The misconception on the Luongo recapture penalty and LTIR.

[oldnews]

On 8/6/2019 at 11:49 PM, Arrow 1983 said:

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

 

Appeal to accomplishment (even when it's not merely alleged - like the unsubstantiated, self-qualified claims you're making here) - is a weak logical fallacy regardless.

 

Would earn you a fail in a first year philosophy - introduction to logic - course.

 

 

This thread is postmodern corn-flakes.

Well done on the attention-seeking - and time vampire - things, though.

 

 

 

[rychicken]

Next up: Arrow starts a thread to show us why the route the Zamboni takes is the most optimal....

[PistolPete13]

On 8/5/2019 at 12:50 PM, Arrow 1983 said:

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

 

 

What do you make of the first line...”In the event that a Player on a Club becomes unfit to play.....” I would argue that the player has to be on a Club at the time that he becomes injured, in order for for the this clause to apply.

 

For example, Horton was not on the Leafs at the time that he became unfit to play. He was already unfit to play before becoming a Leaf. Hence this clause should not operate in the manner it is being used by the Leafs.

 

The bolded part only seems to allow the league to pick and choose, who they will allow  to invoke the Clause.

 

Yer honour, it just seems greasy.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Kragar]

11 hours ago, PistolPete13 said:

What do you make of the first line...”In the event that a Player on a Club becomes unfit to play.....” I would argue that the player has to be on a Club at the time that he becomes injured, in order for for the this clause to apply.

 

For example, Horton was not on the Leafs at the time that he became unfit to play. He was already unfit to play before becoming a Leaf. Hence this clause should not operate in the manner it is being used by the Leafs.

 

The bolded part only seems to allow the league to pick and choose, who they will allow  to invoke the Clause.

 

Yer honour, it just seems greasy.

Exactly. 

 

Trading an injured player is allowed, as long as the injury is clear to both sides.  But, when there is no likelihood of the player coming back, there is no justification for allowing the trade.  Problem is, determining that likelihood.  That's a big grey area, especially when lawyers get involved.

 

Doesn't matter what the situation was (Leafs today, Datsyuk's contract, Pronger's contract, etc.), this is as much circumvention as the backloaded contracts were. We'll see how it gets handled in the next CBA. 

 

Maybe the Canucks can get some recapture penalty for not trading for an LTIR.  

[Arrow 1983]

12 hours ago, PistolPete13 said:

What do you make of the first line...”In the event that a Player on a Club becomes unfit to play.....” I would argue that the player has to be on a Club at the time that he becomes injured, in order for for the this clause to apply.

 

For example, Horton was not on the Leafs at the time that he became unfit to play. He was already unfit to play before becoming a Leaf. Hence this clause should not operate in the manner it is being used by the Leafs.

 

The bolded part only seems to allow the league to pick and choose, who they will allow  to invoke the Clause.

 

Yer honour, it just seems greasy.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I actually wrote about this before either in this topic or another. 

Ltir players remain on the payroll and and the club roster. Any player on a clue roster is still considered an asset and therefore, can be traded. 

If a minor league player gets injured in the preseason the clue is required to keep him with the big clue to collect his nhl salary and can not be sent down.

However, that player can also be traded as well cause he is an asset. 

The problem in the CBA is that a ltir player can actually not be sent to the minors and his contract still remains legal. Therefore, a team is left with 2 options keep him on ltir (which means he's still on the roster) or trade him.

I know people don't like when I tell them I'm in this line of work but i actually just got clarification from the NHL central registry on this matter recently.

Edited August 13, 2019 by Arrow 1983

[Arrow 1983]

39 minutes ago, Kragar said:

Exactly. 

 

Trading an injured player is allowed, as long as the injury is clear to both sides.  But, when there is no likelihood of the player coming back, there is no justification for allowing the trade.  Problem is, determining that likelihood.  That's a big grey area, especially when lawyers get involved.

 

Doesn't matter what the situation was (Leafs today, Datsyuk's contract, Pronger's contract, etc.), this is as much circumvention as the backloaded contracts were. We'll see how it gets handled in the next CBA. 

 

Maybe the Canucks can get some recapture penalty for not trading for an LTIR.  

Read my above post 

[Kragar]

6 minutes ago, Arrow 1983 said:

Read my above post 

I acknowledged that injured players can be traded.  Also, aren't injured players no longer in payroll, since they are covered by insurance?  Regardless, the LTIR rules in place remove the cap burden to a point where the team can function just fine from a cap perspective without the player.

 

My point was that this practice is slimy, at least as wrong as the backloaded veteran contracts (both of which were acceptably during the CBA at the time).   It should be punished, and punished more uniformly than the backloading was, when the next CBA comes along.

[Arrow 1983]

4 hours ago, Kragar said:

I acknowledged that injured players can be traded.  Also, aren't injured players no longer in payroll, since they are covered by insurance?  Regardless, the LTIR rules in place remove the cap burden to a point where the team can function just fine from a cap perspective without the player.

 

My point was that this practice is slimy, at least as wrong as the backloaded veteran contracts (both of which were acceptably during the CBA at the time).   It should be punished, and punished more uniformly than the backloading was, when the next CBA comes along.

So your question about insurance is that yes most contracts are insured and insurance pays 80%.

The problem is that the player salary is on the payroll as a cap hit. 

If a team is up against the cap it requires work arounds an as many have mentioned before if not done right can cause overages with things like bonuses.

The thing about the recapture penalty was it corrected an unfairness between the rich teams that could front load contracts and poorer teams that have to run their budgets year by year. A team like Toronto knows that it will make X amount this year and years to come. A team like CBJ or the Coyotes budget is much more dependent on attendence year in year out and merchandise is only a small part of their budget. 

The Ltir can help both sides of the argument, Toronto can use Ltir to retain a guy like Marner and Ottawa can use Ltir to get to the floor with out actually spending real dollars.

I have said it before and I will again.

The recapture penalty was imposed on the owners not the players by the Owners.

For Ltir rules to be considered circumvention it must be deemed by the owners as such and imposed on the owners by the owners. Thos will never happen because Ltir helps both sides of the argument the rich and the poor.

Keep in mind the NHL CBA is a contract between the NHLPA And the Owners of the clues. The issue of Ltir does not affect the Players. And even if the owners wanted to stop it the players would want to decline it. Here is way.

Take Toronto as an example,

Horton and Clarkson ar being paid as they still remain on the roster and it allows Toronto to bring the roster size up by another player (Marner). That means now in stead of 23 players making nhl salaries 24 players can now make nhl salaries. LTIR in away creates more nhl jobs. There is limited amount of jobs already in the nhl so why wouldn't the players want to create more jobs.

Ltir is a win win win scenario for everyone.

Truth be told I have no idea why Loungo would want to give up his million dollar salary as he did when he retired.

[Arrow 1983]

In contract law circumvention occurs when someone or something has done wrong to someone else or something else.

Ltir doesn't hurt anyone.

 

[Kragar]

2 minutes ago, Arrow 1983 said:

So your question about insurance is that yes most contracts are insured and insurance pays 80%.

The problem is that the player salary is on the payroll as a cap hit. 

If a team is up against the cap it requires work arounds an as many have mentioned before if not done right can cause overages with things like bonuses.

The thing about the recapture penalty was it corrected an unfairness between the rich teams that could front load contracts and poorer teams that have to run their budgets year by year. A team like Toronto knows that it will make X amount this year and years to come. A team like CBJ or the Coyotes budget is much more dependent on attendence year in year out and merchandise is only a small part of their budget. 

The Ltir can help both sides of the argument, Toronto can use Ltir to retain a guy like Marner and Ottawa can use Ltir to get to the floor with out actually spending real dollars.

I have said it before and I will again.

The recapture penalty was imposed on the owners not the players by the Owners.

For Ltir rules to be considered circumvention it must be deemed by the owners as such and imposed on the owners by the owners. Thos will never happen because Ltir helps both sides of the argument the rich and the poor.

Keep in mind the NHL CBA is a contract between the NHLPA And the Owners of the clues. The issue of Ltir does not affect the Players. And even if the owners wanted to stop it the players would want to decline it. Here is way.

Take Toronto as an example,

Horton and Clarkson ar being paid as they still remain on the roster and it allows Toronto to bring the roster size up by another player (Marner). That means now in stead of 23 players making nhl salaries 24 players can now make nhl salaries. LTIR in away creates more nhl jobs. There is limited amount of jobs already in the nhl so why wouldn't the players want to create more jobs.

Ltir is a win win win scenario for everyone.

Truth be told I have no idea why Loungo would want to give up his million dollar salary as he did when he retired.

I don't care who enacted the penalty, and it wouldn't be the first time the owners screw themselves after the fact.  The rules get set up, and the teams find a way to work within the rules.  Every once in a while, it is determined that doing so is working around the rules, against the spirit of the agreement.  Trading LTIR is against that agreement, IMO.

 

The issue of the LTIR does affect the players.  When teams like Arizona take on bullcrap contracts, like Pronger's and Datsyuk's, it prevents them from paying other players, suppressing salaries.  And, in the Leafs' case, they can overpay their top players (in general, not specifically Marner), and deal with a number of min-salary scrubs, further marginalizing the mid-range players.  Hardly a win-win for the players heading off to Europe because they are too good to make 700K/year, but not good enough to make 6-10M.  A real union would be screaming about this, I would think.

 

And, as far as Luongo (and all the others): they already have millions (assuming they didn't piss it all away), their bodies are getting old and more injury prone, and want to spend time with their families.  Easy decision, IMO.

[Arrow 1983]

3 minutes ago, Kragar said:

I don't care who enacted the penalty, and it wouldn't be the first time the owners screw themselves after the fact.  The rules get set up, and the teams find a way to work within the rules.  Every once in a while, it is determined that doing so is working around the rules, against the spirit of the agreement.  Trading LTIR is against that agreement, IMO.

 

The issue of the LTIR does affect the players.  When teams like Arizona take on bullcrap contracts, like Pronger's and Datsyuk's, it prevents them from paying other players, suppressing salaries.  And, in the Leafs' case, they can overpay their top players (in general, not specifically Marner), and deal with a number of min-salary scrubs, further marginalizing the mid-range players.  Hardly a win-win for the players heading off to Europe because they are too good to make 700K/year, but not good enough to make 6-10M.  A real union would be screaming about this, I would think.

 

And, as far as Luongo (and all the others): they already have millions (assuming they didn't piss it all away), their bodies are getting old and more injury prone, and want to spend time with their families.  Easy decision, IMO.

Circumvention is real law in contract law when you disagree with circumvention you are disagreeing with the letter of the law. There really is no point in going further with this conversation.

[Kragar]

38 minutes ago, Arrow 1983 said:

Circumvention is real law in contract law when you disagree with circumvention you are disagreeing with the letter of the law.

What??? Maybe I'm too tired, but this makes no sense to me.  Where am I disagreeing with circumvention?  And, didn't circumvention regarding back loading contracts involve breaking the spirit of the law?  It was a loophole in the letter of the law that allowed them in the first place.

 

And, going back to your earlier comment about how this supposedly benefits players or the union... if the teams are not able to trade away LTIR contracts, there are still more players earning nhl salaries, because the theak that has the LTIR on their team gets to being up or sign someone else.  I dont see the difference in that respect.

[Kragar]

And I'll add one more thing here.  isn't the point of the salary cap to create parity?  How much parity is there when teams who don't have the money to afford better players are instead taking on has-been vets with now-inflated cap hits?  They ice barely passable teams (at best) while teams with looser wallets can pay more to get players in their prime?

 

If they are interested in real parity, I think the next CBA could look at having some kind of rules regarding what the lowest year's salary can be in relation to the AAV for a contract. Of course, I doubt the players would like it all that much... prevents those nice big signing bonuses. 

[PistolPete13]

9 hours ago, Arrow 1983 said:

I actually wrote about this before either in this topic or another. 

Ltir players remain on the payroll and and the club roster. Any player on a clue roster is still considered an asset and therefore, can be traded. 

If a minor league player gets injured in the preseason the clue is required to keep him with the big clue to collect his nhl salary and can not be sent down.

However, that player can also be traded as well cause he is an asset. 

The problem in the CBA is that a ltir player can actually not be sent to the minors and his contract still remains legal. Therefore, a team is left with 2 options keep him on ltir (which means he's still on the roster) or trade him.

I know people don't like when I tell them I'm in this line of work but i actually just got clarification from the NHL central registry on this matter recently.

It’s pretty clear that you are not following my post at all. I didn’t say that an injured player couldn’t be traded. I said that the Clause is inoperable because.... the player did not become unfit to play, at the time he was a member of the club that hopes to use this clause to it’s advantage. 

The player was already unfit to play before he became a member of the club. Accordingly teams should not be able to manipulate the salary cap in this manner.

Changing the subject and proclaiming yourself to be expert in these matters does nothing to convince me, so we’ll just have to agree to disagree. 

 

[SilentSam]

I’ve obviously got nothing better to do but dig up what seems to be a “Dead Horse”..

but here goes..

Most other players that would have been eligible for a cap recapture penalty conveniently went on long-term injured reserve for the final years of their contracts, avoiding the penalty.

If you read Roberto Luongo’s open letter to his fans, it certainly seems like that could have been an option for him.

“Since I had my hip surgery a couple of years ago, I've been showing up two hours before every practice and three hours before every game to work out my hip,” said Luongo in his letter. “Even at night, whether it was the night before a game or even a night off, there I was rolling out, doing strengthening exercises. My entire life revolved around recovery, strengthening and making sure I was ready to go the next day.”
 

...  I’m not a lawyer,  but should the NHLPA not have made sure that Luongo went on LTIR ?

Dosent Luongo’s actions weaken the CBA for other players?   
Even Tallon stated before RL retired that it was hard watching his goaltender prepare and play in such pain.

 

 

[coastal.view]

36 minutes ago, SilentSam said:

I’ve obviously got nothing better to do but dig up what seems to be a “Dead Horse”..

but here goes..

Most other players that would have been eligible for a cap recapture penalty conveniently went on long-term injured reserve for the final years of their contracts, avoiding the penalty.

If you read Roberto Luongo’s open letter to his fans, it certainly seems like that could have been an option for him.

“Since I had my hip surgery a couple of years ago, I've been showing up two hours before every practice and three hours before every game to work out my hip,” said Luongo in his letter. “Even at night, whether it was the night before a game or even a night off, there I was rolling out, doing strengthening exercises. My entire life revolved around recovery, strengthening and making sure I was ready to go the next day.”
 

...  I’m not a lawyer,  but should the NHLPA not have made sure that Luongo went on LTIR ?

Dosent Luongo’s actions weaken the CBA for other players?   
Even Tallon stated before RL retired that it was hard watching his goaltender prepare and play in such pain.

 

 

 

so you think luongo should not be permitted to retire?

 

 

[SilentSam]

4 hours ago, coastal.view said:

 

so you think luongo should not be permitted to retire?

 

 

That’s one of the reasons that LTIR was created.. to protect his contract and money owed to him for injury or medical issues from the game.

  Retiring should really cancel his contract and any or all obligations to it..  

 

Yes he should be permitted to “retire”..  but that should cancel everything attached to that contract.. including the cap penalty.

 

The NHLPA. should have addressed this issue for clarity..  not just the Canucks.

 

 

[coastal.view]

5 minutes ago, SilentSam said:

That’s one of the reasons that LTIR was created.. to protect his contract and money owed to him for injury or medical issues from the game.

  Retiring should really cancel his contract and any or all obligations to it..  

 

Yes he should be permitted to “retire”..  but that should cancel everything attached to that contract.. including the cap penalty.

 

The NHLPA. should have addressed this issue for clarity..  not just the Canucks.

 

 

not true at all

he gets his money no matter what injury may arise (his contract is guaranteed)

ltir does not change this

 

ltir provides cap relief to teams based on terms bargained in the collective agreement

.. has nothing otherwise to do with luongo's contract

 

retirement is an option for any player at any time

player can unilaterally end a contract in this manner

again there are terms bargained in the collective agreement

providing some restrictions on a player once his retirement effects a valid contract

(he cannot retire and go sign with another team)