There is a lot of worry in the Kovalchukosphere about the Luongo, Hossa (etc.) contracts and what might happen to them, will the league try to go after them, is the league doomed, and so on. This is mostly due to the fact that Bloch mentioned that the other contracts were currently under investigation. People interpreted this as some kind of warning or hint or something. It’s not. Bloch is pointing out (as I did in my version of the league’s case) that since the other contracts are still under investigation, those contracts don’t establish a precedent that the NHLPA can hang its hat on. Because they could still be thrown out. That speaks to the issue of precedence and nothing else.
But Bloch also went into some detail about how those contracts were/are different from the Kovalchuk SPC. Essentially, Bloch adopted the (my) argument that the Kovalchuk contract shared elements of those other contracts, but the Kovy SPC had “all its knobs turned up to 11” (my phrase, not his).
He also makes a point of saying that the Kovalchuk SPC, in relation to those other deals, is unique. Unique. Not like the others.
It would be nearly impossible for the league to survive an arbitration on the subject of those other SPCs, given that the arbitrator’s binding ruling is that the Kovalchuk SPC is different — worse — than the others. The league’s whole case — if they were to be emboldened by yesterday’s decision — would be: all these deals are prohibited for the same reason. But they can’t make that case, because the arbitrator said they are not the same.