DEAL VOIDED BY ARBITRATOR! Kovalchuk re-signs in Jersey: $102M over 17 years

Dean Lombardi is laughing quite hard now. I wish they had the stones to do this for Hossa, Richards, etc.

I think it was the Hossa, Pronger, and maybe Lecavalier, deals that were the most scrutinized. And yeah, this isn't good that the NHL decided to reject this deal and not those ones. Wouldn't be surprised to see NJ fight this.

Dash wrote:I think it was the Hossa, Pronger, and maybe Lecavalier, deals that were the most scrutinized. And yeah, this isn't good that the NHL decided to reject this deal and not those ones. Wouldn't be surprised to see NJ fight this.

The two most similar deals are Hossa and Lungo since they take the players to 42 and 43 respectively. I am willing to bet that if the Devils revise the contract to make the last 6 years 1M per year that the league would approve the deal, since it would look eerily similar to the other two deals that were accepted.

http://tsn.ca/nhl/story/?id=328025

NHL REJECTS KOVALCHUK CONTRACT FOR SALARY CAP CIRCUMVENTION


Busted !!!

I don't see where in the CBA it says that NJ circumvented the cap. I know the CBA inside and out and I don't see it. In my best guess, this contract will be allowed to go through.

If anything, the NHL might just want Lou to lower the length of the contract to only a 16 year instead of 17. That will take Kovalchuk to the age of 43, the same as Luongo when his contract runs out. This will just be a good faith thing though between Bettman and Lou.

Other than that, good work by New Jersey. They followed the CBA.

Here is the rule that some people think is in question:
50.7 (ii) any decrease in Player Salary and Bonuses from one League Year to another may not exceed 50 percent of the Player Salary and Bonuses of the lower of the first two League Years of the SPC (or, if such amounts are the same, 50 percent of that same amount).

In simpler terms, the first 2 years of Kovalchuk's contract pay him $6 million in each year. Therefore 50% of 6 mil is 3 mil. That means from any year to year salary, Kovalchuk can not make 3 mil less than he did the year prior.

Any increase in salary has a different set of rules, but his increases follow the CBA as well.

I don't think the NHL has a leg to stand on, where I have 6. Haha.

CockRoche wrote:I don't see where in the CBA it says that NJ circumvented the cap. I know the CBA inside and out and I don't see it. In my best guess, this contract will be allowed to go through.

If anything, the NHL might just want Lou to lower the length of the contract to only a 16 year instead of 17. That will take Kovalchuk to the age of 43, the same as Luongo when his contract runs out. This will just be a good faith thing though between Bettman and Lou.

Other than that, good work by New Jersey. They followed the CBA.

Here is the rule that some people think is in question:
50.7 (ii) any decrease in Player Salary and Bonuses from one League Year to another may not exceed 50 percent of the Player Salary and Bonuses of the lower of the first two League Years of the SPC (or, if such amounts are the same, 50 percent of that same amount).

In simpler terms, the first 2 years of Kovalchuk's contract pay him $6 million in each year. Therefore 50% of 6 mil is 3 mil. That means from any year to year salary, Kovalchuk can not make 3 mil less than he did the year prior.

Any increase in salary has a different set of rules, but his increases follow the CBA as well.

I don't think the NHL has a leg to stand on, where I have 6. Haha.

A number of commentators have pointed out that the CBA has a clause that allows them to void contracts that void 'the spirit of' the CBA.

One example:

"There is a clause in the current CBA that allows the NHL to step in on
contracts if the spirit of the CBA is breached. So they would be well
within their rights to void the contract and say that they are pretty
certain Kovalchuk will not be playing for half a million bucks when he's
44 years old." (Dobber)

CockRoche wrote:
I don't think the NHL has a leg to stand on, where I have 6. Haha.

... better count again.

rooneypoo wrote:

CockRoche wrote:I don't see where in the CBA it says that NJ circumvented the cap. I know the CBA inside and out and I don't see it. In my best guess, this contract will be allowed to go through.

If anything, the NHL might just want Lou to lower the length of the contract to only a 16 year instead of 17. That will take Kovalchuk to the age of 43, the same as Luongo when his contract runs out. This will just be a good faith thing though between Bettman and Lou.

Other than that, good work by New Jersey. They followed the CBA.

Here is the rule that some people think is in question:
50.7 (ii) any decrease in Player Salary and Bonuses from one League Year to another may not exceed 50 percent of the Player Salary and Bonuses of the lower of the first two League Years of the SPC (or, if such amounts are the same, 50 percent of that same amount).

In simpler terms, the first 2 years of Kovalchuk's contract pay him $6 million in each year. Therefore 50% of 6 mil is 3 mil. That means from any year to year salary, Kovalchuk can not make 3 mil less than he did the year prior.

Any increase in salary has a different set of rules, but his increases follow the CBA as well.

I don't think the NHL has a leg to stand on, where I have 6. Haha.

A number of commentators have pointed out that the CBA has a clause that allows them to void contracts that void 'the spirit of' the CBA.

One example:

"There is a clause in the current CBA that allows the NHL to step in on
contracts if the spirit of the CBA is breached. So they would be well
within their rights to void the contract and say that they are pretty
certain Kovalchuk will not be playing for half a million bucks when he's
44 years old." (Dobber)

"Pretty certain" doesn't hold up when lawyers get involved.

I know there are outs, but nothing iron clad. If Lou wanted to get lawyers involved, he would win this case.

I also said what I thought may happen, a little good faith deal where it simply becomes a 16 year contract instead of a 17.

Holy Dung.

CockRoche wrote:

rooneypoo wrote:

CockRoche wrote:I don't see where in the CBA it says that NJ circumvented the cap. I know the CBA inside and out and I don't see it. In my best guess, this contract will be allowed to go through.

If anything, the NHL might just want Lou to lower the length of the contract to only a 16 year instead of 17. That will take Kovalchuk to the age of 43, the same as Luongo when his contract runs out. This will just be a good faith thing though between Bettman and Lou.

Other than that, good work by New Jersey. They followed the CBA.

Here is the rule that some people think is in question:
50.7 (ii) any decrease in Player Salary and Bonuses from one League Year to another may not exceed 50 percent of the Player Salary and Bonuses of the lower of the first two League Years of the SPC (or, if such amounts are the same, 50 percent of that same amount).

In simpler terms, the first 2 years of Kovalchuk's contract pay him $6 million in each year. Therefore 50% of 6 mil is 3 mil. That means from any year to year salary, Kovalchuk can not make 3 mil less than he did the year prior.

Any increase in salary has a different set of rules, but his increases follow the CBA as well.

I don't think the NHL has a leg to stand on, where I have 6. Haha.

A number of commentators have pointed out that the CBA has a clause that allows them to void contracts that void 'the spirit of' the CBA.

One example:

"There is a clause in the current CBA that allows the NHL to step in on
contracts if the spirit of the CBA is breached. So they would be well
within their rights to void the contract and say that they are pretty
certain Kovalchuk will not be playing for half a million bucks when he's
44 years old." (Dobber)

"Pretty certain" doesn't hold up when lawyers get involved.

I know there are outs, but nothing iron clad. If Lou wanted to get lawyers involved, he would win this case.

I also said what I thought may happen, a little good faith deal where it simply becomes a 16 year contract instead of a 17.

There's no "pretty certain" attached to the statement that matters, tho': according to a number of analysts, there is a CBA clause that states that the NHL can take action on contracts that violate the spirit of the salary cap.

It was pretty clear: 5 years at league minimum for a player over 39. He has absolutely no intention of collecting as much as 5 years' worth of that contract. It's a blatant attempt to circumvent the spirit of the CBA.

Still surprised they had the balls to do it, but like Roche says, they'll probably just amend it to be more like previous contracts.

I am amazed they rejected it... this should get interesting now. I wonder if they'll just lop off those last 5 years and end up with a 12-year deal.

I think the worst they can do is allow it to be structured like the Luongo, Hossa or Pronger deals.

If I was the KHL, I'd be pressing hard now, with a lot of suitcases of cash...

shabbs wrote:I am amazed they rejected it... this should get interesting now. I wonder if they'll just lop off those last 5 years and end up with a 12-year deal.

That would be an $8.5M cap hit instead of $6M. Quite a difference.

shabbs wrote:If I was the KHL, I'd be pressing hard now, with a lot of suitcases of cash...

I don't think he wants to go to the KHL.

Devils will modify the contract and suck up a bigger cap hit, this is the 1st time a contract has been rejected I don't see any penalties being handed out.

wprager wrote:

shabbs wrote:I am amazed they rejected it... this should get interesting now. I wonder if they'll just lop off those last 5 years and end up with a 12-year deal.

That would be an $8.5M cap hit instead of $6M. Quite a difference.

Exactly what the NHL is saying. Kovalchuk was slated to earn $95 million over the first 10 years of the deal and then just $7 million over the last seven seasons. Pretty blatant.

Hoags wrote:

shabbs wrote:If I was the KHL, I'd be pressing hard now, with a lot of suitcases of cash...

I don't think he wants to go to the KHL.

Devils will modify the contract and suck up a bigger cap hit, this is the 1st time a contract has been rejected I don't see any penalties being handed out.

But can they? They're already over the cap as it is, with this "cap saver" contract. I wonder if this opens the door for LA, again?