PattyElias26 Posted August 10, 2010 Share Posted August 10, 2010 this whole kovy thing has got me just absolutely exhausted..if we get him, after all this there is going to be even more of an expectation for him to win us some cups. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Legion15 Posted August 10, 2010 Share Posted August 10, 2010 fvck YOU NHL +1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sokar Posted August 10, 2010 Share Posted August 10, 2010 i just hope the devils sign kovy by the end of the week so the devils can get the things they have to get done done Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Daniel Posted August 10, 2010 Share Posted August 10, 2010 full decision http://docs.google.com/fileview?id=0B4hYOrjFUhfiZjVkMGZkZTEtMTk1ZS00NzhjLThhNzctMWM1ODRmZjA3OGE4&authkey=CNaVz6EG&hl=en Interesting that the discussion of the Hossa/Pronger/Savard/Luongo deals is in a footnote at the end. My take is that, he's basically saying, shave off a few years and don't front load the thing so dramatically. And maxpower, the attorney of record for the NHLPA is a Harvard law graduate, class of 1977. I don't know where you got the 2 years experience thing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Legion15 Posted August 10, 2010 Share Posted August 10, 2010 the way things have been going so far, it sounds like it could be another few weeks. lets hope if they get a new contract up, they don't shoot that one down as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pepperkorn Posted August 10, 2010 Share Posted August 10, 2010 Oh so he says flat out he is not to use any existing deals in his arbitration. Just the agreement and the CBA. So NHLPA knew pretty much instantly that they were up sh!t creek Weds shortly after they walked through the door. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pattyelias Posted August 10, 2010 Share Posted August 10, 2010 for any of you who want to read the whole decision by bloch you can find it here Copy of decision That decision sucks and has absolutely no value in determining what if anything would meet the CBA. It seems like Bloch would have denied the other long term frontloaded deals if given the chance. Now if NJD comes up with a Kovy deal that mirrors Hossa's in terms of contract length and % frontloaded, does the league take a stab at rejecting the deal again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Triumph Posted August 10, 2010 Share Posted August 10, 2010 i feel that the legal discussion should go into another thread. basically i am unsure of bloch's reading of the 'intent' of the document, but don't want to dig out 70 quotes and have it be buried by ninjas or family guy quotes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PattyElias26 Posted August 10, 2010 Share Posted August 10, 2010 That decision sucks and has absolutely no value in determining what if anything would meet the CBA. It seems like Bloch would have denied the other long term frontloaded deals if given the chance. Now if NJD comes up with a Kovy deal that mirrors Hossa's in terms of contract length and % frontloaded, does the league take a stab at rejecting the deal again. I don't think they would/could..because at that point it would be a little ridiculous since the deals would be so similar and the other ones are already approved Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
msweet Posted August 10, 2010 Share Posted August 10, 2010 full decision http://docs.google.c...=CNaVz6EG&hl=en I read the decision in its entirety. I am not a lawyer but do posses some legal expertise and have significant experience in reading court decisions. Bloch's arguments are just bull crap. He basically contents that the contract Kovy signed defeats the spirit of the CBA. I found no mention of previous similar contracts which were approved, nor did he actually find a provision or article of the CBA that was ACTUALLY violated... instead he went for the "feel" of the "whole" contract argument... "Arbitrator here concludes the SPC terms themselves demonstrate this agreement “has the effect of defeating” the provisions of the CBA, with particular reference to the Team Payroll Range language." Apparently the league can now reject contracts that they feel may in some way defeat the intent of the CBA Richard Bloch ain't no Thurgood Marshall, and it shows in the writing of this decision. Quite frankly, I was shocked at the informality of his decision-making. In some ways the systems favors the NHL since they definitely have latitude in their rejecting of contracts according to Bloch's interpretation of the CBA. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lilgriffey84 Posted August 10, 2010 Share Posted August 10, 2010 Oh so he says flat out he is not to use any existing deals in his arbitration. Just the agreement and the CBA. So NHLPA knew pretty much instantly that they were up sh!t creek Weds shortly after they walked through the door. he cant use any other deals that have been approved? that is horse sh!t. thats liek a judge saying i cant use precedent to make my decision Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maxpower Posted August 10, 2010 Share Posted August 10, 2010 Oh so he says flat out he is not to use any existing deals in his arbitration. Just the agreement and the CBA. So NHLPA knew pretty much instantly that they were up sh!t creek Weds shortly after they walked through the door. but, he names other deals. the PA sh!t the bed in the selection process. forget the case, if they couldn't handled step 1, they had no hope of handling step 2. realistically, though, anyone that sees that deal know it violates the "spirit" of the CBA. if this was some Nashville Predators contract, and that's the only criteria I need to meet, I probably doodle on a pad while the PA talks too. well, no doubt we know why Daly was so confident he was taking emails. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Daniel Posted August 10, 2010 Share Posted August 10, 2010 (edited) i know it is just a summary of the Association's position, but man it seems like they missed the key points to the argument all together. i know they could not bring up past practice [still unsure why that actually is] but come on, its like they were either asleep at the wheel or did not adequately prepare for this. congrats on the NHL making the NHLPA look like the little kids from the hockey episode of south park. [when the Red Wings beat the hell out of the kindergarteners] The PA did bring up past practices, which Bloch addresses in a footnote at the end. At this point, we don't know what the entirety of the PA's case actually was. From a legal standpoint, I think Bloch's decision is flawed in comparing the anti-circumvention provisions of the current CBA to the previous one, without ruling that the terms of the current CBA are ambiguous. Without an ambiguity, you don't look beyond the four corners of the agreement. It seems to me, he didn't agree with what these deals are designed to achieve, and wanted to stop the slippery slope. Had the PA retained David Boies, it wouldn't have changed the outcome. Edited August 10, 2010 by Daniel Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pepperkorn Posted August 10, 2010 Share Posted August 10, 2010 Interesting that the discussion of the Hossa/Pronger/Savard/Luongo deals is in a footnote at the end. My take is that, he's basically saying, shave off a few years and don't front load the thing so dramatically. And maxpower, the attorney of record for the NHLPA is a Harvard law graduate, class of 1977. I don't know where you got the 2 years experience thing. I think he was addressing an argument that he stated at the outset was not his call thus irrelevant to his decision. The NHLPA probably pushed and pushed the moot point. I see it a little bit as an "and even if I DID care you still are far in excess of THOSE. he opens the door for the NHL to reject them -- but that's a load of crap. The NHL probably argued that point so the arbitrator added it in too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
grcenter47 Posted August 10, 2010 Share Posted August 10, 2010 I read the decision in its entirety. I am not a lawyer but do posses some legal expertise and have significant experience in reading court decisions. Bloch's arguments are just bull crap. He basically contents that the contract Kovy signed defeats the spirit of the CBA. I found no mention of previous similar contracts which were approved, nor did he actually find a provision or article of the CBA that was ACTUALLY violated... instead he went for the "feel" of the "whole" contract argument... "Arbitrator here concludes the SPC terms themselves demonstrate this agreement “has the effect of defeating” the provisions of the CBA, with particular reference to the Team Payroll Range language." Apparently the league can now reject contracts that they feel may in some way defeat the intent of the CBA Richard Bloch ain't no Thurgood Marshall, and it shows in the writing of this decision. Quite frankly, I was shocked at the informality of his decision-making. In some ways the systems favors the NHL since they definitely have latitude in their rejecting of contracts according to Bloch's interpretation of the CBA. good assessment. this scares me though Apparently the league can now reject contracts that they feel may in some way defeat the intent of the CBA does this mean they can just axe the deal without looking at previous cases? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sundstrom Posted August 10, 2010 Share Posted August 10, 2010 The PA did bring up past practices, which Bloch addresses in a footnote at the end. At this point, we don't know what the entirety of the PA's case actually was. From a legal standpoint, I think Bloch's decision is flawed in comparing the anti-circumvention provisions of the current CBA to the previous one, without ruling that the terms of the current CBA are ambiguous. Without an ambiguity, you don't look beyond the four corners of the agreement. It seems to me, he didn't agree with what these deals are designed to achieve, and wanted to stop the slippery slope. Had the PA retained David Boies, it wouldn't have changed the outcome. the bad move by the PA was agreeing to bloch, an arbitrator who previously ruled based on intent and "feel" and not the letter of the law. the NHLPA was doomed as soon as he was assigned. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maxpower Posted August 10, 2010 Share Posted August 10, 2010 good assessment. this scares me though Apparently the league can now reject contracts that they feel may in some way defeat the intent of the CBA does this mean they can just axe the deal without looking at previous cases? to a point. Bloch won't be retained, obviously, this was a one-off and the PA will never accept him again. for like-minded contracts, they have enough of a hammer that they can win on precedent unless the arbitrator has a very strong opinion to the counter. if Bloch had been made permanent, the PA might as well close up shop for 2 years. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pepperkorn Posted August 10, 2010 Share Posted August 10, 2010 but, he names other deals. the PA sh!t the bed in the selection process. forget the case, if they couldn't handled step 1, they had no hope of handling step 2. realistically, though, anyone that sees that deal know it violates the "spirit" of the CBA. if this was some Nashville Predators contract, and that's the only criteria I need to meet, I probably doodle on a pad while the PA talks too. well, no doubt we know why Daly was so confident he was taking emails. I agree the selection process seemed pretty bad to me. I mean it seemed clear the guy is very very dry. To me that meant CBA/Agreement. But I could see maybe it meant no specific language woudl win it for them - but that was just a load of sh!t since it was dropped on this forum Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Daniel Posted August 10, 2010 Share Posted August 10, 2010 good assessment. this scares me though Apparently the league can now reject contracts that they feel may in some way defeat the intent of the CBA I think that's taking the decision too far. The decision turned on the great unlikelihood that Kovy would play through the life of the deal. That's what I would argue is the rule that Bloch has set. W/r/t the other similar deals, I think he's hinting that those are the upper limit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Triumph Posted August 10, 2010 Share Posted August 10, 2010 i'm beginning to entertain the possibility that the NHLPA took a dive here, because these deals rob money from the rest of the union. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
msweet Posted August 10, 2010 Share Posted August 10, 2010 i feel that the legal discussion should go into another thread. basically i am unsure of bloch's reading of the 'intent' of the document, but don't want to dig out 70 quotes and have it be buried by ninjas or family guy quotes. good idea.. just did that Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Daniel Posted August 10, 2010 Share Posted August 10, 2010 i'm beginning to entertain the possibility that the NHLPA took a dive here, because these deals rob money from the rest of the union. How? You lower one guy's cap hit, frees up more money to spend on another guy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maxpower Posted August 10, 2010 Share Posted August 10, 2010 I agree the selection process seemed pretty bad to me. I mean it seemed clear the guy is very very dry. To me that meant CBA/Agreement. But I could see maybe it meant no specific language woudl win it for them - but that was just a load of sh!t since it was dropped on this forum well, you figure both sides come out with a list, and you grade them out from loathesome to "we can work with this guy". then you would take the "we can work with this guy" and the "they can work with this guy" and battle it out. whatever the case, if this was the least worst guy on the NHL's list, they should have balked at the list as a whole. How? You lower one guy's cap hit, frees up more money to spend on another guy. linkage. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Triumph Posted August 10, 2010 Share Posted August 10, 2010 How? You lower one guy's cap hit, frees up more money to spend on another guy. http://www.mc79hockey.com/?p=3266#more-3266 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Daniel Posted August 10, 2010 Share Posted August 10, 2010 http://www.mc79hockey.com/?p=3266#more-3266 I'm a few Jamesons deep, so I'll admit the article lost me after the second paragraph. I'll just say that, despite the natural inclination to hate lawyers, you'd be hard pressed to get a lawyer to intentionally pull punches to lose a case. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts