This is a wonderful day!!! The NHL has voided the contract that Ilya Kovalchuk and Lou Lamoriello signed. I have nothing against Kovalchuk, hell he's a wonderful player and should get every penny he can from NHL owners. However, there are two huge reasons why this recent turn has me smiling:
- Lou Lamoriello didn't get his way! He finally screwed himself over, like Del Griffith on the side of the highway.
- ALL of the other NHL fans get another week to see what it was like for Oiler fans last season. We waited for Dany Heatley to say "no" for an eternity. Now the other 29 teams can see how that tastes this summer. Enjoy.
I am not strictly speaking a spiteful person, and I do know Lou will figure out another way to make it work. But this is too rich. I'm having a beer, and then I'm having another one.
A sign that the league hasn't gone completely, all-the-way barking mad?
ReplyDeleteFrom the sounds of things, Lou was shoe-horned into making the deal by the owners, and he may not be totally upset that it got nixed, but still.
Me thinks Mr. Kovalchuk's greed may be his undoing. He wants huge $$ and a long term but can't seem to find a dance partner that can make it work.
ReplyDeleteHmmm.
ReplyDeleteWhat's the league's line in the sand then? Over 15 years? Or if the player is over 42?
Not saying I don't agree with the contract being rescinded, but it'll be interesting to hear the league's take on why they nixed it.
Maybe they've looked like fools by okaying the recent Luongo, Hossa, Keith, Franzen, etc etc contracts and are finally taking a stand.
Me thinks Mr. Kovalchuk's greed may be his undoing. He wants huge $$ and a long term but can't seem to find a dance partner that can make it work
ReplyDeleteThis could be our chance - get on that plane Mr Katz, Mr Lowe and Mr Tambellini - your superstar awaits!
Wait till Donald Fehr hears about this.
ReplyDeleteUpon what basis does the NHL - or can it, even - rescind a contract?
Wage and price controls do not work. They didn't work for that poncied commie Trudeau and they won't work in the NHL. Everybody figures out a way to get paid.
It's called fkn economics.
TSN says it was rejected because its too long.
ReplyDeleteDiPietro's was 15 years.
Removing one $11.5MM year and 1 $550,000 year gives $90MM over 15 years. $6MM cap hit, but Ilya gives up one big payday year.
For those wondering 'How can it be rejected?'
ReplyDelete26.3 Circumventions.
(a) No Club or Club Actor, directly or indirectly, may: (i) enter into any
agreements, promises, undertakings, representations, commitments, inducements,
assurances of intent, or understandings of any kind, whether express, implied, oral or
written, including without limitation, any SPC, Qualifying Offer, Offer Sheet or other
transaction, or (ii) take or fail to take any action whatsoever, if either (i) or (ii) is intended
to or has the effect of defeating or Circumventing the provisions of this Agreement or the
intention of the parties as reflected by the provisions of this Agreement, including
without limitation, provisions with respect to the financial and other reporting obligations
of the Clubs and the League, Team Payroll Range, Player Compensation Cost
Redistribution System, the Entry Level System and/or Free Agency.
(i) Any act by a Club Actor that, if committed by the Club would
constitute a Circumvention, shall be imputed to the Club and shall
be deemed to be a Circumvention by the Club.
But Dipietro was younger. Maybe 17 years would've been okay for a younger player.
ReplyDeleteMaybe he gets 100MM over 15 years at 6.7MM a season.
I suppose it's plausible that he might still play at 42.
The league really does have to have to be allowed to enforce some kind of rule about age and contract length.
I don't see A very robust challenge from the NHLPa given that other players escrow payments get dinged by these deals.
But who knows?
that the player will retire rather than play for the low value years, then the contract is in bad faith and the league is right.
ReplyDeleteHow do you prove that he does not intend to play until he's 44?
Chelios played 69 games 2 years ago when he was 46. Howe played at 52 (80-15-26-41 not bad grandpa!).
It is pleasant to see Lou get turned down.
Sorry, first line was edited out. Should be:
ReplyDeleteIf the intention is..
Or, let the long term contracts stand as written but remove the loophole that they come off the books when the players retire.
ReplyDeleteIf the player decides to retire, then fine. Just leave the remaining years worth of cap space with the team, or allow them to write off the last year or two.
The other loophole to be closed is not allowing a player to go from the upper 90% of the pay grid to league minimum for a bunch of years.
kris, LT,
ReplyDeleteForgive my ignorance but how would the escrow situation be effected by deals like this one?
If I understand it correctly, the CBA has effectively TWO caps - the annual team salary cap is a guideline based on annual average salary over the course of each player's contract on the team.
The second cap flows from the CBA stipulation that the players are to get a fixed % of league revenues. This % is based on ACTUAL salary and not the Average Annual Salary, or cap hit, of the player. Since league revenues aren't known until the end of the year, the players are required to put a portion of their salary aside to make sure the %, come the end of the season, is correct.
(Yes there is a third cap - maximum player salary of some 20%? of the team's cap - but that isn't what this is about).
Two players with 5-year, $25M salaries could get paid different amounts simply based on the structure of their deals and how that interacts with the revenue/player % over each year of that contract.
Do I have this right?
DeeDee - I think you're on to something. The problem contracts have very large salary years combined with relatively small salary years.
ReplyDeleteSetting a maximum difference in terms of the multiple of the league minimum seems appropriate.
Something like:
The highest salaried year in a contract and the lowest salaried year can not differ by more than 5 (or 8 or 10) times the league minimum salary.
Kovalchuk's highest paid year and lowest paid year are almost 22 times the league minimum salary apart.
How many 12+ year contracts have there been?
ReplyDeleteExcepting Messier, Howe and Chelios how many 40 year olds have played into their 40'sin the history of the NHL?
I'd take that Arbitration in a minute
Highlander - the contracts and cap are in 'sheckels' not dollars. The escrow process figures out the exchange rate between revenue (which is in dollars) and 'sheckels'.
ReplyDeleteDammit. I was looking forward to the 2012-13 season when the Oilers inked Taylor Hall to a 35 year deal.
ReplyDeleteTOJ: There have been 4 skaters in NHL history who have played at age 44. Just a dozen who played to age 42 for that matter.
ReplyDeleteBruce, not to burst your bubble, but their have been 8 players who have played 44+, and 5 more who have played to 43.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.hockey-reference.com/play-index/psl_finder.cgi?request=1&sum=0&year_min=1918&year_max=2009&season_start=1&season_end=-1&age_min=40&age_max=99&birth_country=&franch_id=&is_active=&is_hhof=&pos=&handed=&c1stat=&c1comp=gt&c1val=&c2stat=&c2comp=gt&c2val=&c3stat=&c3comp=gt&c3val=&c4stat=&c4comp=gt&c4val=&order_by=age
LT, I think it's a wonderful day for most Devils fans as well. Giving Kovy that kind of money was ill conceived to say the least, and it wasn't surprising to hear today that the idea was the owners more than it was Lou.
ReplyDeleteThe hypocrisy of the owners is beyond belief. To justify the strike, we were told NHL owners absolutely had to have a salary cap to protect them from themselves. Apparently that ethos only lasted until the first really shiny FA came down the pike.
Methinks Kovy could end up in the KHL after this. Would NJ want to push his cap hit above $7 mil with Parise going RFA in 10/11?
I'm guessing that this was a matter of degree.
ReplyDeletePlaying at 44 is just a little too implausible—and paying him the current league minimum for the final 5 years is just a little too cute.
While the other contracts were certainly front-loaded, in this case it may just be a little too easy to argue that neither Kovalchuk nor the Devils have any intention of him playing in the final 5 years.
Look for the contract to be shortened, and the final years to be north of a million.
Lou will still get his (owner's) guy, just at a higher cap hit.
Doesn't even have to be a higher cap hit, just even it out a 'bit' more.
ReplyDeleteIf the final years were something like 3 mill/1mill*5, their's a chance the league approves it.
Then at least he's leaving 8 million on the table, instead of 2.65 million.
Very simple solution. Treat all contracts or portions of contracts beyond 35 identically. For cap purposes calculate the parts before and after 35 as though they were 2 separate contracts.
ReplyDeleteLove the Planes, Trains, and Autos reference LT, one of my favs!
ReplyDeleteFor what it's worth, I don't think that the NHL has a leg to stand on here. If the PA grieves this, I think they'll win. Of course, this contract isn't the interest of the majority of their membership. But they're obliged to act fairly. And winning this grievance would give them something to negotiate away in 2012.
ReplyDeleteEveryone's quoting the circumvention section and missing the most important part:
"Any act, conduct, or activity that is permitted by this Agreement shall not be a Circumvention."
Nothing in the CBA says that you can't sign guys until they're 100. I'm having an exchange with a lawyer friend of mine on this and this is a hopelessly dense problem - if this went to a grievance, there would, I think, be a fight about whether "permitted" means "not prohibited."
It's a shitshow because of a poorly drafted CBA.
I don't think the NHLPA likes these contracts either, since Kovalchuk and Luongo and Hossa and Zetterberg are stealing money from their fellow players by subverting the cap. i.e. These contracts increase the escrow, and are reverse Robin Hood, stealing from the poor players to help the rich players.
ReplyDeletequestion for mc79:
ReplyDeleteWould not a "reasonable person test" apply to what is circumvention and what isn't?
Isn't the major problem with the NHL's case that they allowed so may circumvention contracts through already....Hossa, Luongo, Zetterberg, Pronger?
ReplyDeleteThose evil busnissmen stealing the working man's money.
ReplyDeleteI say strike power to you brothers!
godot10 - I agree with you on the reverse Robin Hood point.
ReplyDeleteWould not a "reasonable person test" apply to what is circumvention and what isn't?
That's more of a concept in negligence law. If I was the arbitrator on this, subject to anything that the NHL said, I would say that the CBA governs what's a circumvention. It's noteworthy, I think, that the circumvention section seems to be more concerned with money being paid to players indirectly, through third parties, than with something like this.
Would not a "reasonable person test" apply to what is circumvention and what isn't?
ReplyDeleteNot under Canadian law; I'm not sure about American law, which I gather is what would be applicable here. The reasonable person test applies in negligence, when evaluating whether a standard of care has been breached, not to the interpretation of contractual provisions.
Er, what Tyler said.
ReplyDeleteHowever, it is important to note that the detrimental nature of this loophole would be enormous if the courts decide that the league cannot void contracts. The Oilers could give Hall a 50 year contract.
ReplyDeleteUp until now, some level of reasonableness has been maintained due to parties not wanting to draw the ire of the NHL. If the door opens wide, let the contracts flow.
Of course, the players could keep showing up to work in their 40's and 50's and teams would have to buy them out or something.
I just shake my head and wait for the idiots at the NHLPA to challenge this rejection even though it would actually hurt their cause. This same kind of smart thinking goes behind every suspension challenge. Lets raise cain to protect the idiot that's causing the dammage while do nothing about the individual or individuals that is hurt by this action. I'm with the league on this one. The whole point of the strike was to protect the league from a owner from doing this type of stupid action but I guess they didn't close enough loopholes.
ReplyDeleteHighlander - very close on your assumptions.
ReplyDeleteEach team is bound by their own salary cap, which is based on the annual average salary of the player's contract. And yes the players as a whole are also capped at a fixed % of league-wide revenues and this is based on their current year salaries.
Thus, players with front-loaded contracts will typically result in higher escrow payments for all other players, since there is a less % of the total pie to divvy up (All League Revenues vs. All Player Salaries). Especially when players like Kovalchuk are getting PAID $11.5M per season, but their CAP HIT is only $6M.
I Wonder if we'll get any Khabibulin news tommorrow or more delays.
ReplyDeleteMy two cents...
ReplyDeleteClause 26.3 is very broadly drafted, such that a whole range of behaviour could potentially be captured. The problem with drafting like this is it can be very difficult to demonstrate that someone has contravened it if it ended up before a court.
The League hasn't liked prior examples of these long term contracts, but I suspect that they haven't challenged them because their lawyers told them that they wouldn't be able to demonstrate that the deals actually contravened clause 26.3. If Pronger or Luongo give evidence that they love hockey so much that they want to play into their 40s, and they they will have made enough money to be happy to take a big pay cut then, and the teams give evidence about those player's great character and wanting to keep them around to teach the younger players, what evidence can the League give in response to that?
Kovalchuk's deal gives them something to work with though. They can point to the statistical improbability of him playing that long and evidence that while star players are sometimes willing to take a pay cut to extend their career, there aren't too many examples of formers stars going through the grind of five seasons at minimum wage to argue that on the balance of probabilities, the effect of this contract, intentionally or unintentionally will be the circumvention of the CBA.
It still isn't certain that the League will get their way, but it is much more likely than with any of the previous deals.
Highlander,
ReplyDeleteI'm the last guy in the room to ask these questions.
My two cents: what you're saying is roughly correct, but it's a bit too simple to say there are "two caps."
Two players with 5-year, $25M salaries could get paid different amounts simply based on the structure of their deals and how that interacts with the revenue/player % over each year of that contract.
If player A had his 25MM/5yr deal frontloaded and player B had it backloaded and, say, league revenues took a big kick in the balls during the first few years of their contract, then, yes, A would end up with less money at the end of five years. As near as I understand anyway. Somebody correct me.
Tyler,
ReplyDeleteWould the league have no leg to stand on if Kovy had signed a 50 year deal?
If so, i.e. if they can say it's completely ridiculous to expect him to play at 44 since it's almost never been done, don't they have a leg to stand on?
I guess my legal question is: if they had a leg to stand on, what would it be? What criteria could league lawyers appeal to in order to say this contract violates the CBA?
My first thought seeing the heading was: "Wow! we traded peanuts for Ilya ".
ReplyDeleteI live in Europe obviously.
I thinkThey should limit how much they can frontload/backload a contract to a certain % of the total money.
ReplyDeleteIt would probably prevent major breakdowns if something of importance occured. (Retirement, Economy going nuts etc)
I can see why this would be considered a "circumnavigation of the salary cap"
ReplyDeleteI just can't see how Hossa's contract isn't.
Both contracts have the real money fall off the face of the earth when the player hits 39 years old.
Hossa's then strings it out for 4 years to lower the cap hit, and Kovy's 6 years.
If the NHL's leg to stand on is that there is no expectation of the player or team for the player to play the last 6 years at $500,000K, I fail to see how the Hawks and Hossa are being reasonable for 4 years at 1MM.
"Hi, I'm Gary Bettman. It may seem that we make this up as we go along, but just remember the golden rule of the NHL:
-If its not good for the Leaves, Hawks, Rangers, Flyers, Wings or Habs, then its not good for the NHL"
The time for the NHL to get their knickers in a twist over these deals was two or three years ago, when the obvious circumvention started. Now they once again look like hypocrites, making shit up after the fact as it suits them, over some largely arbitrary distinction. Sure, guys playing to 44 is rare, but it's also rare at 42, at least so far. Who knows whether 40 becomes the new 35 for this generation of NHLers? Actually, I think that's very possible, given the effect of improved training.
ReplyDeleteThe way to get rid of these -- and I think we all agree they need to go -- is to make it so that no single year can be more than double or less than half of the average cap hit. So all the "cap circumvention" years would still have to be, in Kovy's case, $3M (probably more, given that he still wants to get paid) rather than $0.55M.
WG: He's protecting his key markets.
ReplyDeleteBut hey at least it ain't Baseball and Bud Selig's royal parade.
(Tough cheap owners of bad teams won't let theyr scouting team draft the top prospect due to money issue)
kris and Highlander - Revenue is in real dollars (rickibear's 'working man's money').
ReplyDeleteThe players contracts are not really dollars, but a 'share' of the 54% that all players split. In simple terms, currently, the players' 54% split 30 ways is about 1.8% per team. Kovalchuk just signed a contract that was going to pay him about 6/59.4 of that 1.8% next season or about 0.18% of league revenue.
The players salaries are an indication of how large their slice of league revenues is.
Unfortunately, the actual revenue and salary numbers are not known until the season has been played and payrolls paid out. This is when the escrow calculation corrects for the differences between budgets and reality.
Its highly unlikely that any player actually receives the amount specified by his contract after the escrow calculation.
The NHLPA choosing to invoke the 5% escalator widens the gap between revenue dollars and contract dollars.
Clear as mud right?
ReplyDeleteThe NHLPA choosing to invoke the 5% escalator widens the gap between revenue dollars and contract dollars.
The players did invoke the escalator, but didn't the NHL also report an increase of 4% in revenues for 09/10 from 08/09?
Woodguy - the escalator is on top of the increase in revenue.
ReplyDeleteI guess my legal question is: if they had a leg to stand on, what would it be? What criteria could league lawyers appeal to in order to say this contract violates the CBA?
ReplyDeleteOn the CBA as drafted, I don't think that they have a leg to stand on. With that said, there's some murkiness to the CBA and these questions aren't always clear.
The hossa contract is a great point.
ReplyDeleteage:30-36 7YR at 7.9M
Age 37 4M which is around Modano Numbers.
Age 38-41 4M
Kovalchuk contract should be re-adjusted:
Age 27-35 6,6,11,11,11,11,11,11,9 which is 9.67M over 9 years
Age 36-37 5,3
Age 38-41 4M total
This is 99 million over 15 years.
6.6M cap hit.
Gary cannot say no to this.
you can predict that a guy won't play to a certain age but you can't say it for certain so how can these contracts be voided?
ReplyDeleteI don't think that the language currently exists to disallow these kinds of deal.
Time to sign Sam Gagner to a 100-year, $100M contract.
ReplyDelete//There have been 4 skaters in NHL history who have played at age 44. Just a dozen who played to age 42 for that matter.//
ReplyDeleteBruce, not to burst your bubble, but their have been 8 players who have played 44+, and 5 more who have played to 43.
Tom: Well 5 of the 8 all seem to be named "Chris Chelios".
On the Hossa/Luongo contracts:
ReplyDeleteI'm interested to see if the League will now challenge more than one of these contracts.
Section 26.10(d) of the CBA:
There shall be no limitation of time barring the investigation of a
Circumvention by the Commissioner.
This seems to at least suggest that the league could go back to look at these contracts and file a complaint through the System Arbitrator, but that seems like an odd possibility to me. It would definitely be interesting, I seem to recall the league took a long look at the Hossa contract.
On the CBA as drafted, I don't think that they have a leg to stand on. With that said, there's some murkiness to the CBA and these questions aren't always clear.
ReplyDeleteI assume the process allows for some evidence to be adduced? If so, the league may be able to show that neither the player nor the team intends that K will play out his contract. The only logical conclusion would be that it was done to get around the cap.
You can argue about interpretations of language all you want but most judges/ arbitrators are going to make their decision in light of the facts.
I do think the league has a problem in that they have not drawn a clear line in the sand between this and some of the other deals.
My impression is that the problem isn't that he's unlikely to play forever, but that there's just no possible way that the minimum salary is going to stay at $500,000 for the next decade and a half. Hell, it might be higher than that in 4 years. And since you can't pay a player less than the minimum, the contract circumvents the CBA by (and this is mind-boggling) paying Kovy too little.
ReplyDeleteThat would offer a way of distinguishing this contract from Hossa and Louongo's, too: their 'cheap' years are at $1M, which we can imagine is at or above the league minimum when those contracts expire.
No idea if this kind of 'circumvention' is prohibited by the language of the CBA, as I Am Not A Lawyer. But it's more plausible as an argument than saying: "there's no way that greedy Russian will play for peanuts when he's old and crappy.")
So one solution is just to bump those last few years to around $1M, do a bit of trimming in the max years, get slightly higher cap hit, and pay him a little less over the life of his actual playing career (as opposed to the life of the contract). Hell, if Kovy is so stuck on the $100M figure, the total value of the contract can go UP, even if he won't see several million of it in his pocket.
Khabibulin trial pushed back again. Possibly to September 29th (!!!).
ReplyDeletehttp://twitter.com/azc_mclellan
mc79hockey said...
ReplyDeleteWoodguy - the escalator is on top of the increase in revenue.
Source? Because if that is true the math does not work. The cap would be over $60M.
The problem with this CBA is the whole slippery slope aspect. I said this earlier in the week: where is the line in the sand? If there isn't one, contracts descend into the realms of lunacy. If there is a line in the sand, it goes against the CBA and the PA will cry foul. But like in real news, we don't have a reporter with balls who can ask the tough questions.
Personally I'm fine with the PA and the League taking the year off to hammer out this whole issue, so we can draft first or second again next year.
To add some color to my previous comment, is the NHL really afraid of arbitration in this case? Especially if they have the ability to retroactively challenge each of these megadeals? If the NHL can investigate and file a complaint on all the contracts then there wouldn't seem to be much precedent to rely upon.
ReplyDeleteI think the NHL recognizes a grey area in the CBA and wouldn't mind something concrete to determine the rule. Would the NHLPA be willing to go to arbitration if the NHL challenged all of these long deals at once?
Realistically I think the Kovy deal gets tweaked slightly and then approved and arbitration never occurs. It would be a lot more interesting to see the arbitration though as it could potentially effect a lot of teams and contracts.
Tom: Well 5 of the 8 all seem to be named "Chris Chelios".
ReplyDeleteWell 'Chris Chelios' was a big hockey name for a few years there. It seemed like every second player was named Chris Chelios - kind of like the name Sutter.
mc79hockey said...
ReplyDeleteWoodguy - the escalator is on top of the increase in revenue.
Source? Because if that is true the math does not work. The cap would be over $60M.
Perhaps the escalator topped up the 4% to 5%?
I am right about how this works. Revenues must have been up less than 4%.
ReplyDeleteIts a currency translation. Once the 'exchange rate' deviates from 1.00, all subsequent calculations have to take that into account.
ReplyDeleteThe cap number spoiler is starting with (56MM) is in 'sheckels' not dollars.
I am right about how this works. Revenues must have been up less than 4%.
ReplyDeleteI believe you.
Will try to find something firm on 09/10 revenues.
I've read articles where Bettman alluded to 4%, but nothing on NHL letterhead.
Khabbibulin's date getting pushed back, potentially to the end of September is ideal for the Oilers if they had any inclination to cut ties with him.
ReplyDeleteAlthough, from all indications that is not going to happen - sigh.
MC and WG,
ReplyDeleteI alluded to this lack of info in an thread earlier this month... At the end of playoffs Bettman advised he expected revs to be up 4% and then in the 70 word release on the Cap increase, there was no word on where the increase came from other than the fact that the PA invoked the escalator.
If there was in fact a rev increase, does the CBA not bind the League to increasing the Cap accordingly? And if so, and the only increase was 5% and the escalator was in place, then League revs at best were flat. But we don't know for sure due to the intrepid Investigative Journalism community that pervades every aspect of our news.
On the whole Kovalchuk crazy contract refudiation*.
ReplyDeleteDoes everyone - Kovy, his agent, the Devils, the other teams - want to wait for a hearing?
Or, would it be better for everyone to work out something else?
*Shakespalin Speak
I like the fact that Lou parted with his ownership on this even before the decision was made by the league. It tells me he's still got some old school hockey guy in him. Nice to see him exercising the benefits that age and a track record give you. I think more than a few industry observers will wonder why the hell someone named Jeff Vanderbeek is telling Lou Lamoriello how to handle personnel decisions? Certainly ownership equates with power. It doesn't always equate with expertise unfortunately.
ReplyDeleteI think it's a factor that often gets overlooked (myself included) when appraising the performance of the average NHL GM (i.e. the fact that they report to a higher authority and aren't always the ultimate decider on team and contract issues). For instance, how instrumental were the EIG (if at all) in Horcoff's contract terms?
//If there was in fact a rev increase, does the CBA not bind the League to increasing the Cap accordingly?//
ReplyDeleteIf the escrow was zero, yes. Since final escrow was multiple times the revenue increase, I doubt it.
Perron signs for 4.3 over two years.
ReplyDeleteYou think Brule will be bringing that number to his arbitration hearing?
If something like this formula were used to determine allowable contract length, we would avoid situations like this:
ReplyDelete=ROUND((50-Player's Age)/2.5,0)
The result:
Age, Max Length
25, 10.0
26, 10.0
27, 9.0
28, 9.0
29, 8.0
30, 8.0
31, 8.0
32, 7.0
33, 7.0
34, 6.0
35, 6.0
Then, as someone suggested, allow only a 50% salary deviation from the average for any one year.
Limiting contract terms is too intrusive. Just change the cap calculation rules. Anyone have any fixes to cap rules that would work beside calculating after 35 separately?
ReplyDeleteThe Downtown arena discussion is being streamed online right now.
ReplyDeleteCouncil Hearing
Katz is willing to invest 100 M in a City-owned arena, and another 300 M in the other developments.
ReplyDeleteAnyone have any fixes to cap rules that would work beside calculating after 35 separately?
ReplyDeleteUse only the first 6 years of the contract to determine its Cap Hit?
You think Brule will be bringing that number to his arbitration hearing?
ReplyDeleteProbably on a 4ft x 5ft sign.
Katz is willing to invest 100 M in a City-owned arena, and another 300 M in the other developments.
ReplyDeleteStauffer is saying $100MM for the rink and $100MM for the development, not $300MM for the development.
Where did you get 300?
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteJust listening to the City Council Meeting with the Katz Group. The line of the day so far was from Patrick Laforge and I might be paraphrasing: "Peter Pockington was a wonderful man, but as we all know, he didn't make it to the hall of fame because of his business skills".
ReplyDeleteThe $400M figure would be $100M into the new arena, $100M into the redevelopment, $200M already spent buying the Oilers.
ReplyDeleteAlso that $100-mil for surrounding area generates $1.5-mil/year in property taxes, supposedly to be put towards arena.
ReplyDeleteThe $400M figure would be $100M into the new arena, $100M into the redevelopment, $200M already spent buying the Oilers.
ReplyDeleteThanks.
Why would Batman include the purchase price of the Oilers in the presentation?
Because he's Batman, and sneakiness is in his repetoire of bat tricks.
ReplyDeletegodot10 said...
ReplyDelete//If there was in fact a rev increase, does the CBA not bind the League to increasing the Cap accordingly?//
If the escrow was zero, yes. Since final escrow was multiple times the revenue increase, I doubt it.
Gopdot, since we are talking about the upcoming year and not the past year with regard to cap limit, and since one would assume Bettman would include any and all expenses in his 4% increase prognosis of the past year (otherwise the statement is pointless), please explain how escrow is affecting the cap limit for 2010-11.
P.V. of a stream of $1.5M is part of the proposition as are ticket surcharges, but I'm guessing there's a gap if other private parties aren't investing in the redev area beyond Katz's $100M.
ReplyDeleteIveson wants Katz to pony ip the $200M and personally guarantee all the redev revenue, while Sloan wants Katz to do it all and let Northlands in as an equal partner.
Said it before but if the city owns the arena they get Katz's upfront cash OR Northlands get a great revenue stream from the new building. Not both. A minor role for Northlands for the sake of CFR etc. could make sense though.
The $400 was being touted as how much Bruce Wayne Industries loves ya.
ReplyDeleteMy fix for the Cap Rules would be...
ReplyDeleteAny salary above the Cap Hit would be held in an interest bearing trust (escrow). If a player retires prior to the contract expiring, only the money in trust (and interest accrued) that would maintain the original cap hit would be paid out. If he plays to the end of the contract, then all monies would be paid out. Unearned monies would be returned to the team upon retirement.
So, the Thrashers walk away from a 2.4 million arbitration award to Clarke MacArthur. That's probably a good ballpark to where Brule will end up as well. His numbers are better than MacArthur's although he's only done it for the one year.
ReplyDeleteBrule 65 17-20-37
MacArthur 81 16-19-35
Can the NHL state upon what part of the CBA it stands?
ReplyDeleteHaven't seen it yet.
Sounds a lot more like "feelings" thus far.
An active NHLPA doesn't let the rejection stand.
But beyond the CBA, aka NHL Wage & Price controls, Kovy will go where the dollars are offered. If the NHL braintrust wants to stand on ceremony, it risks losing Kovy to the "money is no object" KHL.
What we'll end up with is a league devoid of Russians and high-end talent, but full of middle managers and lifelong drones; i.e. Western Hockey Leaguers/ the guy who sits in the cubicle next to you.
Perron signs for 4.3 over two years.
ReplyDeleteYou think Brule will be bringing that number to his arbitration hearing?
I doubt it.
Perron:
age 19: 27 pts
age 20: 50 pts
age 21: 47 pts
Brule:
age 18: 4 pts
age 19: 19 pts
age 20: 9 pts
age 21: 3 pts
age 22: 37 pts
Final escrow will probably be over 10% for last year. That means even if one projects a 5% increase in league revenue this year, with no increase in the salary cap, initial escrow for next year would already be 5% plus whatever margin the CBA allows base on than the revenue estimate.
ReplyDeletei.e. with no cap increase and 5% revenue increase, initial escrow for next year is probably already 10%. Since the escalator was invoked, add 5% to that...i.e. initial escrow for next season is probably already 15%.
If the escrow was zero, yes. Since final escrow was multiple times the revenue increase, I doubt it.
ReplyDeleteWith respect, instead of just inventing stuff, why not actually look at the CBA?
The escalator applies unless one side doesn't want it to, in theory - I think that there's room to argue that both sides have to agree on a different figure.
Too many people comment as if the way that they think the world should work is the way it does work. The amount of nonsense written about this Kovalchuk thing and the CBA is fucking mindblowing.
Art - the KHL is a heavily subsidized league - are you advocating government subsidization of the NHL?
ReplyDeleteArt was utilizing his skills in hyperbole.
ReplyDeleteA few minutes on Google reveals this: http://www.nhl.com/ice/page.htm?id=26366
ReplyDeleteLong and the short of it: after the lockout, teams had two options with guys who had deals paying them less than the league minimum going forward($450K in the 1st year post lockout, up to $525K in the last year of this CBA). They could buy them out, or they had to increase their salary to the league minimum.
Now, just because that's part of this CBA doesn't mean it will be part of the next CBA: that's up for negotiation. But if it IS part of the next one, (or, even better, the one after that) then the Devils will be getting away with highway robbery if this contract goes through. They'll have to bump Kovalchuk's salary on those final years, thus increasing the overall value of the contract and thus the cap hit, but they will have already got Kovy's prime years at an artificially reduced cap hit. If they win a Cup in one of those years, it will have been worth it for sure.
If that kind of thing (agreeing to pay guys what is certain to be less than the league minimum once the payment comes due) isn't prohibited by the current CBA, though, then the NHL is stupid, Lou L is an evil genius, and Stamkos or Hall are going to make $1 billion in 2020 and be signed at $500K until their grandchildren are retired. And it really means teams are going to be mortgaging their futures in crazy ways to win now, or 5 yeas from now, or whatever they think their window is.
So: does anyone out there have any idea if that kind of thing is prohibited? For a league run by a lawyer, this seems like a pretty dumb oversight.
Disclaimer: I Am Not A Lawyer.
This is Tyler's Rosie Perez in "White Men Can't Jump" moment here folks.
ReplyDeleteIf you had studied foods that started with the letter Q who could blame you for popping like it's when the subject came up as a category on Jeap ardy?
You think Brule will be bringing that number to his arbitration hearing?
ReplyDeleteProbably on a 4ft x 5ft sign.
Oops, for some reason assumed the post referred to Clarke MacArthur's $2.4m arbitration award.
Then again, I don't think you can use an arbitration award that was walked away from in another arbitration hearing.
Thanks Speeds
Tyler Perez?
ReplyDeleteHe's in the zone!
Bruce :
ReplyDeleteGordie Howe, Chris Chelios, Moe Roberts, Johny Bower, Doug Harvey, Tim Horton, Jacques Plante, Gump Worsley - Thats 8 people who have played to 44+
Dominik Hasek, Igor Larionov, Claude Lemieux, Mark Messier , Lester Patrick - Thats 5 more people who have played to 43.
Tom, take out the goalies and anyone who hasn't played since 1980 and that leaves what? 4 players? Out of how many thousands of players?
ReplyDeleteAny contract past 40 is tough to believe.
Although I agree that the Luongo, Hossa etc deals are just as ludicrous, I think the age factor is what the NHL is using on rejecting this contract:
ReplyDeletePlayed until age 44: 4 goalies, 3 defencemen, only Gordie Howe as a forward
Played until age 42: 7 goalies, 5 defencemen, 7 forwards
This includes forwards Claude Lemieux, Andreychuk, Messier, Gary Roberts & Larionov all in the past 8 seasons.
So you can reasonably say a forward like Hossa or Kovalchuk has a shot at playing until 42, but basically zero chance to play until 44.
I forgot Recchi played at 42 this season as well.
ReplyDeleteMore from the past 10 seasons:
Forwards until Age 41: Hull, Oates, Yzerman, Francis
Forwards until Age 40: Mario, Scott Mellanby, Nieuwendyk, Shanahan, Steve Thomas, Robitaille, (Modano, Selanne, Guerin, Lang as well if they play next season)
There's actually a lot more than I thought once you actually look at it.
Btw, I just noticed that my previous link doesn't work when copy/pasted for players ages :
ReplyDeleteNHL Players Ages
Grr, I can't figure out how to link in the comments, and its annoying me...!
ReplyDeletehttp://www.hockey-reference.com/play-index/tiny.cgi?id=IHaFi
Tom, it's like this...
ReplyDelete(a href=http://whatever.com) Whatever (/a)
With arrows of course.
dwillms, I got a chuckle from the first two 41 year olds being Hull and Oates =D.
ReplyDelete(Me, up top) There have been 4 skaters in NHL history who have played at age 44
ReplyDelete(Tom) Bruce: Gordie Howe, Chris Chelios, Moe Roberts, Johny Bower, Doug Harvey, Tim Horton, Jacques Plante, Gump Worsley - Thats 8 people who have played to 44+
Tom: My original point specified skaters. Cuz goalies are different, ya know? Especially, old goalies.
Signed, Old Goalie