-daddy/nhl-lets-nj-devils-off-hook-for-ilya-kovalchuk-contract-punishment-181853523.html They got off cheap because Kovi retired early into the deal. Thanks for the info. The "retired early" thing affected the amount. Still, it doesn't excuse that they had that first round pick given back upon appeal. They got some kind of relief at least. Canucks too have an argument for "changes in circumstances". For one, going all the way back to it being retroactive to Florida influencing the outcome to help them the most and hurt us the most. The Devils recently applied to the League for reconsideration and relief from a portion of the original penalty, citing primarily changes in circumstances which, in the Club’s view, changed the appropriateness of the sanctions initially imposed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baggins Posted June 28, 2019 Share Posted June 28, 2019 11 minutes ago, kilgore said: Thanks for the info. The "retired early" thing affected the amount. Still, it doesn't excuse that they had that first round pick given back upon appeal. They got some kind of relief at least. Canucks too have an argument for "changes in circumstances". For one, going all the way back to it being retroactive to Florida influencing the outcome to help them the most and hurt us the most. The Devils recently applied to the League for reconsideration and relief from a portion of the original penalty, citing primarily changes in circumstances which, in the Club’s view, changed the appropriateness of the sanctions initially imposed. Florida's choice is irrelevant to the CBA clause. Lou of course could have chosen not to retire and asked to be traded to play out the contract. Obviously he'd rather retire than move. Did anyone actually expect him to play out that contract? If the answer to that is no then you knew all along it was cap circumvention just as I did. We got the benefit, so I don't mind taking the penalty. And we knew the penalty when we chose to trade him giving up control of the contract. The first was a discipline penalty, not a CBA clause. Any league discipline can be appealed, even suspensions. They wound up getting the 1st round pick back but the last pick in the round regardless of where they finished in the standings. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
apollo Posted June 28, 2019 Share Posted June 28, 2019 1 hour ago, Baggins said: You're referring to the NJ penalty for the initial 17 year contract deemed circumvention. They do have a cap recapture penalty on that deal as well. The scale was balanced a bit in the last lockout and the new CBA via the cap recapture penalty, which retroactively punished teams that gave out these cheating deals. The Devils, for example, have a cap recapture penalty of $250,000 annually through 2025, a.k.a. dead cap space. Which is below minimum wage for the NHL, but hey, Kovalchuk just so happened to retire at a point in his deal where cap recapture wasn't an issue. https://ca.sports.yahoo.com/blogs/nhl-puck-daddy/nhl-lets-nj-devils-off-hook-for-ilya-kovalchuk-contract-punishment-181853523.html They got off cheap because Kovi retired early into the deal. One other thing to mention... The initial penalty NJD got for the 17 year first contract ended up being pretty much nothing. They were supposed to be charged their 1st rounder but instead the NHL just made them slide down to the bottom of the first round that year... Ended up drafting John Quenville with the pick They also had a 3 million dollar cash fund which was THEN reduced to 1.5 million. And this wasn't affecting the cap... But now we have 9 million in cap hit over 3 years?! Why can't we just pay cash like NJD did? Why does our cap have to suffer? This league is not an even playing field. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baggins Posted June 28, 2019 Share Posted June 28, 2019 4 minutes ago, apollo said: One other thing to mention... The initial penalty NJD got for the 17 year first contract ended up being pretty much nothing. They were supposed to be charged their 1st rounder but instead the NHL just made them slide down to the bottom of the first round that year... Ended up drafting John Quenville with the pick They also had a 3 million dollar cash fund which was THEN reduced to 1.5 million. And this wasn't affecting the cap... But now we have 9 million in cap hit over 3 years?! Why can't we just pay cash like NJD did? Why does our cap have to suffer? This league is not an even playing field. Already explained it in a previous post. That was a league disciplinary penalty for attempted cap circumvention, not a CBA clause. Any league discipline can be appealed, including player suspensions. The cap recapture is a CBA clause and is enforced as set out in the CBA. Two different things. NJ has a cap recapture penalty from the Kovi contract until 2025. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
apollo Posted June 28, 2019 Share Posted June 28, 2019 22 minutes ago, Baggins said: Already explained it in a previous post. That was a league disciplinary penalty for attempted cap circumvention, not a CBA clause. Any league discipline can be appealed, including player suspensions. The cap recapture is a CBA clause and is enforced as set out in the CBA. Two different things. NJ has a cap recapture penalty from the Kovi contract until 2025. How is the NHL an even playing field though? 250k cap penalty vs Vancouver's 3 million... The kovalchuk contract was much more of a "cheating" move than Luongos... So was Hossas Didn't the NHL fleece us enough already?? They made up a new rule that absolutely destroyed the trade value of one of the leagues most valuable assets. We had to trade the leagues most dominant goalie for a decade... Retain 800k and got a goalie they were giving up on anyways. Markstrom developed well after being in a positive environment... At the time we acquired him his numbers were garbage and had limited trade value... Luongo went on a tear after that trade dead line and posted something like 930% The Luongo trade should have acquired us a major haul had the silly rule not been implemented... And to boot now we have 3 mill penalty for 3 years You can say all you want but this league is not an even playing field 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baggins Posted June 28, 2019 Share Posted June 28, 2019 Just now, apollo said: How is the NHL an even playing field though? 250k cap penalty vs Vancouver's 3 million... The kovalchuk contract was much more of a "cheating" move than Luongos... So was Hossas Didn't the NHL fleece us enough already?? They made up a new rule that absolutely destroyed the trade value of one of the leagues most valuable assets. We had to trade the leagues most dominant goalie for a decade... Retain 800k and got a goalie they were giving up on anyways. Markstrom developed well after being in a positive environment... At the time we acquired him his numbers were garbage and had limited trade value... Luongo went on a tear after that trade dead line and posted something like 930% The Luongo trade should have acquired us a major haul had the silly rule not been implemented... And to boot now we have 3 mill penalty for 3 years You can say all you want but this league is not an even playing field Kovi retired far earlier into his deal. Penalty is based on term, money and cap savings. They would have had a stiffer penalty had Kovi played through all the highest paying years just as Lou did. It's simply enforced as set out in the CBA. Perhaps Gillis shouldn't have tried to circumvent the salary cap. The rest is really rather irrelevent. The simple truth is putting in the cap recovery rule was to enforce the level playing field of the salary by eliminating cap circumvention, like the Kovi and Lou deals, by the teams that can afford it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DarthMelvin Posted June 28, 2019 Share Posted June 28, 2019 On 6/26/2019 at 7:38 PM, danaimo said: It only becomes relevant if the Canucks intend to spend within $3m on the cap. If they don't intend to then disputing it is pointless. This team are not going to be cup contenders in next 2 possibly 3 years, so why sweat it. According to Capfriendly they have $15m in cap space for next year with 22 roster players on the roster. Sure they have to sign Boeser but that still leaves plenty to go after a big free agent if they want to, without coming within $3m of the league wide cap. Can they, perhaps, will they, probably not. OUCH!!! Says you though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
coolboarder Posted June 29, 2019 Share Posted June 29, 2019 (edited) It’s only 3 million dollars and the league might give us a favour in the future after we complete our penalty than fight for it only to get some unfair treatment by the league. I believe it has to do with our past treatment toward the league, ie. Roger Neilson white flag in 1982 run, plus the statue, Bertuzzi hit that gave the league black eye worldwide, 2 riots that made news worldwide in 94 and 11 run, Burrows publicity told the world what happened about Auger, and Gillis attempting to anger the league with Luongo. They could have alter his contract to satisfy the league but they didn’t and choose to fight with the league just to save some cap. With those incidents, I don’t think that they like the Canucks too much. Tell me what other sports franchise do what the Canucks did through their history. Maybe it was revenge by Burke that made this rules in the first place. Remember, it was Burke worked in NHL before the hire of Burke as Canucks GM and what happened to him on a relationship with the Canucks made him bitter.man and sought revenge. I believe that he will get what he had sow out of revenge. So in my opinion despite how I disagreed on NHL handling this rule in the first place and how they let other teams off the hook, it’s better for the Canucks to go through this for next few years and Aquaman better be adamant to keep this rules in place for next CBA to punish other existing contract with hefty recapture penalty. No compliance buyout for next one with recapture when they had opportunity to do it so in 2013. If the league choose to let other teams get off the hook, they can sue the league to make sure that they follow this rules for everybody once they go through this penalty. That will be our final revenge for the league treatment toward the Canucks. Nashville with a potential 24 million dollar penalty, this will be the ultimate test for the league and the whole hockey world is watching. If the league choose to let them get off the hook or circumvent the cap with fake ltir stuff, the Canucks can take them to the court. They will win, cost the league more then if the Csnucks fight them now and still get unfair treatment by the league for the next decade. Edited June 29, 2019 by coolboarder Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cory40 Posted June 30, 2019 Share Posted June 30, 2019 It's A Vancouver thing! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RU SERIOUS Posted July 1, 2019 Share Posted July 1, 2019 On 6/26/2019 at 7:30 PM, Slegr said: Roberto Luongo announced his retirement, and the Canucks are expected to face the cap recapture penalty clause in the CBA, costing about $3 million cap hit for the next three years. As most know, this penalty clause was instituted by the NHL as new rule following the signing of the Luongo contract, and it was intended to retroactively penalize teams that benefited from contracts like this one. It's true that the actual difference in cap hit is actually closer to $2.2 million, since the Canucks still had $800,000 in retained salary from Luongo’s contract, and that $800,000 is now off the books. Given the NHL created a CBA rule that came after the signing of the Luongo contract, I am going to make an assumption that the Canucks management will dispute this clause now that Luongo has declared his intentions. In fact, I'd be choked if they didn't dispute it. But my question is, will they win the dispute? BENNING should get off his back side and fight this tooth and nail. This is unacceptable. We need some fortitude and fight from someone in Canucks H.O. on this one. There surely must be someone in Canucks management to take this battle on if benning doesn't have the family jewels to do it himself ! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oldnews Posted July 1, 2019 Share Posted July 1, 2019 Doesn't sound like they'll bother with a legal challenge - which I think they'd have a good chance of winning if they did. Anyhow, it aint the worst case scenario - 1 year of 8+ million penalty a few years from now would really require a legal challenge imo. This penalty is the usual selectively enforced NHL crapola. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nooks Posted July 1, 2019 Share Posted July 1, 2019 At least when Weber retires the league will look like clowns if Nashville gets hit with a 25 mil recapture penalty Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saved_by_Jesus Posted July 2, 2019 Share Posted July 2, 2019 On 6/30/2019 at 9:39 PM, Nooks said: At least when Weber retires the league will look like clowns if Nashville gets hit with a 25 mil recapture penalty I think the key lesson learned by Montreal here is to never trade Weber. If they trade Weber, like we did Luongo, Montreal loses their ability to "control" his retirement/LTIR. As long as they keep him on the team, they should be able to avoid any recapture penalty. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob_Zepp Posted July 3, 2019 Share Posted July 3, 2019 My guess is publicly the Canuck management team will give a "it is what it is" sort of mantra but in the background they will indeed be pushing this hard. The time for the NHL to respond will be away from the retirement timing and potentially sometime later in the summer. My guess is Canucks ARE pressing this one VERY hard but don't want to (and don't think it would help their case with NHL if they were to) do this in public. In public, tow the line and let the save face and take credit if this is reversed. That is my guess on what is going on. 2 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