The misconception on the Luongo recapture penalty and LTIR.

[Aladeen]

I find it hard to believe that any Canuck fan has a misconception about the Luongo recapture penalty.

 

All OP did was state that the Recapture is in the CBA - everyone knows this so there is no misconception.

 

Also OP states that LTIR is in the CBA - Again everyone effing knows this otherwise it wouldn't exist.

 

Like every single other brutal thread OP has created, he is simply trying to convince people on this forum that he has some sort of hockey insight that the rest of us lack.

 

Is the Recapture allowed by the CBA? Of course that's why it's happening. Is it fair? No, in fact Ex Post Facto (retroactive punishment) is against the Charter of Rights and Freedoms here in Canada in Criminal convictions. Which I realize this is not, but still it shows how it is something that is unfair when utilized in law. 

 

Is LTIR being used strategically to go above the allowable Cap? Yes. Is this allowed under the CBA? Yes. Is this against the "Spirit" of the salary cap? Definitely, which was the exact wording of why those previous front loaded contracts were retroactively punished. 

 

So OP has brought nothing of value to this forum with his threads. No one has learned anything from his dizzying intellect in all things hockey related. Which, I must say is odd given his impressive resume he has felt the need to share with all of us to "win" arguments he has inevitably and knowingly instigated with his condescending threads of the obvious.  

 

 

Edited August 6, 2019 by Aladeen

[Ralph.]

1 hour ago, Aladeen said:

 

 

/Thread

[Gurn]

1 hour ago, Aladeen said:

 

 

 

11 minutes ago, Gäz said:

/Thread

/ Thread

[iinatcc]

23 hours ago, 48MPHSlapShot said:

Just our of curiosity, would you retroactively punish teams that have engaged in this?

Why not ? I mean the NHL doesn't seem to have problem retroactively punishing teams 

[the grinder]

4 hours ago, Aladeen said:

I find it hard to believe that any Canuck fan has a misconception about the Luongo recapture penalty.

 

All OP did was state that the Recapture is in the CBA - everyone knows this so there is no misconception.

 

Also OP states that LTIR is in the CBA - Again everyone effing knows this otherwise it wouldn't exist.

 

Like every single other brutal thread OP has created, he is simply trying to convince people on this forum that he has some sort of hockey insight that the rest of us lack.

 

Is the Recapture allowed by the CBA? Of course that's why it's happening. Is it fair? No, in fact Ex Post Facto (retroactive punishment) is against the Charter of Rights and Freedoms here in Canada in Criminal convictions. Which I realize this is not, but still it shows how it is something that is unfair when utilized in law. 

 

Is LTIR being used strategically to go above the allowable Cap? Yes. Is this allowed under the CBA? Yes. Is this against the "Spirit" of the salary cap? Definitely, which was the exact wording of why those previous front loaded contracts were retroactively punished. 

 

So OP has brought nothing of value to this forum with his threads. No one has learned anything from his dizzying intellect in all things hockey related. Which, I must say is odd given his impressive resume he has felt the need to share with all of us to "win" arguments he has inevitably and knowingly instigated with his condescending threads of the obvious.  

 

 

lol he just put his own spin on a tsn article from aug 1st    ltir is a lingering issues in cba by travis yost   like come on  at least come up with your own material   

[Arrow 1983]

13 hours ago, Aladeen said:

I find it hard to believe that any Canuck fan has a misconception about the Luongo recapture penalty.

 

All OP did was state that the Recapture is in the CBA - everyone knows this so there is no misconception.

 

Also OP states that LTIR is in the CBA - Again everyone effing knows this otherwise it wouldn't exist.

 

Like every single other brutal thread OP has created, he is simply trying to convince people on this forum that he has some sort of hockey insight that the rest of us lack.

 

Is the Recapture allowed by the CBA? Of course that's why it's happening. Is it fair? No, in fact Ex Post Facto (retroactive punishment) is against the Charter of Rights and Freedoms here in Canada in Criminal convictions. Which I realize this is not, but still it shows how it is something that is unfair when utilized in law. 

 

Is LTIR being used strategically to go above the allowable Cap? Yes. Is this allowed under the CBA? Yes. Is this against the "Spirit" of the salary cap? Definitely, which was the exact wording of why those previous front loaded contracts were retroactively punished. 

 

So OP has brought nothing of value to this forum with his threads. No one has learned anything from his dizzying intellect in all things hockey related. Which, I must say is odd given his impressive resume he has felt the need to share with all of us to "win" arguments he has inevitably and knowingly instigated with his condescending threads of the obvious.  

 

 

I actually specifically said that Back diving was NOT in the CBA, Therefore it went against the good will of the CBA. Which resulted with the Cap recapture penalty. So you have a misconception that I said the recapture was in the CBA. 

 

At no point did I ever say it was in the CBA. It is in there now as a result of back diving contracts. 

 

If you actually read what I wrote and then read what you wrote you literally prove my point. 

[Aladeen]

35 minutes ago, Arrow 1983 said:

I actually specifically said that Back diving was NOT in the CBA, Therefore it went against the good will of the CBA. Which resulted with the Cap recapture penalty. So you have a misconception that I said the recapture was in the CBA. 

 

At no point did I ever say it was in the CBA. It is in there now as a result of back diving contracts. 

 

If you actually read what I wrote and then read what you wrote you literally prove my point. 

Then you are even more wrong go look at the 2005 CBA article 11, it pertains to Standard Player Contracts. 

 

Make no mistake Luongo’s and all other contracts are covered in there.

 

There is no term for back-diving contracts but there are clauses about cap circumventing SPCs. 

 

Specifically there are rules that the NHL has to follow should it have a grievance with a contract. Including filing the grievance and informing the club of the grievance 60 days from when the NHL noticed the infraction or should have reasonably done so.

 

After that point the NHL has to appoint an investigator to determine whether or not an infraction to the CBA was made.

 

Then this investigator must hand over the results to an independent neutral arbitrator . 

The arbitrator will hold a hearing and will listen to the NHL’s grievance and hear from NHLPA and the club. 

 

Once the hearing is over the arbitrator will rule on the infraction.

 

So if the NHL had issues with Luongo’s contract the time to deal with it was in the few months after it was signed. Not years later.

 

By retroactively punishing the Canucks or any other team in the new CBA, they are the ones that broke the “goodwill” as you put it (I don’t believe that is the correct term either) of the 2005 CBA not the team’s that used SPCs to their advantage.

 

 

or

 

 

you may be saying that the recapture is not in the new CBA which is actually what I said and once again you would be wrong.

 

I would quote all the relevant areas of both CBAs but I am on mobile, don’t care enough and with your background in all things CBA it should really not be too hard for you to find.

[Arrow 1983]

12 minutes ago, Aladeen said:

Then you are even more wrong go look at the 2005 CBA article 11, it pertains to Standard Player Contracts. 

 

Make no mistake Luongo’s and all other contracts are covered in there.

 

There is no term for back-diving contracts but there are clauses about cap circumventing SPCs. 

 

Specifically there are rules that the NHL has to follow should it have a grievance with a contract. Including filing the grievance and informing the club of the grievance 60 days from when the NHL noticed the infraction or should have reasonably done so.

 

After that point the NHL has to appoint an investigator to determine whether or not an infraction to the CBA was made.

 

Then this investigator must hand over the results to an independent neutral arbitrator . 

The arbitrator will hold a hearing and will listen to the NHL’s grievance and hear from NHLPA and the club. 

 

Once the hearing is over the arbitrator will rule on the infraction.

 

So if the NHL had issues with Luongo’s contract the time to deal with it was in the few months after it was signed. Not years later.

 

By retroactively punishing the Canucks or any other team in the new CBA, they are the ones that broke the “goodwill” as you put it (I don’t believe that is the correct term either) of the 2005 CBA not the team’s that used SPCs to their advantage.

 

 

or

 

 

you may be saying that the recapture is not in the new CBA which is actually what I said and once again you would be wrong.

 

I would quote all the relevant areas of both CBAs but I am on mobile, don’t care enough and with your background in all things CBA it should really not be too hard for you to find.

You realize that the penalty is to the team and not to the Player therefore, has nothing to do with the NHLPA. The recapture penalty was actually imposed on  the teams by the owners.

 

Of course it only takes 8 of the owners to ratify the clause and that is how Bettman was able to get it through. But that is completely different argument and is apart of their Franchise contract.

 

Im headed to bed soon but I will post the article tomorrow 

Edited August 7, 2019 by Arrow 1983

[Arrow 1983]

16 minutes ago, Aladeen said:

Then you are even more wrong go look at the 2005 CBA article 11, it pertains to Standard Player Contracts. 

 

Make no mistake Luongo’s and all other contracts are covered in there.

 

There is no term for back-diving contracts but there are clauses about cap circumventing SPCs. 

 

Specifically there are rules that the NHL has to follow should it have a grievance with a contract. Including filing the grievance and informing the club of the grievance 60 days from when the NHL noticed the infraction or should have reasonably done so.

 

After that point the NHL has to appoint an investigator to determine whether or not an infraction to the CBA was made.

 

Then this investigator must hand over the results to an independent neutral arbitrator . 

The arbitrator will hold a hearing and will listen to the NHL’s grievance and hear from NHLPA and the club. 

 

Once the hearing is over the arbitrator will rule on the infraction.

 

So if the NHL had issues with Luongo’s contract the time to deal with it was in the few months after it was signed. Not years later.

 

By retroactively punishing the Canucks or any other team in the new CBA, they are the ones that broke the “goodwill” as you put it (I don’t believe that is the correct term either) of the 2005 CBA not the team’s that used SPCs to their advantage.

 

 

or

 

 

you may be saying that the recapture is not in the new CBA which is actually what I said and once again you would be wrong.

 

I would quote all the relevant areas of both CBAs but I am on mobile, don’t care enough and with your background in all things CBA it should really not be too hard for you to find.

My Guess is that the NHL Central registry agreed to the contracts and as they came more fluent the smaller market teams had issues with it. Of course this is just my guess on how it came about.

Edited August 7, 2019 by Arrow 1983

[Aladeen]

1 minute ago, Arrow 1983 said:

You realize that the penalty is to the team and not to the Player therefore, has nothing to do with the NHLPA. The recapture penalty was actually imposed on  the teams by the owners.

 

Of course it only takes 8 of the owners to ratify the clause and that is how Bettman was able to get it through. But that is completely different argument and is apart of the their Franchise contract.

The penalty to any SPC is never to the player (you realize that?) it’s always to the team. The worst that can happen to a player is that the contract is terminated via the Arbitrator.

 

The NHLPA is part of the process because if there is suspected cap circumvention the amount of money to be paid to player is going to have to be less. Protecting the maximum salary a player can make is part of the NHLPA mandate.

 

if it was handled back when Luongo’s SPC and all other contracts of that nature then there would have been a bunch of teams losing draft picks. Which actually may have been worse than the cap recapture, but it no doubt would have affected more teams.

[Arrow 1983]

6 minutes ago, Aladeen said:

The penalty to any SPC is never to the player (you realize that?) it’s always to the team. The worst that can happen to a player is that the contract is terminated via the Arbitrator.

 

The NHLPA is part of the process because if there is suspected cap circumvention the amount of money to be paid to player is going to have to be less. Protecting the maximum salary a player can make is part of the NHLPA mandate.

 

if it was handled back when Luongo’s SPC and all other contracts of that nature then there would have been a bunch of teams losing draft picks. Which actually may have been worse than the cap recapture, but it no doubt would have affected more teams.

There is a clause In the CBA actually stating that the recapture does not come from the players portion. As it is not actual money payed out Loungo is now retired and will not collect the remainder of that contract salary.

 

If he did still get payed there would be no recapture Penalty. 

Edited August 7, 2019 by Arrow 1983

[Arrow 1983]

24 minutes ago, Aladeen said:

Then you are even more wrong go look at the 2005 CBA article 11, it pertains to Standard Player Contracts. 

 

Make no mistake Luongo’s and all other contracts are covered in there.

 

There is no term for back-diving contracts but there are clauses about cap circumventing SPCs. 

 

Specifically there are rules that the NHL has to follow should it have a grievance with a contract. Including filing the grievance and informing the club of the grievance 60 days from when the NHL noticed the infraction or should have reasonably done so.

 

After that point the NHL has to appoint an investigator to determine whether or not an infraction to the CBA was made.

 

Then this investigator must hand over the results to an independent neutral arbitrator . 

The arbitrator will hold a hearing and will listen to the NHL’s grievance and hear from NHLPA and the club. 

 

Once the hearing is over the arbitrator will rule on the infraction.

 

So if the NHL had issues with Luongo’s contract the time to deal with it was in the few months after it was signed. Not years later.

 

By retroactively punishing the Canucks or any other team in the new CBA, they are the ones that broke the “goodwill” as you put it (I don’t believe that is the correct term either) of the 2005 CBA not the team’s that used SPCs to their advantage.

 

 

or

 

 

you may be saying that the recapture is not in the new CBA which is actually what I said and once again you would be wrong.

 

I would quote all the relevant areas of both CBAs but I am on mobile, don’t care enough and with your background in all things CBA it should really not be too hard for you to find.

Good luck next time on proving me wrong. 12 years in Contract Law makes one know how to read Contracts.

[Aladeen]

3 minutes ago, Arrow 1983 said:

There is a clause In the CBA actually stating that the recapture does not come from the players portion. As it is not actual money payed out Loungo is now retired and will not collect the remainder of that contract salary.

What does that have to do with anything I said? And in fact that just proves two points:

 

1) the player isn’t penalized (will still get his money)

 

2) you really don’t know what you’re talking about because that is actual money that was paid to Luongo (up front) he made 10 million in the first year of the contract. He would have made what? A million in the final year.

 

that is the whole point of those contracts to give the salary that a player wants up front and tapering it off in their golden years so the cap hit was more manageable.

[Arrow 1983]

4 minutes ago, Aladeen said:

What does that have to do with anything I said? And in fact that just proves two points:

 

1) the player isn’t penalized (will still get his money)

 

2) you really don’t know what you’re talking about because that is actual money that was paid to Luongo (up front) he made 10 million in the first year of the contract. He would have made what? A million in the final year.

 

that is the whole point of those contracts to give the salary that a player wants up front and tapering it off in their golden years so the cap hit was more manageable.

I will quote it from the CBA  tomorrow. The penalty has nothing to do with the NHLPA. They didn't even fight it they had no grounds to fight it  the NHLPA themselves literally came out and said they had no grounds to fight it cause it didn't pertain to them.   I will post the article tomorrow as well.

Edited August 7, 2019 by Arrow 1983

[Aladeen]

51 minutes ago, Arrow 1983 said:

Good luck next time on proving me wrong. 12 years in Contract Law makes one know how to read Contracts.

I already did, but you keep bragging on an Internet forum of all your accomplishments. Nothing you have posted this summer would lead anyone on here to believe that you are involved in contract law. 

 

Let’s say you are telling the truth, your billable hours would be in the neighbourhood of $300 dollars an hour. Yet you post on these boards arguing your superiority to all other opinions from us uneducated plebs and educating us in your interpretation of contract law all for free.

 

That’s amazing man your pro bono work must be really rewarding.

 

Keep posting your resume cause I have not been  impressed in the slightest yet.

 

Your argument against my points is literally “I have 12 years experience in contract law, so I’m right.” 

 

Man if you had have said you  read a contract once 12 years ago I might have believed it, but after your posts here I would know that to be a lie as well.

Edited August 7, 2019 by Aladeen

[Aladeen]

1 minute ago, Arrow 1983 said:

I will quote it from the CBA  tomorrow. The penalty has nothing to do with the NHLPA. They didn't even fight it they had no grounds to fight it  the NHLPA themselves literally came out and said they had no grounds to fight it cause it didn't pertain to them.   I will post the article tomorrow as well.

Did I say they fought it? Where? They are happy because the players still got their money. It’s in the CBA that they have to be in attendance mr. 12 years of contract law.

[Arrow 1983]

2 minutes ago, Aladeen said:

I already did, but you keep bragging on an Internet forum of all your accomplishments. Nothing you have posted this summer would lead anyone on here to believe that you are involved in contract law. 

 

Let’s say you are telling the truth, your billable hours would be in the neighbourhood of $300 dollars an hour. Yet you post on these boards arguing your superiority to all other opinions from us uneducated plebs and educating us in your interpretation of contract law all for free.

 

That’s amazing man your pro bono work must be really rewarding.

 

Keep posting your resume cause I have not been  impressed in the slightest yet.

You seem a little angry are you angry cause right now I am Laughing have a good night

[Aladeen]

Just now, Arrow 1983 said:

You seem a little angry are you angry cause right now I am Laughing have a good night

I am not angry in the slightest but if you lying about your background to make you seem cool on Internet forum is what gets your jolly’s on I say go for it but you have yet to disprove a single thing I’ve said.

[Monteeun]

On 8/7/2019 at 12:00 AM, Arrow 1983 said:

You seem a little angry are you angry cause right now I am Laughing have a good night

People who use this line usually mean they are starting to back peddle.

[Gurn]

On 8/7/2019 at 12:01 AM, Aladeen said:

lying about your background to make you seem cool on Internet forum is

Member when that guy bragged about his wealth and tried posting his income tax info?  This reminds me of him, a little older but still no self restraint?