Your "high-level NHL person" should read the CBA
by Quisp on Jul 20, 2010 10:54 PM PDT
Email
Print
NHL rejects Ilya Kovalchuk contract with New Jersey Devils | All Things Avs
Here’s what one high-level NHL person told me me tonight about this development: "Much ado about nothing…it’s a slap on the wrist, nothing more. NJ and Kovy have 5 days to restructure. They will move some dollars around, shave 2 years and League will approve. The NHL accepted Hossa, Luongo and Pronger…Precedent has already been set. No way to put the genie back in the bottle now."
No, no, no and no. Read the CBA. Or read my post that quotes the relevant bits:
11.6 Rejection of SPCs and/or Offer Sheets; Subsequent Challenge and/or De- Registration of SPCs (a) Rejection of SPCs and/or Offer Sheets. In the case of an SPC [...] that is filed and rejected by the League, the following rules and procedures shall apply... [more at "Kovalchuk Day 20 -- We're BAAACK!"]
See that part in bold? That means that, once the league has rejected the SPC, the outlined procedure must be followed.
That procedure (follow the link above for the details) is, simply, the NHLPA decides whether or not to protest. If they don't, the SPC is voided and the case goes back to Bettman to issue what he deems to be the appropriate penalties, and he doesn't have the option of having there be no penalty. The minimum is a $1MM fine and cap hit. If the NHLPA decides to protest, it goes to an arbitrator and there is a ruling within 48 hours. If the ruling upholds the league's rejection, then the case goes back to Bettman to issue the appropriate penalties, as before.
At no point is there an opportunity for New Jersey and Kovy to "restructure" in order to avoid the arbiter's ruling. "The rules and procedures shall [must] apply." Check out my previous post -- Something Really Bad (for New Jersey) That No One is Talking About -- for a more detailed discussion.
And as far as "the precedent has been set" vis-a-vis Pronger, Hossa, etc., I suggest you consider the following clause of the CBA:
26.10 Investigations. (d) There shall be no limitation of time barring the investigation of a Circumvention by the Commissioner.
In other words, Bettman can investigate any of those contracts and declare them to be circumventions also. The "genie" can absolutely be put back in the bottle.
Now, I'm about to say something that I in no way believe will ever transpire, but I'm mentioning it only because I find the fact of it fascinating. But, underline: I don't think this is going to happen or that there is even a remote chance of it happening.
Bettman has it within his authority to investigate Hossa's contract and rule it to be "de-registered" as a circumvention. If an arbiter were to uphold that, one of Bettman's penalties, which he can apply at his sole descretion, is to cause the circumventing club (Chicago) to forfeit any and all games influenced by the circumvention (i.e. Hossa). Which means Bettman could conceivably declare that Chicago's record last season is hereby 0-82-0. Since there would be, in the wake of such madness, no way to determine a Cup winner for that season, I would have to assume he would stop short of this "remedy." Though it's funny to imagine Bettman getting drunk and calling Bowman in the middle of the night issuing a threat along those lines.
But he likes Chicago, so he wouldn't do that.
Which people are bound to point out, if the Kovalchuk rejection is in fact upheld.
Oh, this is going to get ugly.
9 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
The minimum is a $1MM fine and cap hit. If the NHLPA decides to protest, it goes to an arbitrator and there is a ruling within 48 hours. If the ruling upholds the league’s rejection, then the case goes back to Bettman to issue the appropriate penalties, as before.
Oh my. I learn more every day. Thanks for all these posts.
I know there’s a lot of indignation that the league “let” the Devils go ahead with their press conference, but they may have been tempting the powers that be:
Internal friction? Heard Bettman forewarned Lou/Devils early as Monday that rejection was good possibility. Devils chose presser anyway.
If that’s true, and Lou made those disparaging comments about the loophole on top of it, then…damn.
Is the real lesson we should take away from this that the league can never be counted on to be consistent? And, at the very least, you shouldn’t taunt them openly?
In Dinglebarn We Trust
eh...mr. corleone...
quispy…“i mean you’ve won — do you have to wipe everyone out…:”
(jk)
thanks, as always, for pointing out “truthiness” and “newsiness”…:)
Okay, caught up now
So I think this is the point at which I say: Jeezus, I step away from my computer to go to a baseball game, and what happens? And then cackle gleefully for a full minute.
Actually, I scanned the posts on my iPhone on the trip home, and I did cackle gleefully for a full minute, and I think there were people on the Gold Line train staring at me and wondering what was so funny.
All I can say right now is that this is one of the most hilarious things I have ever seen in 40 years of following various North American professional sports. This whole episode, from the beginning through the stony silences of everyone involved. to NJ’s triumphal presser and LL’s creeping buyer’s remorse, to… this. I love it. Comedy gold!
were you at giants/Dodgers tonight?
my sincere condolences. i can’t imagine how painful watching that must’ve been in person. bochy is an a**.
And an amendment to Quisp's last sentence:
“Oh, it’s going to get ugly…. And I’m going to get a big bag of popcorn and enjoy the show.”
No Quisp, it's HILARIOUS to think...
Bettman: “Hey Bowman, … Shmoman, Lowman, Crowman …. Hossman”
Bettman: “pfffffffffftttttttttttt … guess what?”
Actually, the "high level NHL person" is absolutely correct.
Maybe you should read the CBA more carefully.
The sanctions available under Article 26 are only available after an Article 26 investigation, hearing, and determination by the System Arbitrator – which is NOT the process going on right now.
All the Arbitrator will rule on now is whether to uphold or overturn the NHL’s rejection of Kovy’s SPC under Article 11.6.(a)(i).
Rejection of an SPC under Article 11.6 != an Article 26 investigation, ruling, and sanctions.
All the arbiter would do now (if the NHLPA appeals) is either uphold or overturn the NHL’s rejection of the SPC.
If he rules for the NHL – the SPC remains voided and there are no further immediate penalties possible.
If he rules for the NHLPA – the NHL will be forced to register the SPC, that is all. The NHL then has the option of later initiating an Article 26 investigation, which may lead to a determination of circumvention, which may lead to any or all or none of the sanctions available under Article 26.
The “the following rules and procedures shall apply” merely applies to the remainder of Article 11.6(a)(i):
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:
(x) if the NHLPA does not timely dispute and refer to the
Arbitrator such rejection in the manner set forth in Section 11.5(g) above, then
immediately upon the expiration of the time period within which the NHLPA may
dispute and refer to the Arbitrator such rejection, the SPC or Offer Sheet, as the
case may be, will be deemed null and void ab initio (i.e., the Player’s Free Agency
and/or contractual status shall revert to the status he held prior to signing his SPC
or Offer Sheet, as the case may be), and the Player shall not be entitled to any of
the rights or benefits provided for under the rejected SPC or Offer Sheet, as the
case may be; or
(y) if the NHLPA does timely dispute and refer to the Arbitrator
such rejection in the manner set forth in Section 11.5(g) above, then such dispute
over that rejection shall be both heard and decided by the Arbitrator within fortyeight
(48) hours of such referral, during which period the Player shall not be
entitled to play under such SPC or Offer Sheet, as the case may be, and shall not
be entitled to any of the rights and benefits provided for under such SPC or Offer
Sheet, as the case may be, pending a resolution of such grievance by the
Arbitrator.
-
This is not an Article 26 investigation and ruling and will not result in any of the Article 26 sanctions.
And even if the Arbitrator rules for the NHLPA (and the NHL is forced to register the SPC) and the NHL later does initiate the Article 26 investigation and the System Arbitrator does make a determination of circumvention there are NO mandatory penalties under Article 26. The Commissioner MAY (at his discretion) asses any (or none) of those sanctions listed under Article 23.13©.
© In the event that the System Arbitrator finds that a Circumvention has
been committed by a Player or Player Actor, the System Arbitrator may impose any or all
of the following penalties and/or remedies set forth below. In the event that the System
Arbitrator finds that a Circumvention has been committed by a Club or a Club Actor, the
Commissioner may impose any or all of the following penalties and/or remedies set forth
below:
(i) Impose a fine of up to $5 million in the case of a Circumvention by
a Club or Club Actor, but in no circumstances shall such fine be
less than $1 million against any Club or Club Actor if such party is
found to have violated Article 50 of this Agreement. If such a fine
is assessed against a Club (except in the case of a financial
reporting violation), that Club’s Payroll Room shall also be
reduced by such amount for the following League Year, and if
such reduction of the Club’s Payroll Room renders the Club out of
compliance with the Payroll Range (i.e., the Club does not have
sufficient Payroll Room to accommodate its Player commitments
comprising Club Salary) for such following League Year, then the
Club must take such steps as are necessary (e.g. Assignment, Buy-
Out, Waivers, etc.) and as are permitted by this Agreement to
ensure that the Club will be in compliance with Article 50 of this
Agreement upon commencement of the following League Year;
(ii) Impose a fine against a Player of up to the lesser of $1 million or
twenty-five (25%) percent of a Player’s Paragraph 1 Salary in the
case of a Circumvention by a Player or Player Actor, but in no
circumstances shall such fine be below the lesser of $250,000 or
twenty-five (25%) percent of the Player’s Paragraph 1 Salary.
Notwithstanding the $1 million limitation set forth above, any
additional amounts by which the Player has been unjustly enriched
due to the Circumvention shall be ordered to be disgorged;
(iii) Direct a Club to forfeit draft picks (the number, placement, and
League Year of which shall be determined in the Commissioner’s
sole discretion);
(iv) Declare a forfeiture of any NHL Game(s) determined to have been
affected by a Circumvention;
(v) Direct a Club to disclose and report to the Independent
Accountants all information required by this Agreement, including,
without limitation, by the provisions of Article 50;
(vi) Void any SPC, or any extension of an SPC, between any Player
and any Club when both the Player or Player Actor and the Club or
Club Actor are found to have committed such a violation with
respect to such SPC or extension; and
(vii) Suspend any Club employee, Player, or Certified Agent involved
in such a violation for a period of time determined in the sole
discretion of the Commissioner, the System Arbitrator, or the
NHLPA, respectively.
-
For more detailed CBA discussions than you ever cared to read – go the the hfboards Business of Hockey Board.
http://hfboards.com/forumdisplay.php?f=124
http://hfboards.com/showthread.php?t=801331
Thanks for the giant cut/paste from the CBA.
This is an old post. You’re several days late. We have already covered this in subsequent posts. Presumably you didn’t include this comment in the more current and appropriate posts because those posts specific answer your questions and would make your whole comment redundant.
There has been quite a lot of discussion about the relationship of 26 to 11. The bottom line is, the article 26 investigation process is bound to be very short since the league has already decided the contract is a circumvention and (in this hypothetical) the arbiter has already agreed and his decision is binding. Therefore, the investigation step per 26 will take about as long as it will take bettman to fax his little “i’m investigating” memo and then immediately call and say “I’m done.” then there’s a meeting with the NHLPA to discuss. Not much to discuss though, since the circumvention has already been ruled on and proved in a binding way. no appeal is possible. it’s done. so that’s a short meeting. followed shortly by a second arbitration, which is also pretty short, since he can’t overturn the first arbiter’s ruling. at which point bettman gets to assess penalties, if he is so inclined.
and if he’s not so inclined, he won’t bother with the article 26 process.
but, thanks for registering with the site. we welcome all points of view. for future reference though, the most current blog posts appear at the top of the page.
Wait till this year.
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Certain photos copyright © 2012 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
