Jump to content
The Official Site of the Vancouver Canucks
Canucks Community

The misconception on the Luongo recapture penalty and LTIR.

Rate this topic


Do you believe that LTIR is cap circumvention  

63 members have voted

You do not have permission to vote in this poll, or see the poll results. Please sign in or register to vote in this poll.

Recommended Posts

People like to bring up the Loungo recapture penalty and compare it to LTIR and call it cap circumventing. Thankfully, for you and I, this one is very easy to explain.

 

LTIR is written in to the NHL CBA and if you have ever read any of my posts I have quoted many parts of the CBA pertaining to LTIR.

 

Back diving contracts are not in the CBA and directly goes against the good will of the CBA.

 

Therefore, anything that is written in the CBA can not be punishable or grandfather in afterwards. Thus any use that you as an individual believes that the LTIR is a cap circumvention is clearly  just a misconception in your own mind because you do not understand the rules set forth by the CBA.

 

Misconception- a view or opinion that is incorrect because based on faulty thinking or understanding

Edited by Arrow 1983
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Pears said:

I actually haven’t seen anyone talk about this. Not saying it hasn’t been talked about, but I haven’t seen it. 

You haven't seen the argument by the many that have said that Toronto Acquiring Clarkson or OTT acquiring Callahan is cap circumventing

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Pears said:

I actually haven’t seen anyone talk about this. Not saying it hasn’t been talked about, but I haven’t seen it. 

 

Just now, Nurnge said:

When a Player who is never going to play again is Traded solely for the purpose  of cap relief that really has to be considered considered going against the goodwill of the CBA and should be changed as soon as possible .   

there now you can see it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Pears said:

I actually haven’t seen anyone talk about this. Not saying it hasn’t been talked about, but I haven’t seen it. 

My favorite argument people make is if the Canucks do it then we will get penalized for it just like the Loungo recapture.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Nurnge said:

When a Player who is never going to play again is Traded solely for the purpose  of cap relief that really has to be considered considered going against the goodwill of the CBA and should be changed as soon as possible .   

But a LTIR player remains property of the club and therefore, is still an asset to that club. Assets are aloud to be traded. Draft picks that are not even a player is consider a asset in the same manner and can get traded as well and the team acquiring said pick does not know what he is going to acquire. With a LTIR player a team knows exactly what that club is acquiring.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The implementation of the recapture penalty is all well and fine. The retroactive part was total crap and has been made worse with the leagues uneven application and allowing teams to circumvent it with LTIR and BS injuries  which should have been treated as retirement. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, xereau said:

Its bad for the game. It is just a loophole that will be closed next time around. Expect something else to surface instead.

It is contract law of course something else will come up. Contract law is about interpretation. If ones interpretation has valued points both sides will agree if not. Penalties will accrue.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, spur1 said:

The implementation of the recapture penalty is all well and fine. The retroactive part was total crap and has been made worse with the leagues uneven application and allowing teams to circumvent it with LTIR and BS injuries  which should have been treated as retirement. 

you can question if the injury is fake or not but, If a player is truly injured in line of the CBA then that player is LTIR and LTIR is written into the CBA. So your argument that LTIR is circumventing is simply not true.

Edited by Arrow 1983
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, spur1 said:

The implementation of the recapture penalty is all well and fine. The retroactive part was total crap and has been made worse with the leagues uneven application and allowing teams to circumvent it with LTIR and BS injuries  which should have been treated as retirement. 

From the CBA 

 

d) Bona-Fide Long-Term Injury/Illness Exception to the Upper Limit.  In the event that a Player on a Club becomes unfit to play (i.e., is injured, ill or disabled and unable to perform his duties as a hockey Player) such that the Club's physician believes, in his or her opinion, that the Player, owing to either an injury or an illness, will be unfit to play for at least (i) twenty-four (24) calendar days and (ii) ten (10) NHL Regular Season games, and such Club desires to replace such Player, the Club may add an additional Player or Players to its Active Roster, and the replacement Player Salary and Bonuses of such additional Player(s) may increase the Club's Averaged Club Salary to an amount up to and exceeding the Upper Limit, solely as, and to the extent and for the duration, set forth below.  If, however, the League wishes to challenge the determination of a Club physician that a Player is unfit to play for purposes of the Bona-Fide Long-Term Injury/Illness Exception, the League and the NHLPA shall promptly confer and jointly select a neutral physician, who shall review the Club physician's determination regarding the Player's fitness to play. 

 

This is the guide lines to being declared LTIR

 

 

Edited by Arrow 1983
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Arrow 1983 said:

you can question if the injury is fake or not but, If a player is truly injured in line of the CBA then that player is LTIR and LTIR is written into the CBA. So your argument that LTIR is circumventing is simply not true.

Read up on Pronger and Hossa and tell me again it’s not circumventing the spirit of the CBA. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, spur1 said:

Spout off all the legalese you want. Doesn’t make it fair. Luongo’s contract was legal too when it was signed and approved by the league. 

Approved by central registry not by the Board of Governors aka the Owners of the other teams that it gave a disadvantage to. Was it fair to the other teams.

 

You want to talk about fair

 

 

Edited by Arrow 1983
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, spur1 said:

Spout off all the legalese you want. Doesn’t make it fair. Luongo’s contract was legal too when it was signed and approved by the league. 

when you talk about fair who are you talking about a team that you have a bais for.

 

That team is the one that made it unfair for other teams.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Arrow 1983 said:

Approved by central registry not by the Board of Governors aka the Owners of the other teams that it gave a disadvantage to. Was it fair to the other teams.

 

You want to talk about fair

 

 

Luongo’s contract was not the first of its kind. It was about the 6th or 7th. So yes it was fair as it was only doing the same as other teams. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...