Sounds like Crosby isn't the only person on Bettman's payroll.

_________________
"I love that you know how to do that." Cheryl/Carol/Crystal

"And I love that I have an erection that doesn't involve homeless people." Kreiger

I'll have to doublecheck the CBA, but I think there is a window of time where a contact can be challenged like this, after which it cannot be. I'll look later.

I know that Pronger's contract doesn't go into effect until this upcoming season, so I'm wondering if his is going to be the one targeted.

_________________
mechaphil

Effective date matters not.

The NHL has 60 days from the date they 'knew or should have knew' that a contract was an attempt at circumvention, or 14 days from the date the NHL approved the contract.

Basically, outside of 14 days, they can't do anything about it unless they come into some facts later that Pronger agreed to retire early, or something like that.

I'm reasonably sure they can't touch those deals now.

Kovalchuk deserves 3 yachts, not 2.

_________________
"Counting all the assholes in the room, I'm definitely not alone!" ~ Michael Poulsen, Volbeat, Still Standing.

Only owning 2 yachts be makin my dick soft. I gotta roll with 3, and I suspect Kovy feels the same way about it.

_________________
"I love that you know how to do that." Cheryl/Carol/Crystal

"And I love that I have an erection that doesn't involve homeless people." Kreiger

I laugh at this whole situation. Yes Kovi is a money grubbing asshole, and the contract was ridiculous, but the NHL was stupid enough to let other players set a precedent. If there was a way for both sides to get fucked on this, I'd be all for it.

_________________
Proud LGBTQQ Individual

This whole ridiculous Kovi situation can be summed up be one simple word: CLUSTERFUCK

_________________
"I can't really hear what Jeremy says, because I got my two Stanley Cup Rings plugging my ears...." -Patrick Roy in reference to Jeremy Roenick's trash talking

Was this "arbitration" just a kangaroo court, or did they hand down a rationale? If the arbitrator simply gave a judgment on a fuzzy rule with no rationale, then it simply made a stupid thing even dumber. He should have clearly stated WHY he felt this contract was void, and what separated it from similar cases(which I'm sure NJ cited). Honestly, I have no idea how the NHL thinks an arbitrator should be defining THEIR rules anyways. No one should know their rules better than them. What's next, arbitration on a hooking call?? haha


You are so right. This league is lucky it is mired in tradition, and it's players are of an ilk that fans love them, because the league itself does nothing for itself.

It's not the NHL's rules daz. It's an agreement between the NHL and NHLPA. The CBA as agreed upon by both parties stipulates 3rd party arbitration in some circumstances. This is one of them.

I know, so I guess it's both their faults, but the league should be more worried about setting its rules in stone, because they are the only ones to lose in the long run. The PA is probably more worried about the now, and the league more worried about its future. Kind of like an employee/employer situation, except somehow these employees got themselves too much clout.

Very true. It would be very smart for the next CBA to include specifics on this type of issue to prevent arbitration in the future.

At this point they should both understand that this is making them both look Bush league, and should both be in a hurry to clean up this mess. Maybe they can get BP to arbitrate them a settlement, that shouldn't take very long.

Or they should make the next CBA say the salary is the cap hit.

Instead of making them two separate items, why not make whatever you give the player salary wise, it's also the cap hit. This would almost guarantee these front loaded contracts be removed from the system and a solid number would be basically all we see, unless the player is a bit younger and gets a longer deal.

_________________

This is way off topic, but I know a lot of people frequent the politics thread, and this is relevant.

The(our) forefathers, more than anything else, were famous for being able to compromise issues. It seems they are "quoted" for many reason, but this quality is the only one they all truly shared, and that's the ability to make an agreement that works or a settlement that was agreeable. They pounded out a Constitution in about 1/3 the time it takes to get a mortgage. I'll have to assume it was because the issue was literally 'life or death', but I think you'd have to almost put a gun to someone's head at a CBA hearing to get the smallest consolation. Red tape has basically enveloped the entire planet knee-deep.