The misconception on the Luongo recapture penalty and LTIR.

[Glug Datt]

3 hours 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. 

this is the crux of the argument, plain & simple.. 

 

THE CONTRACT WAS LEGAL & THUS APPROVED WHEN SIGNED, THEN THE CANUCKS WERE PUNISHED RETROACTIVELY. 

 

this is total horsesh!t and I can't believe the Canucks signed off on the new CBA, knowing they would very likely get screwed by it. 

 

this new 'cap circumvention' is also legal and such deals are approved by the league. as noted, they are greasy and clearly not in the spirit of the current CBA. 

 

it will be interesting to see what happens with the next CBA.. this LTIR thing should get dealt with, but assuming TO still has the Clarkson contract, will they get screwed like VAN did? call me a conspiracy theorist, but I don't see it happening.. 

[oldnews]

Another strange thread wadr - right up there with the other "you're going to want to read this" efforts.

 

The recapture issue has literally nothing to do with LTIR - I can't recall the association being a source of debate, discussion, or comparison on these boards.

 

 

The issue people have with the recapture penalty is that backdiving was not prohibited in the existing CBA at the time - and therefore, ironically, the Luongo deal and a number of others structured like it - were approved by the NHL at the time.   The retroactive 'rule' that rewrote the CBA and penalized teams after the fact - is what is considered mickey mouse.

 

The league should have:

1) rejected the contracts at the time.

2) corrected the issue in the subsequent CBA.

 

Failing to do so, they are/were party to the ratifying of those contracts, and in no position to back-dive into a penalty that is problematic in a number of senses:

1) it is inconsistently applied - teams have circumvented the recapture penalty, ironically - something also 'against the spirit' of the CBA - and common sense fairness.

2) it penalizes teams in the present, for advantages gained a decade ago.  Current management groups, coaching staffs, virtually entire rosters - have turned over with little resemblance to the regimes/teams that benefitted from what was a 'legal' loophole at the time.

 

 

In any event, I don't see the point of the thread - and find no shortage of irony in the fact the OP - probably a bit too trigger-happy in attempting to 'educate' folks around here - hasn't really initiated much of a productive discussion = basing that on the fact that 12 of the first 20 posts in this thread belong to the OP - who appears to really enjoy the sound of his own voice/text.  Sorry if that's 'harsh', but let's be real - when you purport to repeatedly 'inform' everyone, the kid gloves - fairly - come off.

 

 

 

 

[Baer.]

1 hour ago, Nurnge said:

I Never said anywhere that the Players shouldn't get the money they signed for or that they have to retire . Just that they have to stay with the team that they were on 

Being on LTIR is still being on the team.

[Kootenay Gold]

2 hours ago, Arrow 1983 said:

I'm guessing you are not old enough to remember the late 90s and how close we came to losing the Canucks. It was because of John McCaws deep pockets that this team is still here.

I'm guessing that I am a lot older than you; probably near double your age and have been a fan since inception. In my 50 + years of working for a living, I have watched many a rival company to the ones I worked for go belly up due to a number of factors. There are no guarantees in business regardless of the nature of that business and that includes owning a hockey team. If Ottawa can not survive going forward it most likely will be attributed to ownership failure. As for the Canucks issue in the 90's; most of the problem was due to Arthur Griffiths over extending him self in his quest to add to his holdings and was not due to lack of fan support.

Edited August 6, 2019 by Kootenay Gold
spelling

[Dekey Pete]

ban

[the grinder]

one is retired and others are on medical   ,apples and oranges  we are stuck with the penalty   yes LTIR its a loophole and its part of cba  so its not changing anytime soon  yep cheap owners are going do what they wanna do its all within the rules ,  

[the grinder]

2 hours ago, Baer. said:

Being on LTIR is still being on the team.

technically  unless you chris pronger  then u double dip with a nhl job

[the grinder]

2 hours ago, Kootenay Gold said:

I'm guessing that I am a lot older than you; probably near double your age and have been a fan since inception. In my 50 + years of working for a living, I have watched many a rival company to the ones I worked for go belly up due to a number of factors. There are no guarantees in business regardless of the nature of that business and that includes owning a hockey team. If Ottawa can not survive going forward it most likely will be attributed to ownership failure. As for the Canucks issue in the 90's; most of the problem was due to Arthur Griffiths ever extending him self in his quest to add to his holdings and was not due to lack of fan support.

yep without bure  there might not been a new arena or a team  there was a time the whitecaps and the lions  out drew the canucks 40 50 k for a lions game barely 10 k for the canucks before bure came along

[J.I.A.H.N]

Arrow...…...….

 

When the Luono contract was written......…...it was not cap circumvention, by definition of the CBA. But the eye and the smell test told everybody it was.

 

So at next CBA, the league dealt with it......…..plain and simple!

 

Today...…….teams are using LTIR as a way to circumvent cap, by buying other teams dead cap space (Simplified)…...now again, it is legal under the CBA;

but it looks and smells like cap circumvention

 

The argument of the first, applies to the second, and will be changed if and when the NHL(Bettman) thinks it should...…...…......

 

Fair? No, but reality as it is......…...….

 

Let's move on!

[lmm]

4 hours ago, goalie13 said:

It is what it is.  People need to get over the whole cap recapture thing.  It doesn't sound like the Canucks are appealing it in any way so it's pointless to whine about it here.

 

In a future CBA, the best way to avoid this kind of crap is to not base cap hit on averaging out the salary.  The cap hit should just be the same as the salary (including signing bonuses) in that year.

The thing about the NHL is that they never fully understand their own problems before they make rules to fix them.

This article that Arrow is referencing makes no sense to me, complete legalese gobbledy gook.

However, what you are suggesting is undoing what the NHL tried to use to avoid players retiring from frontloaded contracts . Clearly they did not solve the problem because the Luongo deal and others made a mockery of what "averaged cap hit" was supposed to solve. Nice forthought NHL!

 

What was the purpose of the Averaged Caphit? 

To stop Luongos and teams from doing exactly what they did.

So, the Averaged Caphit failed.

 

What  did they do to fix it?

mandate shorter contracts

and create the Luongo rule

 

have they fixed it? 

No, they stll have problems with LTIR abuse.

 

Soccer has this great line in its rule book,  its not even a rule, just a guideline. It states" the game shall be played under the spirit of the rule" which means you can't just squidge around a rule on a technicality.

had the NHL asked any of the teams including Vancouver if they were playing within the spirit of the cap? They would all have had to come up with a better answer than these ridiculous contracts. Why didn't the NHL ask these teams what happens when the player retires before completing the contract? Have you not created a false caphit?

 

But the problem with the NHL is they hire people to write stuff like the Rule that Arrow thinks they understand but really no one but  the Lawyers who wrote it (if they even do) can understand it. I can look at that and say "I don't understand what that means" but the NHL is too cool to admit they have no idea what the rule actually means. And that is why they have to rewrite and repair problems they thought they fixed years ago.

 

 

[kloubek]

7 hours ago, Arrow 1983 said:

Would you start  punch a guy in the face cause others are doing it. Does that make it fair.

It would be if said guy went by the name of "Marchand".

[Arrow 1983]

3 minutes ago, kloubek said:

It would be if said guy went by the name of "Marchand".

But he so would deserve it. 

[lmm]

4 hours ago, oldnews said:

Another strange thread wadr - right up there with the other "you're going to want to read this" efforts.

 

The recapture issue has literally nothing to do with LTIR - I can't recall the association being a source of debate, discussion, or comparison on these boards.

 

 

The issue people have with the recapture penalty is that backdiving was not prohibited in the existing CBA at the time - and therefore, ironically, the Luongo deal and a number of others structured like it - were approved by the NHL at the time.   The retroactive 'rule' that rewrote the CBA and penalized teams after the fact - is what is considered mickey mouse.

 

The league should have:

1) rejected the contracts at the time.

2) corrected the issue in the subsequent CBA.

 

Failing to do so, they are/were party to the ratifying of those contracts, and in no position to back-dive into a penalty that is problematic in a number of senses:

1) it is inconsistently applied - teams have circumvented the recapture penalty, ironically - something also 'against the spirit' of the CBA - and common sense fairness.

2) it penalizes teams in the present, for advantages gained a decade ago.  Current management groups, coaching staffs, virtually entire rosters - have turned over with little resemblance to the regimes/teams that benefitted from what was a 'legal' loophole at the time.

 

 

In any event, I don't see the point of the thread - and find no shortage of irony in the fact the OP - probably a bit too trigger-happy in attempting to 'educate' folks around here - hasn't really initiated much of a productive discussion = basing that on the fact that 12 of the first 20 posts in this thread belong to the OP - who appears to really enjoy the sound of his own voice/text.  Sorry if that's 'harsh', but let's be real - when you purport to repeatedly 'inform' everyone, the kid gloves - fairly - come off.

 

 

 

 

newsman, that is one of your best.

[Drive-By Body Pierce]

I feel like I have already overused the "beating the dead horse" memes, quotes or anecdotes.

[lmm]

6 hours ago, Kootenay Gold said:

I very much agree about this. Some thoughts on changing the rules so that if a player goes on LTIR the team still can get cap relief for the injured player but as long as the player remains on LTIR he can not be traded. That would put an end to this BS end run around the cap that teams are using. It would also force the low end teams to meet the cap floor without cooking the books like Ottawa is doing this year; 48 mil in salary but over the 60 mil minimum for cap.

 

 

 

I have many thoughts about this type of thing. I usually go from a "what's good for hockey" view rather than "what is good for the Canucks" All things being equall and fair what is good for hockey should also be good for the Canucks.

As I noted earlier, the NHL does not think its rule changes through, this causes many problems like this one and OT/shoot out/loser point which have all failed to accomplish what they set out to do. But I will not go there now.

I feel recapture is a good penalty, just not applied retroactively as was done with the Luongo contract, but is not necessary with equal payment contracts

I agree that contracts should have equal payments year to year. NO frontload/backload/signing bonus'. You want to pay BobLu $10 mil for each of 3 seasons, fine sign him to a 3 year, $30mill / 3x$10 contract, $.85 per month for the life of the contract.

If you want to give him a NMC, fine, it never goes away for any reason.

Players signing NMC get paid 50% monthly and 50% is held until the contract is finished. Early retirement/Hold out forfits 50% back to the team

LTIR should run for the duration of the season, or 12 month. anything longer is retirement/buy out. LTIR is forfit proof provided the player does not play in any league.

LTIR player gets paid, while team pays buy out cap rate

Buried contracts must be waived 3 times. 1st waiver at 100% salary to new team

                                                                   2nd waiver at 50% salary, original team retains 50%

                                                                    3rd waiver at 25% salary, original team retains 75%

After 3rd waiver buy out possible, no mutual termination

Group 2 free agency lasts until age 30, with diminishing compensation based on age, contract $, games played , draft position

 

peer review by contract lawyers/ex GMs to find and plug loop holes before ratification

 

[the grinder]

6 minutes ago, lmm said:

 

 

I have many thoughts about this type of thing. I usually go from a "what's good for hockey" view rather than "what is good for the Canucks" All things being equall and fair what is good for hockey should also be good for the Canucks.

As I noted earlier, the NHL does not think its rule changes through, this causes many problems like this one and OT/shoot out/loser point which have all failed to accomplish what they set out to do. But I will not go there now.

I feel recapture is a good penalty, just not applied retroactively as was done with the Luongo contract, but is not necessary with equal payment contracts

I agree that contracts should have equal payments year to year. NO frontload/backload/signing bonus'. You want to pay BobLu $10 mil for each of 3 seasons, fine sign him to a 3 year, $30mill / 3x$10 contract, $.85 per month for the life of the contract.

If you want to give him a NMC, fine, it never goes away for any reason.

Players signing NMC get paid 50% monthly and 50% is held until the contract is finished. Early retirement/Hold out forfits 50% back to the team

LTIR should run for the duration of the season, or 12 month. anything longer is retirement/buy out. LTIR is forfit proof provided the player does not play in any league.

LTIR player gets paid, while team pays buy out cap rate

Buried contracts must be waived 3 times. 1st waiver at 100% salary to new team

                                                                   2nd waiver at 50% salary, original team retains 50%

                                                                    3rd waiver at 25% salary, original team retains 75%

After 3rd waiver buy out possible, no mutual termination

Group 2 free agency lasts until age 30, with diminishing compensation based on age, contract $, games played , draft position

 

peer review by contract lawyers/ex GMs to find and plug loop holes before ratification

 

players agreeing to teams with holding 50 percent of their money lol  sorry that's not going to  happen  , think about it. would u go to work for 50 %  of your salary   for your  boss to give you the rest after 3 years . A player missing out on 3 years of investing , interest and plus a whack of tax on huge sum of money at the end of a contract  ,   that could make for long. long strike /lockout

[lmm]

17 minutes ago, the grinder said:

players agreeing to teams with holding 50 percent of their money lol  sorry that's not going to  happen  , think about it. would u go to work for 50 %  of your salary   for your  boss to give you the rest after 3 years . A player missing out on 3 years of investing , interest and plus a whack of tax on huge sum of money at the end of a contract  ,   that could make for long. long strike /lockout

that is fine don't sign NMC

they suck anyway

I was thinking escro anyway

[Nurnge]

6 hours ago, Baer. said:

Being on LTIR is still being on the team.

yeah and they should stay with that team . 

[Salacious Crumb]

Saw who the op was and still read the first page of posts. Why? The season can’t start soon enough...

[PhillipBlunt]