Loophole

[wings87 1,290]

Take the current situation of Mike Modano as a real world example of what "could have been" that you are saying should not be allowed to happen. A GM would have looked like a genius to have signed Modano to a 17 yr deal at age 25 that is front loaded for when he's in his prime and he's worth a lot of money, and pays him $1.2 for the last 3 years of his contract for when he's worth a lot less until he's 42. There is a bell curve to a players worth; why shouldn't his contract reflect that.

Yzerman, Lidstrom, Federov, Larionov, Drake, Shanahan, and Hasek are all other possible examples. Knowing what we know now, they all could have been signed to 17 yr deals, front loaded with paying a little less per year toward the end or whatever. Some would have worked out better than others, but the point is that it is a very viable contract, why make it illegal?

As for your Crosby scenario, yeah it seems stupid to you and I, but thats no reason to make it illegal. If Mario wants to do that, it's his frikin team, let him do that.

It blows me away that you guys all think that if you don't like something, or think it's not right, or not sensible, it should be illegal.

Looks like the NHL rejected Kovy's contract, because from any perspective a 17 year deal in a league with a hard cap is ridiculous,because his contract is the very definition of circumventing the cap.

[wings87 1,290]

Why?

And why does there have to be a line drawn?

I also don't believe that the NHL has the right to reject his contract until they change the rules, but for now Kovalchuk's contract should be allowed.

[mackel 679]

Remember that we are talking about a game here. A sport, nothing more. A competition between teams conducted within a very specific set of standards and regulations.

Hockey is a game. The NHL is infact a $3billion industry.

also that increased parity in the league, I don't like the cap, but I freely admit that it's only because otherwise the Wings would have an advantage over almost all other teams.

The only reason the Wings would have an advantage is because of the hard work the Illitch family has put in over the last 20 plus years of owning the business. They built it, they should reap the fruits of their labor.

you nor anyone else here knows if he followed the letter of the law or not.

It's common knowledge that the contract follows the letter of the law; that is the entire premise behind the term "loophole".It's perfectly legal according to the letter of the law even if is not in agreement with the spirit of the law. Thats why so much time is spent on the language of a contract and/or a government bill.

Further more, the draft is socialist too. It's not fair that a team has to pick last because they finihsed first. The only fair way to determin a draft order is to have a totally random lottery. But i know thats to heavy for most of you sheeple to even fathom.

I agree with you on this: It's not fair that a team has to pick last because they finihsed first.

Aside from that... I think you need to lay off the Republican Kool-Aid

[T.Low 1,011]

Now your saying two different things. You want to consider the NHL a business entity, whose primary focus is to make money, but consider the franchises to be game entities whose primary focus building the most competetive team. You can't have it both ways.

No idea where this came from. I said the NHL is an industry, not a business entity. As for the rest of that sentance, what the hell were you reading?

If we consider just the sporting apect, then an arbitrary limitation on the resources that can be devoted to player salaries is no different than any of the other arbitrary rules governing competition.

Now you are duplicitous. By definiton, you can't talk about just the sporting aspect if you are going to talk about resources devoted to players salaries.

If you consider just the business aspect, then you could to an extent consider it socialist. But if the primary motivation for the operation of a franchise is to make money as a business, there is strong evidence suggesting that the salary cap in those best interests. No hockey team could make any money without opponents to play against nor a championship to play for, so membership in a league is vital to the success of any franchise. Furthermore, whatever is in the best interests of the league to which the franchise belongs is also in the best interests of the franchise. Evidence suggests that parity is a benefit to the league, and that the salary cap promotes parity. Ergo, the salary cap appears to be beneficial to the franchises in the NHL, from a business perspective. Current revenue trends support that conclusion.

While 'being in your best interests' does not mean that it isn't socialist, you can't totally separate the game aspect from the business either. So the cap must be considered in the complete terms. An arbitrary rule governing competition in a sporting league, which does not appear to impact the earning power of member franchises, nor restrict in any way outside of league competition the freedom of those franchises to 'reap their fruits'. It's similar in many ways to any other franchise-based business. There's a million different burger joints out there, but if you want to own a McDonald's (and all the associated benefits that come with the franchise) you have to abide by their rules. There's a lot of hockey leagues out there, but if you want to be in the NHL, you have to abide by their rules.

In regards to the legality of the contract, it is true that the contract as written is most likely within the rules as stated. But we are only assuming there is no unwritten agreement and only assuming that both parties entered the deal in good faith that all the terms would be fulfilled as written. If either of those assumptions is false, then one or both of the parties is guilty of violating the terms of the CBA.

Furthermore, the section of the CBA I quoted earlier seems a clear attempt to preserve the integrity of the CBA against exactly these types of violations of the 'spirit'. We are basically a judgement call from an abritrator away from NJ and/or Kovy being guilty of circumvention even without proof of any violations, as the CBA at least had the forsight to try and protect itself from these types of loopholes.

Edited July 21, 2010 by T.Low

[T.Low 1,011]

I agree with you on this: It's not fair that a team has to pick last because they finihsed first.

Aside from that... I think you need to lay off the Republican Kool-Aid

Nice to see you agree with the first part, but the Republicans have been very bit as Keynesian and darn near as socialist as the Democrats for a while now.

[Buppy 1,720]

No idea where this came from. I said the NHL is an industry, not a business entity. As for the rest of that sentance, what the hell were you reading?

Now you are duplicitous. By definiton, you can't talk about just the sporting aspect if you are going to talk about resources devoted to players salaries.

Forgive me if I'm being unclear. I'll try to clarify.

I don't want to argue semantics, so I think we can agree that industry and business entity are similar enough terms. Both of us I think, were referring to the fact that the NHL and its member franchises generate significant revenue, and generally operate in a businesslike manner, having employees, customers, products, et al.

I inferred that your comment on the NHL industry was a counter to my own assertion of the fact that we're talking about a game. The intent seemingly to suggest that the salary cap restricts the ability of the Wings to operate as a business. But you followed that up with an example only of how the cap restricts the Wings in respect to the sporting competition.

I then took each aspect of NHL/team operation separately to try to illustrate that the cap is not really a socialist policy in respect to either aspect. I then commented later in the post that you can't totally separate the two. In case you missed it: "...you can't totally separate the game aspect from the business either. So the cap must be considered in the complete terms. An arbitrary rule governing competition in a sporting league, which does not appear to impact the earning power of member franchises, nor restrict in any way outside of league competition the freedom of those franchises to 'reap their fruits'.

I contend that the cap is a 'competition' rule, in that it's sole restriction is on the amount of money that can be spent on player salaries. The salary cap places no limits on what the Wings can do otherwise to promote, increase the value of, or generate revenue from, their product. Nor does it restrict any other ways in which Illitch or the Wings organization can spend their profits. And while I admit the cap can have an adverse effect on the quality of the on ice product and thus potentially be impactful from a business perspective, that effect is outweighed by the positive benefits gained from membership in the NHL. Therefore, I conclude that there is nothing 'socialist' about it. It is simply a rule, very much like all the others, governing the manner in which teams are to compete in the NHL.

You seem to be laboring under the pretense that all rules are socialist. But without those rules, we wouldn't have a game. There would be no product for the NHL and its members to promote and sell. We obviously need some rules. The primary purpose being to regulate fair competition. But the existance of another rule designed to increase the number of viable competitors is not unfair at all. Everyone has the same limit, it is a fair rule of competition.

The draft is a better example of a socialist rule, since it is not a fair practice. But personally, I dislike the idea of luck being such a factor in draft position, though it would be more fair. I enjoy the parity and level of competition in the league, and thus I think the draft as it is is good for the league.

[T.Low 1,011]

Forgive me if I'm being unclear. I'll try.

I don't want to argue semantics, :

It's not semantics. Business entity and industry are two very different things, especially in this circumstance.

which does not appear to impact the earning power of member franchises, nor restrict in any way outside of league competition the freedom of those franchises to 'reap their fruits'.

Players are assets. They are the capital goods of the sports franchise. The stars are infact the rarest of entities, they are competitive monopolies: FOr example there are many forwards in the league, but there is only one Pavel Datsyuk and people will pay to see Pavel Datsyuk. He puts people in the stands. That equates to revenue. How can you say that the salary cap does not interfere with revenue. How can you say that the league telling the business owners how much they can spend on their capital goods, how much of their revenue than can reinvest into their business, does not interfere with a owner's right to reap the fruits of his labor.

And while I admit the cap can have an adverse effect on the quality of the on ice product and thus potentially be impactful from a business perspective,

No, you can't say that the salary cap has an adverse effect on the product, but no impact on earning power.

There is direct relationship between product and earning power. The saying is "build a better mouse trap", not build a subpar mouse trap.

that effect is outweighed by the positive benefits gained from membership in the NHL.

Yeah, thats the company line when it comes to franchises alright. Actually, that is pure rhetoric and sales pitch, with absolutely no data to back it up what so ever WHEN IT COMES TO A 30 TEAM NHL. And furthermore, conventional wisdom says the leauge is too big and would be better off if it downsized.

You seem to be laboring under the pretense that all rules are socialist. But without those rules, we wouldn't have a game. There would be no product for the NHL and its members to promote and sell. We obviously need some rules. The primary purpose being to regulate fair competition. But the existance of another rule designed to increase the number of viable competitors is not unfair at all. Everyone has the same limit, it is a fair rule of competition.

I've adressed exactly zero rules pertaining to the actual game play. I've not said or implied anything that would logically lead anyone to a conclusion that i think all rules are socialist. A game without rules is not a gmae at all. I've simply adressed the fact that it's a socialist principle for a central bureaucratic agency (Gary Bettman and the NHL) to undermine the rights of individuals (Mike Illitch) to allocate their own wealth and place this power into the hands of bureaucrats.

The draft is a better example of a socialist rule, since it is not a fair practice. But personally, I dislike the idea of luck being such a factor in draft position, though it would be more fair. I enjoy the parity and level of competition in the league, and thus I think the draft as it is is good for the league.

I too enjoy competition, and the parity in the league makes for some exciting hockey. That doesn't change the fact that it's a socialist system and Illitch is getting f***ed. It pisses me off that Illitch has to carry the mail for Carolina, Atlanta, and Pheonix, as well as his own Detroit Red Wings.

Edited July 21, 2010 by T.Low

[Buppy 1,720]

It's not semantics. Business entity and industry are two very different things, especially in this circumstance.

Players are assets. They are the capital goods of the sports franchise. The stars are infact the rarest of entities, they are competitive monopolies: FOr example there are many forwards in the league, but there is only one Pavel Datsyuk and people will pay to see Pavel Datsyuk. He puts people in the stands. That equates to revenue. How can you say that the salary cap does not interfere with revenue. How can you say that the league telling the business owners how much they can spend on their capital goods, how much of their revenue than can reinvest into their business, does not interfere with a owner's right to reap the fruits of his labor.

No, you can't say that the salary cap has an adverse effect on the product, but no impact on earning power.

There is direct relationship between product and earning power. The saying is "build a better mouse trap", not build a subpar mouse trap.

Yeah, thats the company line when it comes to franchises alright. Actually, that is pure rhetoric and sales pitch, with absolutely no data to back it up what so ever WHEN IT COMES TO A 30 TEAM NHL. And furthermore, conventional wisdom says the leauge is too big and would be better off if it downsized.

I've adressed exactly zero rules pertaining to the actual game play. I've not said or implied anything that would logically lead anyone to a conclusion that i think all rules are socialist. A game without rules is not a gmae at all. I've simply adressed the fact that it's a socialist principle for a central bureaucratic agency (Gary Bettman and the NHL) to undermine the rights of individuals (Mike Illitch) to allocate their own wealth and place this power into the hands of bureaucrats.

I too enjoy competition, and the parity in the league makes for some exciting hockey. That doesn't change the fact that it's a socialist system and Illitch is getting f***ed. It pisses me off that Illitch has to carry the mail for Carolina, Atlanta, and Pheonix, as well as his own Detroit Red Wings.

Well, iff you really want to get technical, industry is a term usually applied to broad categories of business, for instance Professional Hockey. The NHL buing a brand or business entity operating in that industry. You could consider NHL Hockey an industry, and the teams to be brands, but regardless, as I said orginally, I think we both meant essentially the same thing.

And I admitted that the cap could potentially impact a teams bottom line. However, the evidence from earnings in the cap era suggest rather strongly that it does not have any negative impact, but rather a positive one. We can't of course say for certain that it is the salary cap leading to the increased popularity and earnings around the league, but we can at least surmise that the cap does not appear to be harmful from a business perspective.

And you can not possibly deny the benefit the Wings reap from playing in the NHL. They need opponents to play against or they don't have a product to sell. They need a championship to play for or there's little to draw the interest of the fans. We need to make some collaborative effort much more than they need any individual team.

Any collective agreement between teams is bound to produce some rules that an individual team might not agree with, that could potentially be harmful to said team. But considering that without an agreement, a team would be left with absolutely nothing I don't think there's any basis for complaint. It's just something that has to be accepted. It impacts our bottom line that we can't schedule 180 games a year, but it is not in any sense socialist that the league doesn't allow us to do that. A limited schedule is just part of the framework under which the league operates. The salary cap is no different.

So I guess then it is only the involvement of money that makes you call it socialist. But you're still ignoring the fact that it's a game. The cap is a rule governing only what can be spent on player salaries. It is a competition rule, nothing more. You're acting as though there is some great infringement on Ilitch's ability to spend his money or reinvest in his product. It is a small restriction, on only one aspect where an owner could decide to spend their money. It is no different at all than the many rules governing how organizations need to comply to the agreed-upon standards of operation in NHL.

You say Ilitch is getting 'f***ed'. How is that? By making more money? Because he is making more now than pre-cap. Or is he getting screwed by not being able to win as often as he might like?

If it's the latter, then you are admitting the priority of the game aspect of the NHL, and should not have any problem admitting the validity of a rule governing competition in that game. Admitting that within the context of something as ultimately meaningless as a game, calling something socialist is a bit silly. Pretty much every game ever invented restricts the assets that can be devoted to competition. That is all the salary cap does. It's fundementally no different than a chess game allowing only one queen, no matter how many you can afford to buy.

If, on the other hand, you insist on emphasizing the socialist nature of the rule as it pertains to the business aspect of hockey, then you need to remember that Ilitch is perfectly free to own an operate a team that is not restricted by a salary cap. It just wouldn't be in the NHL. The cap is nothing more than a concession Ilitch needs to make in order to gain the benefits of competing in the world's top hockey league.

I think you might also be having trouble separating the cap from revenue sharing, as that's the only context in which Ilitch is 'carrying' anything. But the two are not really related. You could easily have either one without the other.