Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

Loophole


  • Please log in to reply
82 replies to this topic

#61 cusimano_brothers

cusimano_brothers

    Legend

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,610 posts
  • Location:Niagara Falls, ON

Posted 20 July 2010 - 02:59 PM

During the next round of negotiations for a new CBA, which side would try their hardest to close this "loophole"?

"Mess up tomorrow, don't mess up now".

- Harry James Benson, CBE.


#62 Barrie

Barrie

    Legend

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,917 posts

Posted 20 July 2010 - 03:11 PM

How about they make it simple and just get rid of the cap :hehe:

I'd be all for that. I keep hearing the small markets were better off before the lockout, the cap floor is really hurting them. They aren't bringing in enough revenue to spend $40+ Million on team salary. Plus with these long term contracts being the norm, the small markets can't keep up if they are spending the minimum. It'll be an interesting time when the next CBA negotiation takes place.
Lets Go:
Red Wings
Tigers
Roughriders
Lions
Spartans
Pistons

#63 egroen

egroen

    Hall-of-Famer

  • Gold Booster
  • 4,619 posts
  • Location:Michigan

Posted 20 July 2010 - 03:17 PM

It's obvious the NHL will have to draw a line somewhere - as GMs will only continue to push the envelope with these signings (Howe did play until the age of 51, after all -- Zetterberg's cap hit could be $2m a year if only Holland had signed him for an additional 10 years!).

I'll go ahead and say the age of 40 should be the cutoff designated by the next CBA.

46 skaters have played at the age of 40
13 at the age of 42
4 at the age of 44
Red Kelly #4 and Larry Aurie #6 belong in the rafters!!!

"For my game, I don't need to score the goal," Konstantinov once explained. "I need someone to start thinking about me and forgetting about scoring goals."

#64 Buppy

Buppy

    1st Line All-Star

  • Silver Booster
  • 1,980 posts

Posted 20 July 2010 - 03:24 PM

Yet, you cry for more regulation, not less. You want to close even more aspects of the market, not open them. Who are you to tell NJ how to spend their money? What's it to you if they sign him until he's 34, 44, or 54? (In retrospect, Illitch could have saved quite a bit of money with a long term Chelios deal and put that money somewhere else!)

If that's a risk NJ is willing to take, then who are you to ask for more impedance on their sovereignty as a business entity?

NJ has had a great franchise for many years, and cannot reap the fruits of their own labor, the rewards they deserve for their hard work. Instead, they have to give their hard earned money to ill concieved, unorganized franchises in rediculous southern markets, and are only allowed to spend what a governning body has centrally planned they can spend.

Yet, this doesn't satisfy you. You want to impose more rules on business owners and how they can go about acguiring their assests.

Central planning and overegulation. I repeat; Spoken like a true Socialist.


What a ridiculous post.

It is hardly socialist to expect NJ to comly with the rules that all teams have agreed to operate under.

But even further, I question the assertion that the cap itself is socialist.

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. The cap is no more socialist than practice restrictions, PED regulations, roster limits, rink standards, scheduling rules, game length, player aquisition, or any of the myriad rules governing play and operation of the competing teams. It is simply a rule governing the resources that can be spent on players.

While an argument could be made that the cap (and moreso, revenue sharing) is socialist in the business aspect of the NHL, it is not a limit on how much money or profit a team can make. Furthermore, an argument could be made that belonging to the league (as opposed to operating independently) provides more benefit to any single team than any single team provides to the league, so operating under league rules is a small price to pay for membership. And also that increased parity in the league, and the associated rise in popularity, allows a well-managed team operating under a cap to do just as well or even better financially than one without a cap. The fact that league revenues are at all-time highs, and that the Wings'revenues have increased by over $30 million from 03-04 to 08-09 (and I think that's even after revenue sharing) makes that a pretty strong argument.

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. I would prefer a soft cap with a tax system to replace revenue sharing. But I have to admit that the cap is by all appearances good for the league.

There is nothing enforcably wrong with what Lamo did. Like J.T. says, he totally followed the letter of the law, if not the spirit of the law. And until the letter of the law and the spirit of the law are the same, a GM would be irresponsible to not do the same because the bold GMs will and the conservative GMs will be left behind.
http://habsloyalist....ter-of-law.html


Two things here. One, you nor anyone else here knows if he followed the letter of the law or not. If there was an unwritten agreement (probably not) or (more likely) a predetermined plan to somehow dispose of Kovy before the contract is fulfilled in its entirety, then he has in fact broken the letter of the law, which strictly forbids both actions.

Also this: 26.3 (a) from the CBA

No Club or Club Actor, directly or indirectly, may: (i) enter into any
agreements, promises, undertakings, representations, commitments, inducements,
assurances of intent, or understandings of any kind, whether express, implied, oral or
written, including without limitation, any SPC, Qualifying Offer, Offer Sheet or other
transaction, or (ii) take or fail to take any action whatsoever, if either (i) or (ii) is intended
to or has the effect of defeating or Circumventing the provisions of this Agreement or the
intention of the parties as reflected by the provisions of this Agreement

Is a rather neat way of saying that violating the 'spirit of the law' is, in itself, against the rules.

#65 HankthaTank

HankthaTank

    3rd Line Center

  • Silver Booster
  • 4,815 posts
  • Location:Warren, MI

Posted 20 July 2010 - 03:27 PM

Bummed he had to stay in the East. Would have liked to see him play a little more in the West with LA.

Edited by HankthaTank, 20 July 2010 - 03:29 PM.

TO WHOM MUCH IS GIVEN, MUCH IS EXPECTED.

#66 WorkingOvertime

WorkingOvertime

    Hall-of-Famer

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,422 posts
  • Location:Columbus, OH

Posted 20 July 2010 - 03:27 PM

I'll go ahead and say the age of 40 should be the cutoff designated by the next CBA.

46 skaters have played at the age of 40
13 at the age of 42
4 at the age of 44

I agree with this. Max age a player can be signed until is 40, unless the contract was signed after the player is 35 years old. There has to be a line drawn somewhere, and I think this is a fair one.

#67 T.Low

T.Low

    Hall-of-Famer

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,906 posts
  • Location:Bellingham, Wa

Posted 20 July 2010 - 06:57 PM

I agree Lamo did nothing wrong, and no GM should have to follow imaginary rules. Thats why if your going to have a cap there should be a basic set of principals that teams have to follow.

Maybe even allow teams to give out signing bonuses that don't fully impact the cap. But allowing teams to give 17 year deals is ridiculous.

Whats stopping teams from signing their top players to lifetime contracts and really cutting their cap hit.

What if for exemple the pens sign Crosby to a lifetime deal and he never files his retirement papers just keeps collecting a paycheck.

just get rid of the Cap and let teams pay players what they want, which is the best way for teams to keep their top players.




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.

Edited by T.Low, 20 July 2010 - 07:06 PM.


#68 T.Low

T.Low

    Hall-of-Famer

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,906 posts
  • Location:Bellingham, Wa

Posted 20 July 2010 - 07:19 PM

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.

Edited by T.Low, 20 July 2010 - 07:24 PM.


#69 T.Low

T.Low

    Hall-of-Famer

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,906 posts
  • Location:Bellingham, Wa

Posted 20 July 2010 - 07:34 PM

I agree with this. Max age a player can be signed until is 40, unless the contract was signed after the player is 35 years old. There has to be a line drawn somewhere, and I think this is a fair one.



Why?

And why does there have to be a line drawn?

#70 Original-Six

Original-Six

    1st Line Sniper

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 850 posts

Posted 20 July 2010 - 08:09 PM

And why does there have to be a line drawn?


Because it makes the cap pointless...
(Not that i really care)

#71 Tommy_Like_Wingy

Tommy_Like_Wingy

    3rd Line Checker

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 369 posts

Posted 20 July 2010 - 08:25 PM

Because it makes the cap pointless...
(Not that i really care)


I'd say it hardly makes the cap pointless. The cap basically forces great players like Kovalchuk/Hossa/Zetterberg to choose between success or money. Why should great players be forced to go to crappy teams with cap room just to get paid what they deserve? And without the ability to sign players to contracts like this then great franchises like ours that develop young talent into successful NHL stars have to trade them away when they're in their prime because we can't afford them anymore. So bottom feeder teams just benefit from all of the hard work the Wings organization puts forth.

#72 weGotTheCup89

weGotTheCup89

    This is for the Wings fans!

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 319 posts
  • Location:Sterling Heights

Posted 20 July 2010 - 08:43 PM

I just really wish it would've been a 30 year deal or something so absurd they would have to do something about it. But really, I don't have a problem with it, it's actually surprising it has taken this long after the new CBA for so many contracts like this to be signed.
Q: Of all the individual trophies you have not won, which one would you most like to win?
Datsyuk: I have so many of them that I haven't won. I think I would most like to win a trophy to the best goaltending duo.

#73 Original-Six

Original-Six

    1st Line Sniper

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 850 posts

Posted 20 July 2010 - 08:45 PM

I'd say it hardly makes the cap pointless. The cap basically forces great players like Kovalchuk/Hossa/Zetterberg to choose between success or money. Why should great players be forced to go to crappy teams with cap room just to get paid what they deserve? And without the ability to sign players to contracts like this then great franchises like ours that develop young talent into successful NHL stars have to trade them away when they're in their prime because we can't afford them anymore. So bottom feeder teams just benefit from all of the hard work the Wings organization puts forth.


The point in the cap was to basically prevent big money teams from buying up all the top end talent with fat paying contracts and leave the small market teams in the dust. We are starting to see teams do just that by using loop holes to circumvent the cap. It really doesn't matter to me i hate the NHL hard cap anyways...

#74 Buppy

Buppy

    1st Line All-Star

  • Silver Booster
  • 1,980 posts

Posted 20 July 2010 - 08:55 PM

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.


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.

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.

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.

#75 toby91_ca

toby91_ca

    Legend

  • Gold Booster
  • 8,458 posts

Posted 20 July 2010 - 09:06 PM

Why?

And why does there have to be a line drawn?

Do you think it makes sense to have a guy paid $95 million and have the team only have to absorb $60 million for cap purposes?

#76 wings87

wings87

    Wake Up!

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,823 posts
  • Location:Texas

Posted 20 July 2010 - 09:31 PM

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.

"He usually shows up when the game is over and tries to be the hero. Puts his cape on and goes and flies out there." ~ Franzen 


#77 wings87

wings87

    Wake Up!

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,823 posts
  • Location:Texas

Posted 20 July 2010 - 09:45 PM

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.

"He usually shows up when the game is over and tries to be the hero. Puts his cape on and goes and flies out there." ~ Franzen 


#78 mackel

mackel

    Bring Back Vernie

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 498 posts

Posted 20 July 2010 - 10:56 PM

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

#79 T.Low

T.Low

    Hall-of-Famer

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,906 posts
  • Location:Bellingham, Wa

Posted 21 July 2010 - 12:32 AM

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.
[/quote]

Edited by T.Low, 21 July 2010 - 12:36 AM.


#80 T.Low

T.Low

    Hall-of-Famer

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,906 posts
  • Location:Bellingham, Wa

Posted 21 July 2010 - 12:38 AM

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.





Similar Topics Collapse

  Topic Forum Started By Stats Last Post Info

0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users