Investigate this

by DaveDaytona on Aug 10, 2010 10:46 PM EDT

Following the Arbitrator's upholding of the NHL's rejection of Ilya Kovalchuk's contract for circumventing the CBA, the NHL claims to be "investigating" other front-loaded contracts, including those of Roberto Luongo, Chris Pronger, Marc Savard and Marian Hossa.

Arguably, Kovalchuk's contract was more extreme than the others; the 'backdive' was steeper, the term was longer and the switch from 'no move' to 'no trade' made it obvious that the late years were a sham. The point at which a contract with these features becomes circumvention has yet to be determined, which leaves lots of room to argue about future contracts.

But should Luongo et al. start looking for new deals? Invalidating their contracts won't be easy. According to Section 11.6 (b) of the CBA,

an approved and registered SPC may be subject to subsequent challenge and/or de-registration by the League: (i) in the case of a Circumvention relating to either the Club Upper Limit or the Maximum Player Salary, within sixty (60) days from the date upon which the facts of the Circumvention became known or reasonably should have been known to the NHL

Since the NHL has already approved and registered these contracts, any subsequent challenge had to be made within 60 days of the League reasonably knowing about the circumvention.

To invalidate these contracts, the NHL would have to claim it could not have reasonably known that they circumvented the CBA until, essentially, now. But the details of the contract were known long ago, and the fact that they were intended to circumvent the CBA was widely debated. Only the ruling is new, and the NHL can hardly claim it needed the ruling to realize these other guys were circumventing the cap too.

PensionPlanPuppets.com is a fan community that allows members to post their own thoughts and opinions on the Toronto Maple Leafs and hockey in general. These views and thoughts may not be shared by the editor of PensionPlanPuppets.com.

Tweet Comment 11 comments | 0 recs |

Do you like this story?

Comments

The confusing thing is that apparently the league has been investigating these contracts for over a year!

It’s going to be a very interesting two months.

Pension Plan Puppets: A Toronto Maple Leafs blog and a group therapy session.
Like reading thoughts confined to 140 characters? I'm on Twitter too.

by PPP on Aug 10, 2010 10:56 PM EDT reply actions

Apparently they can still withdraw any of the contracts; including Hossa’s despite the fact he’s played under it. I can understand the other contracts being withdrawn somewhat after the fact because those players have yet to play under them, but imagine what could happen if the Hossa contract is deemed to have circumvented the salary cap. What would happen to the Cup from last season?

Follow me on twitter @CoolJ90 or add me to XBox Live - CoolJ90

by CoolJ90 on Aug 11, 2010 10:09 AM EDT up reply actions

nothing

people are losing their minds over this.

The Islanders were not penalized for having a CHEATER on their roster (sean hill, steroids) and they made the playoffs winning down the stretch while the Leafs missed out by 1 point.

If cheating won’t affect game results, then why should squiggles on a piece of paper matter? They are not absolute or objective laws, they are self-contained to the environment they themselves create. They have no bearing on the field of play. Hossa is an eligible player for the NHL, and will continue to be. Its not like a 25 year old in the Little League World Series in that he shouldn’t be even allowed to play. If Hossa’s contract gets nullified then he just signs another one with them. He was playing for the Hawks before, and he will be playing for them after. How is anything different?

If the team has screwed up, then there are provisions for that (loss of draft picks, monetary fines) but thats already known. That is what is dictated by the terms of this code – contractual funny business means fines/picks. This isn’t the NCAA where they say ‘if you give money to a student or if you cheat on these students’ marks, then that is a supreme violation of our rules and you will have wins & championships erased.’

The NHL isn’t like that, and they simply don’t care.

/rant

by Death_By_Leafs on Aug 11, 2010 11:47 AM EDT up reply actions

Yes, they can challenge a registered and approved contract—but there are rules, which are defined under Section 11.6(b) of the CBA.
1. If the challenge is based on the contract circumventing the cap, the challenge must come within 60 days etc. as above.
2. If the challenge is based on the contract actually violating maximum club or maximum player salary, the league has 14 days to challenge it.
At worst, these contracts circumvent the CBA. The League’s time to reject them has passed.

by DaveDaytona on Aug 11, 2010 12:18 PM EDT up reply actions

It's never too late

As per Article 26.10 (b):

“The Investigator’s authority to investigate a possible Circumvention relating to an SPC shall in no way be limited by the fact that such SPC was approved and registered by Central Registry.”

And as per Article 26.10 (d):

“There shall be no limitation of time barring the investigation of a Circumvention by the Commissioner.”

by Spezzal Teams Playa on Aug 11, 2010 2:01 PM EDT up reply actions

Good catch

Negative. I am a meat popsicle.

by birky on Aug 10, 2010 11:41 PM EDT reply actions

It is. The only thing I’m thinking as mentioned on Puck Daddy is that they could claim that the arbitrators decision defined exactly what cap circumvention was and these contracts fit that description. Which basically means that the NHL needs to be told how to interpret its own CBA which is not really an admission you’d think they would want to make.

The Guess Who sucked, the Jets were lousy anyway

by Plea From A Cat Named Felix on Aug 11, 2010 11:28 AM EDT up reply actions

i should have tried this in school

“75%??? Uhhh I think there is a wrongful interpretation here. Let me get an arbitrator to decide on what I was actually trying to say.”

by Death_By_Leafs on Aug 11, 2010 11:49 AM EDT up reply actions

First, the clock starts not when the league actually became aware of the contravention, but when they reasonably should have known of it. To start the clock from the arbitrators decision, it’s not enough for the league to claim they didn’t know this was contravention; they have to show that it was unreasonable for them to be able to figure out what every hockey fan already knew.

Second, the clause refers to becoming aware of the facts of the circumvention; i.e., the clock starts when the league should have been aware of the facts, not when they figured out that these facts constituted contravention.

by DaveDaytona on Aug 11, 2010 12:39 PM EDT up reply actions

And if the terms of circumvention have just been established from Monday’s decision, then theoretically they can only be aware of it starting this week.

by Death_By_Leafs on Aug 11, 2010 1:40 PM EDT up reply actions

Yea, that’s what I and they were getting at. Monday was the earlies they could have been reasonably aware of the circumvention. I think it’s bogus but I understand the reasoning.

The Guess Who sucked, the Jets were lousy anyway

by Plea From A Cat Named Felix on Aug 11, 2010 2:10 PM EDT up reply actions