Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
DevsFan7545

New Kovy Update ("As the Kovy Turns")

12,307 posts in this topic

Yeah I highly doubt that will happen.

I also stand by my position that Lou/Kovy/Grossface have a backup contract.

What also might happen is that the arbitrator might drop, shall we say, subtle hints as to what type of deal would pass muster, to foster some kind of settlement.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What also might happen is that the arbitrator might drop, shall we say, subtle hints as to what type of deal would pass muster, to foster some kind of settlement.

I'm pretty sure the hints won't be subtle.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Arbitration usually leads to the result most likely to piss of everyone a little bit. I wouldn't be shocked to see the arbitrator come to the conclusion that the last 6 years of this contract creates an appearance of impropriety and since previous front loaded contracts have been approved that this contract is valid provided the amount of front loaded $$$ is reduced to more in line with Hossa or Zetterberg.

If you are saying that the arbitrator might slightly restructure the contract - putting a little more money on the end and taking some off the top then I agree it's certainly a possibility.

If you are saying that the arbitrator is likely to restructure the contract so that the amount is pretty flat over the 17 year course then I would say no chance - if the arbitrator thought the contract needed that much of a restructure then he would just side with the NHL and reject the contract.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wait, the arbitrator can re-structure the contract? I thought he was just ruling on whether or not the NHL was justified in rejecting it, and the only possible outcomes were to either have the contract approved or rejected.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

http://www.thehockeynews.com/articles/34607-THNcom-Blog-Kovalchuk-contract-could-be-restructured-by-arbitrator.html

"When the NHL Players’ Association filed a grievance Monday to dispute the NHL’s rejection of Ilya Kovalchuk’s 17-year, $102 million contract with the New Jersey Devils, it ran the risk of having an arbitrator restructure the contract if he or she sides with the NHL in the matter.

One source close to the situation told THN.com that one of the possibilities would be for the system arbitrator to reform the contract instead of rejecting it and if it were reformed, it would likely be to make the cap hit and salary flat, which would mean Kovalchuk’s contract would pay him $6 million per season for each of the next 17 seasons."

It's right there in the CBA under Article 11.6(a)(iv). This outcome wouldn't surprise me although I would expect the arbitrator to recommend the salary distribution to be brought more in line with Hossa, Zetterberg etc.

Hockeynews needs a better legal advisor. I won't go through the entire thing, but 11.6(a)(iv) applies when the contract is invalid pursuant to 11.6(a)(ii). 11.6(a)(ii) states thatit applies when the contract is rejected for reasons OTHER than those specified in 11.6(a)(i). 11.6(a)(i) applies to, among other things, claims of cap circumvention, which is what we have here.

It's an up or down decision by the arbitrator. At most, the arbitrator can let be known with a wink, wink, nudge, nudge, what kind of deal would work.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you are saying that the arbitrator might slightly restructure the contract - putting a little more money on the end and taking some off the top then I agree it's certainly a possibility.

If you are saying that the arbitrator is likely to restructure the contract so that the amount is pretty flat over the 17 year course then I would say no chance - if the arbitrator thought the contract needed that much of a restructure then he would just side with the NHL and reject the contract.

I don't think the arbitrator will make this contract a flat $6 million over 17 years. The CBA does not require even pay structure over the course of any contract.

The more I think about it, the more I think the arbitrator coming up with a restructured deal is the most likely scenario. The last 5 years of this deal are a red flag since $550k is in all likelihood going to be very below league minimum in 2022. A structure such as 10 10 10 10 8 8 8 6 6 6 6 6 2 2 2 1 1 should pass IMO.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hockeynews needs a better legal advisor. I won't go through the entire thing, but 11.6(a)(iv) applies when the contract is invalid pursuant to 11.6(a)(ii). 11.6(a)(ii) states thatit applies when the contract is rejected for reasons OTHER than those specified in 11.6(a)(i). 11.6(a)(i) applies to, among other things, claims of cap circumvention, which is what we have here.

It's an up or down decision by the arbitrator. At most, the arbitrator can let be known with a wink, wink, nudge, nudge, what kind of deal would work.

11.6 Rejection of SPCs and/or Offer Sheets; Subsequent Challenge and/or De-

Registration of SPCs and/or Offer Sheets.

(a) Rejection of SPCs and/or Offer Sheets. In the case of an SPC or an

Offer Sheet, as the case may be, that is filed and rejected by the League, the following

rules and procedures shall apply:

(i) If an SPC or an Offer Sheet is rejected: (A) because it results in

the signing Club exceeding the Upper Limit, or (B) because it does

not comply with the Maximum Player Salary or © because it is or

involves a Circumvention of either the Club's Upper Limit or the

Maximum Player Salary, and:

Cap circumvention is covered under 11.6(a)(ii) as one other OTHER REASONS. Kovy's contract does not exceed the upper limit of the cap or player's maximum salary.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think the arbitrator will make this contract a flat $6 million over 17 years. The CBA does not require even pay structure over the course of any contract.

The more I think about it, the more I think the arbitrator coming up with a restructured deal is the most likely scenario. The last 5 years of this deal are a red flag since $550k is in all likelihood going to be very below league minimum in 2022. A structure such as 10 10 10 10 8 8 8 6 6 6 6 6 2 2 2 1 1 should pass IMO.

I do not see the arbitrator even changing the deal that much (if he even can). At that point he'll reject the contract.

Edited by ben00rs

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

the arbitrator rules based on what the two parties ALLOW him to rule on.

it's a yes or no decision. That's it. he can't impose fines. he can't say, do this and i'll vote the other way. he can't say, i'm changing the contract to do this.

the NHL and NHLPA have given him the authority to do one thing. make ONE decision that says "this doesn't violate the CBA - it is a good contract - register it" OR "this contract violates the CBA and the NHL's rejection is validated - kovalchuk is a free agent".

that's it guys.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

the arbitrator rules based on what the two parties ALLOW him to rule on.

it's a yes or no decision. That's it. he can't impose fines. he can't say, do this and i'll vote the other way. he can't say, i'm changing the contract to do this.

the NHL and NHLPA have given him the authority to do one thing. make ONE decision that says "this doesn't violate the CBA - it is a good contract - register it" OR "this contract violates the CBA and the NHL's rejection is validated - kovalchuk is a free agent".

that's it guys.

yep. anyone saying otherwise is not reading the CBA closely enough. i don't know why TG is reporting what he's reporting unless things are taking place according to section 26, which we haven't gotten word of.

Edited by Triumph

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

11.6 Rejection of SPCs and/or Offer Sheets; Subsequent Challenge and/or De-

Registration of SPCs and/or Offer Sheets.

(a) Rejection of SPCs and/or Offer Sheets. In the case of an SPC or an

Offer Sheet, as the case may be, that is filed and rejected by the League, the following

rules and procedures shall apply:

(i) If an SPC or an Offer Sheet is rejected: (A) because it results in

the signing Club exceeding the Upper Limit, or (B) because it does

not comply with the Maximum Player Salary or © because it is or

involves a Circumvention of either the Club's Upper Limit or the

Maximum Player Salary, and:

Cap circumvention is covered under 11.6(a)(ii) as one other OTHER REASONS. Kovy's contract does not exceed the upper limit of the cap or player's maximum salary.

I've got time, so let's go through it in more detail:

11.(a)(iv): "If the Arbitrator sustains the League's rejection of any such SPC pursuant to subsection (ii) above" arbitrator can reform the deal.

11.(a)(ii): "If an SPC or Offer Sheet, as the case may be, is rejected for reasons OTHER THAN those specified in (i); and: [other provisions not relevent here]" (emphasis added)

11.(a)(i): "If an SPC or an Offer Sheet is rejected . . . © because it is or involves a Circumvention of either Club's Upper Limit or the Maximnum Player Salary . . ."

Cap Circumvention is one of the other reaons under which 11.6(a)(ii) DOES NOT APPLY. Thus, 11.(a)(iv) only appliezs when there is rejection for something OTHER THAN what is covered in 11.6(a)(i).

Again, Hockeynews has it wrong.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hockeynews needs a better legal advisor. I won't go through the entire thing, but 11.6(a)(iv) applies when the contract is invalid pursuant to 11.6(a)(ii). 11.6(a)(ii) states thatit applies when the contract is rejected for reasons OTHER than those specified in 11.6(a)(i). 11.6(a)(i) applies to, among other things, claims of cap circumvention, which is what we have here.

It's an up or down decision by the arbitrator. At most, the arbitrator can let be known with a wink, wink, nudge, nudge, what kind of deal would work.

the arbitrator rules based on what the two parties ALLOW him to rule on.

it's a yes or no decision. That's it. he can't impose fines. he can't say, do this and i'll vote the other way. he can't say, i'm changing the contract to do this.

the NHL and NHLPA have given him the authority to do one thing. make ONE decision that says "this doesn't violate the CBA - it is a good contract - register it" OR "this contract violates the CBA and the NHL's rejection is validated - kovalchuk is a free agent".

that's it guys.

Thanks for clearing that up, fellas.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've got time, so let's go through it in more detail:

11.(a)(iv): "If the Arbitrator sustains the League's rejection of any such SPC pursuant to subsection (ii) above" arbitrator can reform the deal.

11.(a)(ii): "If an SPC or Offer Sheet, as the case may be, is rejected for reasons OTHER THAN those specified in (i); and: [other provisions not relevent here]" (emphasis added)

11.(a)(i): "If an SPC or an Offer Sheet is rejected . . . © because it is or involves a Circumvention of either Club's Upper Limit or the Maximnum Player Salary . . ."

Cap Circumvention is one of the other reaons under which 11.6(a)(ii) DOES NOT APPLY. Thus, 11.(a)(iv) only appliezs when there is rejection for something OTHER THAN what is covered in 11.6(a)(i).

Again, Hockeynews has it wrong.

I'm going with Daniel on this one for the technical analysis. But Sundstrom put it in the best terms basically saying: The arbitrator has a very simple job here and is allowed to either say "yes" or "no".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

the arbitrator rules based on what the two parties ALLOW him to rule on.

it's a yes or no decision. That's it. he can't impose fines. he can't say, do this and i'll vote the other way. he can't say, i'm changing the contract to do this.

the NHL and NHLPA have given him the authority to do one thing. make ONE decision that says "this doesn't violate the CBA - it is a good contract - register it" OR "this contract violates the CBA and the NHL's rejection is validated - kovalchuk is a free agent".

that's it guys.

Just to be clear, what the NHL and the NHLPA have allowed the arbitrator to rule on, is what's provided in the CBA. The CBA does not allow the arbitrator to reform the deal on his own in this case.

As a practical matter, the parties can settle. The arbitrator can subtlely see to it that that happens.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've got time, so let's go through it in more detail:

11.(a)(iv): "If the Arbitrator sustains the League's rejection of any such SPC pursuant to subsection (ii) above" arbitrator can reform the deal.

11.(a)(ii): "If an SPC or Offer Sheet, as the case may be, is rejected for reasons OTHER THAN those specified in (i); and: [other provisions not relevent here]" (emphasis added)

11.(a)(i): "If an SPC or an Offer Sheet is rejected . . . © because it is or involves a Circumvention of either Club's Upper Limit or the Maximnum Player Salary . . ."

Cap Circumvention is one of the other reaons under which 11.6(a)(ii) DOES NOT APPLY. Thus, 11.(a)(iv) only appliezs when there is rejection for something OTHER THAN what is covered in 11.6(a)(i).

Again, Hockeynews has it wrong.

Your reading is wrong. 11.a.1 states circumvention of either the clubs upper limit of the maximum player salary. The NHL cannot allege either of those grounds to reject the contract since neither takes place in the Kovalchuk contract. They have to rely on the more amorphous 11.a.ii which states OTHER THAN. You are getting thrown off by the word circumvention in in 11.a.i. The circumvention must be either of the grounds contained in that provision. In this case, the alleged circumvention has to be something like an agreement on an early retirement or violation of the spirit of the CBA or something to that effect. Therefore, 11.a.ii applies and the arbitrator has the ability to conform the contract to the CBA.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Your reading is wrong. 11.a.1 states circumvention of either the clubs upper limit of the maximum player salary. The NHL cannot allege either of those grounds to reject the contract since neither takes place in the Kovalchuk contract. They have to rely on the more amorphous 11.a.ii which states OTHER THAN. You are getting thrown off by the word circumvention in in 11.a.i. The circumvention must be either of the grounds contained in that provision. In this case, the alleged circumvention has to be something like an agreement on an early retirement or violation of the spirit of the CBA or something to that effect. Therefore, 11.a.ii applies and the arbitrator has the ability to conform the contract to the CBA.

The league has already made it clear that it claims the contract is invalid because of "circumvention" of the upper limit. The league is either correct or incorrect that the deal is a circumvention. If the arbitrator rules NHL was correct, 11.6(a)(iii) applies and deal is deemed void ab initio. If rules NHL incorrect 11.6(a)(v) applies, and league is required to approve the deal.

Your analysis begs the question.

Edited by Daniel

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As a practical matter, the parties can settle. The arbitrator can subtlely see to it that that happens.

he could - but i don't think either side is looking to do that at this point. obviously, if he rules for the league, the devils will submit a revised contract where backroom discussions indicate what they won't reject.

regarding your earlier statement about section 26 - TG tweeted earlier this morning that he thought that was what the NHL was going at but obviously it's all conjecture as the league and the NHLPA haven't said anything at all about how either is viewing this dispute other than generic "it circumvents the CBA"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

regarding your earlier statement about section 26 - TG tweeted earlier this morning that he thought that was what the NHL was going at but obviously it's all conjecture as the league and the NHLPA haven't said anything at all about how either is viewing this dispute other than generic "it circumvents the CBA"

I don't know how the league can possibly claim that it circumvents anything other than the circumvention of the club's upper limit. Until they specify some other provision that is circumvented, it's an up or down vote.

It also wouldn't make any sense to allow the arbitrator to reform the deal on his own here. Neither the Devils nor Kovalchuk are parties to the arbitration. It defies logic that the arbitrator can reform a deal where neither of the parties to the deal are there to state their case. Also, allowing the arbitrator to reform the deal on his own would in effect be leaving it to the arbitrator to determine what other players the Devils will have to unload. In other words the arbitrator is not only determining the fate of the parties to the contract at issue (who themselves are not parties to the arbitration) but players whose contracts are not even at issue.

Edited by Daniel

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't know how the league can possibly claim that it circumvents anything other than the circumvention of the club's upper limit. Until they specify some other provision that is circumvented, it's an up or down vote.

It also wouldn't make any sense to allow the arbitrator to reform the deal on his own here. Neither the Devils nor Kovalchuk are parties to the arbitration. It defies logi that the arbitrator can reform a deal where neither of the parties to the deal are there to state their case. Also, allowing the arbitrator to reform the deal on his own would in effect be leaving it to the arbitrator to determine what other players the Devils will have to unload.

Exactly. The arbitrator isn't going to write a contract for Kovy and the Devils while neither parties are there and then give it to them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The league has already made it clear that it claims the contract is invalid because of "circumvention" of the upper limit. The league is either correct or incorrect that the deal is a circumvention. If the arbitrator rules NHL was correct, 11.6(a)(iii) applies and deal is deemed void ab initio. If rules NHL incorrect 11.6(a)(v) applies, and league is required to approve the deal.

Your analysis begs the question.

I was on vacation last week so I am catching up on all this drama. I didn't see anything that stated the league is claiming the contract violates the Devils going over the upper limit of the cap. To me, going over the upper limit is cut and dry. Either they are above the 10% allowance above 59.4 million or they aren't. The league cannot allege that the cap hit is 11.5 million and therefore the Devils are over. That is just a ridiculous argument and one doomed to fail.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't know how the league can possibly claim that it circumvents anything other than the circumvention of the club's upper limit. Until they specify some other provision that is circumvented, it's an up or down vote.

It also wouldn't make any sense to allow the arbitrator to reform the deal on his own here. Neither the Devils nor Kovalchuk are parties to the arbitration. It defies logic that the arbitrator can reform a deal where neither of the parties to the deal are there to state their case. Also, allowing the arbitrator to reform the deal on his own would in effect be leaving it to the arbitrator to determine what other players the Devils will have to unload. In other words the arbitrator is not only determining the fate of the parties to the contract at issue (who themselves are not parties to the arbitration) but players whose contracts are not even at issue.

the latter case is totally immaterial to what's at hand. if the arbitrator had those powers, it wouldn't matter what players the devils had to get rid of.

also i don't think this will be looked at as a circumvention of the club's upper limit. the clause to me is 26.3 (a) and 26.3 (b) regarding actions that have the effect of circumventing the agreement.

Edited by Triumph

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

the latter case is totally immaterial to what's at hand. if the arbitrator had those powers, it wouldn't matter what players the devils had to get rid of.

also i don't think this will be looked at as a circumvention of the club's upper limit.

It has to be a circumvention of the team's upper limit. The argument against front loaded deals, is and always has been, that tacking on years at the end that the player/team have no intent to honor, artifically lowers a player's cap hit, and thus has allowed the team to circumvent the team's upper limit. Whether the league is right or wrong on what it claims is wrong with the contract has nothing to do with whether the arbitrator has the power to reform the deal on his own.

And who is a party or not a party to the arbitration is quite relevant to what the arbitrator is allowed to do. You're correct that the CBA says what it says. The point I'm making is that hockeynews has to be wrong, not only based on the text of the CBA, but also the because of the absurd results if the hockeynews were correct.

ADDENDUM: While the league has at not publicly specified circumvention of the upper limit, it can't rely on the broad catch-all when there is a provision that applies directly to what the league claims is in fact wrong with the deal.

Edited by Daniel

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was on vacation last week so I am catching up on all this drama. I didn't see anything that stated the league is claiming the contract violates the Devils going over the upper limit of the cap. To me, going over the upper limit is cut and dry. Either they are above the 10% allowance above 59.4 million or they aren't. The league cannot allege that the cap hit is 11.5 million and therefore the Devils are over. That is just a ridiculous argument and one doomed to fail.

I believe it's that the Devils are trying to circumvent the upper limit by artificially creating a lower cap value in a contract, due to bogus years tacked on at the end. The reason you would artificially want a lower cap hit is because of the upper limit of the cap. So any case of trying to create lower cap hits is due to the upper limit of the cap.

© because it is or

involves a Circumvention of either the Club's Upper Limit or the

Maximum Player Salary, and:

The clause basically says if you're doing circumvention to try and get the player the player more money than allowed or do a circumvention because their is an upper limit to the cap, a rejection can take place, not because a contract would violate the upper limit by itself(although that would certainly count as well)

(A) because it results in

the signing Club exceeding the Upper Limit, or (B) because it does

not comply with the Maximum Player Salary or

Clause C is redundant and not needed if it was only in place for actually going over the upper limit or player salary, since clause A and B cover those situations.

That's my interpretation, otherwise the league wouldn't be able to reject contracts out of hand that blatantly violate section 26.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

that's not true 731, a circumvention of the maximum player salary or the club's upper limit could involve under the table payments, endorsement deals, and so forth. the things enumerated at the end of section 26 are these circumventions (though obviously not limited to those)

Edited by Triumph

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

that's not true 731, a circumvention of the maximum player salary or the club's upper limit could involve under the table payments, endorsement deals, and so forth. the things enumerated at the end of section 26 are these circumventions (though obviously not limited to those)

Those would all be upper cap limit violations, IMO.

Otherwise the CBA doesn't give the league the power to void a contract with under the table payments, until the under the table payments happen and then use section 26 after the fact.

To void the contract beforehand you would have to say a contract with an under the contract payment is a circumvention due to their being an upper limit to the cap, which is true.

Edited by Devils731

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0