clock menu more-arrow no yes

Filed under:

Oh, Puck Daddy, how can you not know the difference between subsection 11.6a(i) and 11.6a(ii)???

New, comments

I kid. However:

NHL declares hypocritical, political war with Kovalchuk rejection - Puck Daddy - NHL  - Yahoo! Sports

If [the arbiter] rules for the NHLPA, the contract is valid; if the NHL wins, the player contract is reformed by the arbitrator "such that it conforms to the requirements of this Agreement, in a manner such that the term of the SPC shall not be modified and the aggregate compensation to be paid to the Player pursuant to the SPC shall, to the extent possible, be preserved," according to Section 11.4 of the CBA.

You're referring here to 11.6a(ii) (not 11.4), but subsection (ii) doesn't apply here. Subsection (i) does. As we already discussed in a previous post.

Two Things Everyone Seems to Be Getting Wrong

This is not "pursuant to subsection (ii)." It's pursuant to subsection (i), which covers salary cap circumventions.

11.6 a (iii) If the Arbitrator sustains the League's rejection of any such SPC or Offer Sheet, as the case may be, pursuant to subsection (i) above, then the Arbitrator shall order that the rejected SPC or Offer Sheet, as the case may be, will, immediately upon the League's receipt of the Arbitrator's decision, be deemed null and void.

The subsection (ii) remedy is only for minor issues, ones that don't relate to Article 50 and circumventing the upper limit provision of the CBA.