Triumph Posted July 27, 2010 Share Posted July 27, 2010 i really don't know what you guys are arguing anymore Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sundstrom Posted July 27, 2010 Share Posted July 27, 2010 i really don't know what you guys are arguing anymore Well, of course, their requests for subsidies was not Paraguayan in and of it is as it were the United States government would never have if the president, our president, had not and as far as I know that's the way it will always be. Is that clear? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pattyelias Posted July 27, 2010 Share Posted July 27, 2010 i really don't know what you guys are arguing anymore Who is arguing? I would just like to know if the grounds for the rejection allows the arbitrator to conform the contract to the CBA. Daniel seems sure that he doesn't have that power and I think he might. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Daniel Posted July 27, 2010 Share Posted July 27, 2010 Contracts was my worst class in law school. Provision C in 11.6.a.i may apply under your reading. However, I still haven't found anything that shows the NHL rejected the contract under that provision. You're right, the league hasn't said anything specifically, but it's a logical deduction. Unless there is something really nefarious going on that we don't know about, it's absolutely clear that the league is upset about front-loading and excessive term of the deal. The league can only argue that the purpose is to artificially lower the cap hit, which to my mind comes under circumvention of the cap. Tri, as to what we're arguing about, I said the hockeynews claim that a provision of the CBA allows the arbitrator to write a new deal does not apply here. I don't know if pattyelias still believes I am wrong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Neb00rs Posted July 27, 2010 Share Posted July 27, 2010 Who is arguing? I would just like to know if the grounds for the rejection allows the arbitrator to conform the contract to the CBA. Daniel seems sure that he doesn't have that power and I think he might. Everyone here is arguing their points. I think that constitutes an argument - a civilized one. Of course, now we'll be arguing about what an argumet is. Oh geez, I've only made this worse. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Daniel Posted July 27, 2010 Share Posted July 27, 2010 Well, of course, their requests for subsidies was not Paraguayan in and of it is as it were the United States government would never have if the president, our president, had not and as far as I know that's the way it will always be. Is that clear? Puhlease, there aren't any Paraguayan's here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pattyelias Posted July 27, 2010 Share Posted July 27, 2010 You're right, the league hasn't said anything specifically, but it's a logical deduction. Unless there is something really nefarious going on that we don't know about, it's absolutely clear that the league is upset about front-loading and excessive term of the deal. The league can only argue that the purpose is to artificially lower the cap hit, which to my mind comes under circumvention of the cap. Tri, as to what we're arguing about, I said the hockeynews claim that a provision of the CBA allows the arbitrator to write a new deal does not apply here. I don't know if pattyelias still believes I am wrong. Daniel, your argument makes sense to me but so does the hockey news. I can see the NHL being pissed about front loaded deals but still taking the 11.6.a.ii route. We'll find out soon enough who is right. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pattyelias Posted July 27, 2010 Share Posted July 27, 2010 (edited) Everyone here is arguing their points. I think that constitutes an argument - a civilized one. Of course, now we'll be arguing about what an argumet is. Oh geez, I've only made this worse. Some more Ninja girl could certainly ease the tension around here. Humorous interlude. http://www.ruthlessreviews.com/2012/larp/ Edited July 27, 2010 by pattyelias Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Devs1965 Posted July 27, 2010 Share Posted July 27, 2010 {{{{{{WHHHHAAATTTT TEEENNSSIIOON}}}}}} Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Legion15 Posted July 27, 2010 Share Posted July 27, 2010 NJ.com story pic of smug Bettman there with his wife. Also, concerns about a "war" between the Devils and the league Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Devs1965 Posted July 27, 2010 Share Posted July 27, 2010 NJ.com story pic of smug Bettman there with his wife. Also, concerns about a "war" between the Devils and the league Wow Cindy is going to be jealous Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jim777 Posted July 27, 2010 Share Posted July 27, 2010 It really would have helped the situation if the NHL had said "we're rejecting this contract because....." and simply came out with it. I think the answer would have been "because it REALLY pissed off Bettman", but that doesn't make for "good of the league" press, and points him out as the capricious dope he is. Just sayin' Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Amberite Posted July 27, 2010 Share Posted July 27, 2010 I think it's more likely that it really upset Crosby and he called Bettman at 4AM in a crying fit of rage about how the Devils are giving him nightmares. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Legion15 Posted July 27, 2010 Share Posted July 27, 2010 well yeah seeing how they couldn't beat us once last year. still have the throwback jersey game highlights on my computer and the big late comeback vs. the leafs Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sarge18 Posted July 27, 2010 Share Posted July 27, 2010 Well, of course, their requests for subsidies was not Paraguayan in and of it is as it were the United States government would never have if the president, our president, had not and as far as I know that's the way it will always be. Is that clear? Thank you Chevy Chase. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jim777 Posted July 27, 2010 Share Posted July 27, 2010 well yeah seeing how they couldn't beat us once last year. still have the throwback jersey game highlights on my computer and the big late comeback vs. the leafs That March 17th game was awesome My son still says it was the best day of his life (all 8 years LOL) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Neb00rs Posted July 27, 2010 Share Posted July 27, 2010 It really would have helped the situation if the NHL had said "we're rejecting this contract because....." and simply came out with it. I think the answer would have been "because it REALLY pissed off Bettman", but that doesn't make for "good of the league" press, and points him out as the capricious dope he is. Just sayin' If the NHL had gotten specific, they would have had a much harder time winning. With their general rejection, they can now attack from many angles. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Puddy Posted July 27, 2010 Share Posted July 27, 2010 Won't the NHL have to present a case to the arbitrator that cites specific clauses of the CBA? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Daniel Posted July 27, 2010 Share Posted July 27, 2010 If the NHL had gotten specific, they would have had a much harder time winning. With their general rejection, they can now attack from many angles. Barring some unknown development, we all know why the NHL rejected the contract. What particular provision(s) of the CBA the league will rely on, really doesn't matter except for what the remedy is. Even that is probably academic, since, even if it is true that the league has the power to penalize the team beyond simply voiding the contract, not even the NHL fron office is dumb enough to not get how much of a disaster punitive action would be. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Daniel Posted July 27, 2010 Share Posted July 27, 2010 (edited) Won't the NHL have to present a case to the arbitrator that cites specific clauses of the CBA? Yes, of course. However, unless they have to, lawyers (who you know have crafted the statements from all parties) don't tip their hands, because you don't want to lock yourself in to a particular position before the hearing. Edited July 27, 2010 by Daniel Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Devilsfan118 Posted July 27, 2010 Share Posted July 27, 2010 Some more Ninja girl could certainly ease the tension around here. Humorous interlude. http://www.ruthlessreviews.com/2012/larp/ Ah, thank you for that pretty ridiculous break from legal talk. Definitely had me laughing Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pattyelias Posted July 27, 2010 Share Posted July 27, 2010 Yes, of course. However, unless they have to, lawyers (who you know have crafted the statements from all parties) don't tip their hands, because you don't want to lock yourself in to a particular position before the hearing. The do have to tip their hands so to speak. (e) Upon rejection of an SPC or an Offer Sheet, or a subsequent challenge and de-registration by the League of a previously approved and registered SPC, the League shall send a written notice as to the specific reasons therefor to the Club (both the Prior Club and the signing Club in the case of an Offer Sheet), the Player and his Certified Agent, if any, and the NHLPA, via facsimile and e-mail. In the event that the League sends written notice of the rejection, or the challenge and/or de-registration, as the case may be, of an SPC or an Offer Sheet during the period commencing after 5:00 p.m. New York time on a Friday and ending 9:00 a.m. New York time on a Monday or on any Canadian national holiday, the League shall also so inform the NHLPA by message left on a telephonic hotline established and maintained by the NHLPA. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Legion15 Posted July 27, 2010 Share Posted July 27, 2010 fox sports article basically saying if the arbitrator wants to he/she could restructure it so Kovy gets $6M each of the 17 years - flat cap hit Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mmajeski06 Posted July 27, 2010 Share Posted July 27, 2010 (edited) That March 17th game was awesome My son still says it was the best day of his life (all 8 years LOL) The March 17the game was amazing. Watched it at a bar in Kent, OH surrounded by Pens fans. It was great. I was going nuts for the Devils, and the Cleveland fans were taking delight in watching the Pittsburgh fans suffer. Edited July 27, 2010 by mmajeski06 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Neb00rs Posted July 27, 2010 Share Posted July 27, 2010 fox sports article basically saying if the arbitrator wants to he/she could restructure it so Kovy gets $6M each of the 17 years - flat cap hit Whether it is or isn't true, the arbitrator won't do that. If he thinks the contract needs restructuring then he'll just reject it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts