New Kovy Update ("As the Kovy Turns")

[mmajeski06]

Maybe the NHL will move pretty quick on this one. Any apparent stalling in the process by the NHL could hurt them in the long run. If the accusation is that the league is just picking on Kovy and the Devils, then they don't want to provide more fuel for the fire by stalling.

Edited July 27, 2010 by mmajeski06

[Amberite]

dreger tweeting that the kovalchuk decision could come as early as next week. so maybe the NHL actually will expedite the arbitrator search.

I still hold to the belief that arbitrator will be picked this week and final judgment by next Monday / Tuesday.

[pattyelias]

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.

[njdevil26]

http://www.thehockey...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.

So then what would happen? Because I'm sure Kovalchuk would NOT want that contract.

[Neb00rs]

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.

The arbitrator ain't doing that...you can mark that down.

[njdevil26]

Yeah I highly doubt that will happen.

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

[pattyelias]

The arbitrator ain't doing that...you can mark that down.

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.

[Daniel]

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.

[pattyelias]

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.

[Neb00rs]

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.

[DaneykoIsGod]

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.

[Daniel]

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.

[pattyelias]

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.

[pattyelias]

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.

[Neb00rs]

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 July 27, 2010 by ben00rs

[sundstrom]

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.

[Triumph]

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 July 27, 2010 by Triumph

[Daniel]

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.

[DaneykoIsGod]

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.

[Neb00rs]

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".

[Daniel]

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.

[pattyelias]

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.

[Daniel]

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 July 27, 2010 by Daniel

[sundstrom]

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"

[Daniel]

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 July 27, 2010 by Daniel