Which veteran should Derrick Rose study?

[roshinaya]

Re: Kovie arbitor looking at Hossa's contract.

The Detroit contracts are safe, due to the last years end before either of the players are 41. Both Franzén and Zetterberg will turn 41 after their last season ends. I can't help to think that was a deliberate choice by Holland, just for a situation like this. Same could be said about the Keith contract.

 

[noon]

Re: Kovie arbitor looking at Hossa's contract.

My point is that the league doesn't have a choice. They can "investigate" all they want -- but unless some new fact comes to light of which they were not or should not have been aware within 60 days of having registered such contracts, they are simply not permitted to de-register or challenge them. Full stop.

 

[roshinaya]

Re: Kovie arbitor looking at Hossa's contract.

[quote name="noon"]My point is that the league doesn't have a choice. They can "investigate" all they want -- but unless some new fact comes to light of which they were not or should not have been aware within 60 days of having registered such contracts, they are simply not permitted to de-register or challenge them. Full stop.[/quote]



I hope you are right, and not looking at some old CBA

 

[Guest]

Re: Kovie arbitor looking at Hossa's contract.

[quote name="roshinaya"]



I hope you are right, and not looking at some old CBA [/quote]

 

[noon]

Re: Kovie arbitor looking at Hossa's contract.

[quote name="roshinaya"]



I hope you are right, and not looking at some old CBA [/quote]



:lol: Section 11.6(b) http://www.nhlpa.com/About-Us/CBA/

 

[PatrickShart]

Re: Kovie arbitor looking at Hossa's contract.

Hossa already played a season under that contract.



I would think the ones they'd look to veto would be Luongo, Savard and Pronger - whose contract extensions begin this upcoming season and they have not played under them yet.

 

[noon]

Re: Kovie arbitor looking at Hossa's contract.

[quote name="pmxc12873"]Hossa already played a season under that contract.



I would think the ones they'd look to veto would be Luongo, Savard and Pronger - whose contract extensions begin this upcoming season and they have not played under them yet.[/quote]



The league can only challenge if they are within 60 days from the time the facts of the alleged circumvention became or should have been known. When did the league register those contracts? Have any new facts come to light?

 

[nana]

Re: Kovie arbitor looking at Hossa's contract.

[quote name="noon"]



The league can only challenge if they are within 60 days from the time the facts of the alleged circumvention became or should have been known. When did the league register those contracts? Have any new facts come to light?[/quote]



That's what I have always read (I have your same sickness with the CBA).

At the time of the announcement of the Hossa investigation, the "smoking gun" was supposedly if the league found that the Hawks & Hossa had predetermined he would retire before the end of his contract, so I would think they could only reopen if something about that had come to light.



I agree with you and will be shocked if anything else comes of this other than some sensationalism in the media (they will love to latch on to Hossa because of the Cup Win, the "curse"... get ready for the "what if" blogs coming any day now...).

 

[roshinaya]

Re: Kovie arbitor looking at Hossa's contract.

Technically the deals for Luongo, Pronger and those started on June 1.

As I see the 60 days thing in the CBA, it's 60 days from the discovery of shenanigans that the league can make a fuss about it. And not 60 days from the registration of the SPC. Or am I missing something obvious here.

 

[Guest]

Re: Kovie arbitor looking at Hossa's contract.

[quote name="roshinaya"]Technically the deals for Luongo, Pronger and those started on June 1.

As I see the 60 days thing in the CBA, it's 60 days from the discovery of shenanigans that the league can make a fuss about it. And not 60 days from the registration of the SPC. Or am I missing something obvious here.[/quote]





Noon is a Lawyer I'll take his type on this one.

 

[Chief Walking Stick]

Re: Kovie arbitor looking at Hossa's contract.

Not even Bettman is dumb enough to take away the Hawks' title.

 

[noon]

Re: Kovie arbitor looking at Hossa's contract.

[quote name="roshinaya"]Technically the deals for Luongo, Pronger and those started on June 1.

As I see the 60 days thing in the CBA, it's 60 days from the discovery of shenanigans that the league can make a fuss about it. And not 60 days from the registration of the SPC. Or am I missing something obvious here.[/quote]



There are two scenarios for the league challenging a contract on the ground of circumvention: (1) by rejecting the contract within the time allotted for registering it, or (2) by subsequently deregistering a previously registered contract. We are talking about the second scenario here. Under that scenario, the league can deregister within 60 days of the discovery of facts evidencing circumvention that it did not and had no reason know sooner. So, the relevant trigger for the 60 days is the discovery of shenanigans. But the date of registry is still significant because, at the time of registry, the league will know all there is to know about the express terms of a contract. Thus, they cannot challenge the contract after 60 days of its registry on the grounds that the terms of the contract itself circumvents the CBA/salary cap regime. Nana is correct -- the league would have to discover some new facts that had not been known, like the Hawks and Hossa discussed Hossa's plans to retire at age 39 but entered into a contract that extended until age 42 anyway. They can continue to investigate, but unless they find some new fact of that nature, they cannot deregister his contract on the grounds that its very terms constitute circumvention.

 

[roshinaya]

Re: Kovie arbitor looking at Hossa's contract.

Good. That clears it up. Thanks.

 

[phranchk]

Re: Kovie arbitor looking at Hossa's contract.

[quote name="noon"]



:lol: Section 11.6(b) http://www.nhlpa.com/About-Us/CBA/[/quote]

What about section 26.3?

With this arbitrators ruling can't Bettman now use that as precedents to show that it was circumvention? Article 26 basically nullifies article 11.

Also look at article 26.10 (b)

"The Investigator's authority to investigate (i) a possible Circumvention relating to an SPC shall in no way be limited by the fact that such SPC was approved and registered by Central Registry pursuant to Article 11 of this Agreement....."

26.10 (d)

"There shall be no limitation of time barring investigation of a Cicrumvention by the Commissioner"

 

[The Count Dante]

Re: Kovie arbitor looking at Hossa's contract.

[quote name="noon"]



There are two scenarios for the league challenging a contract on the ground of circumvention: (1) by rejecting the contract within the time allotted for registering it, or (2) by subsequently deregistering a previously registered contract. We are talking about the second scenario here. Under that scenario, the league can deregister within 60 days of the discovery of facts evidencing circumvention that it did not and had no reason know sooner. So, the relevant trigger for the 60 days is the discovery of shenanigans. But the date of registry is still significant because, at the time of registry, the league will know all there is to know about the express terms of a contract. Thus, they cannot challenge the contract after 60 days of its registry on the grounds that the terms of the contract itself circumvents the CBA/salary cap regime. Nana is correct -- the league would have to discover some new facts that had not been known, like the Hawks and Hossa discussed Hossa's plans to retire at age 39 but entered into a contract that extended until age 42 anyway. They can continue to investigate, but unless they find some new fact of that nature, they cannot deregister his contract on the grounds that its very terms constitute circumvention.[/quote]



on behalf of any other morons here like myself thanks.



I will not go through another lockout. I will not. I will ditch my tickets and swear off hockey forever this time.

 

[roshinaya]

Re: Kovie arbitor looking at Hossa's contract.

[quote name="phranchk"]

What about section 26.3?

With this arbitrators ruling can't Bettman now use that as precedents to show that it was circumvention? Article 26 basically nullifies article 11.[/quote]



Head asplodes.

 

[phranchk]

Re: Kovie arbitor looking at Hossa's contract.

[quote name="roshinaya"]



Head asplodes.[/quote]

Just added this to my post

Also look at article 26.10 (b)

"The Investigator's authority to investigate (i) a possible Circumvention relating to an SPC shall in no way be limited by the fact that such SPC was approved and registered by Central Registry pursuant to Article 11 of this Agreement....."

26.10 (d)

"There shall be no limitation of time barring investigation of a Cicrumvention by the Commissioner"

 

[noon]

Re: Kovie arbitor looking at Hossa's contract.

[quote name="phranchk"]

What about section 26.3?

With this arbitrators ruling can't Bettman now use that as precedents to show that it was circumvention? Article 26 basically nullifies article 11.

Also look at article 26.10 (b)

"The Investigator's authority to investigate (i) a possible Circumvention relating to an SPC shall in no way be limited by the fact that such SPC was approved and registered by Central Registry pursuant to Article 11 of this Agreement....."

26.10 (d)

"There shall be no limitation of time barring investigation of a Cicrumvention by the Commissioner"[/quote]



No.



Sec. 11.6 specifically provides how the league may reject or deregister a contract in the case of a "Circumvention" -- and it specifically provides that a contract cannot be deregistered unless such deregistration occurs within 60 days of the league first discovering facts that constitute Circumvention.



Sec. 26 deals with Circumvention itself (types, investigation thereof, arbitration if an investigator's conclusions are disputed, etc.).



As I said before, the league can investigate all they want. And that's all Sec. 26.10 provides. There is no time bar to investigation in an attempt to uncover facts constituting circumvention. But unless they are able to discover new facts, the time bar of 11.6(b) still applies.



Kovalchuk's contract was rejected as Circumvention by the very face/terms of the contrract itself. The League, in registering Hossa's contract and allowing 60-days to pass, is time-barred from arguing that Hossa's contract constitutes Circumvention merely on its face. In order to challenge Hossa's contract as Circumvention, they need additional evidence. They can conduct an investigation and the CBA allows liberal discovery as part of that investigative process to look for evidence of such circumvention, but unless the investigation turns up some new facts, they cannot challenge/deregister Hossa's contract. The facts of the terms of his contract have been known to the league since the time of registry -- the terms of his contract alone can no longer be the ground of a league challenge.



Hope this makes sense.

 

[chasman]

Re: League looking at Hossa's contract....again

The defence rest... :lol:

 

[phranchk]

Re: League looking at Hossa's contract....again

It makes sense, but also the way article 26 is written it sounds like to me that they can still take it to a system arbitrator after the 60 days. If they do that then they can require the player and club to turn over a lot more evidence than they would have otherwise gathered if they have good cause to request it.



Basically it sounds like it would be a long, drawn out legal mess. I really don't think the league would in any way want to go down that road. It would be league suicide if they did.