Loading ...
The NHL says Kovalchuk's contract is 'illegal' -- how can this be? Hasn't precedent been set? (see: Hossa, Ricky D, Bobby Lou, et. al)
File this under “things that make you go ‘hmmm…’”
It’s quite intriguing that the National Hockey League has decided to put its foot down with the Ilya Kovalchuk contract. There are several contracts similar to his, though not as long. I doubt they have a legal leg to stand on. Even if the New Jersey Devils and Kovalchuk himself knows this contract was written in such a way as to circumvent the Collective Bargaining Agreement, how can they prove intent? Is it that he’ll be 44 years old when the contract expires and, basically, nobody (let’s say 0.005 percent of players) plays past 40-ish?
Even so, how do you prove intent to circumvent? And even if you do prove it, if the current CBA has that loophole, how do you retroactively close it? And where do you draw the line? Fifteen years was OK for the Islanders’ Rick DiPietro. Marian Hossa signed a big front-loaded contract. Robert Luongo is on a monster deal. Where is the line? Why bring the hammer down at this point?
I am very curious as to how the league thinks it can get away with this randomness — either you can or you can’t do something under a contract. And, while I am not a lawyer, if those other contracts were not in violation, how can this one be?
The Kovalchuk drama continues! He always was a diva — this somehow fits. (No really … don’t you think?)
What are your thoughts?
Photo: Ilya Kovalchuk by Getty Images.
Well, here’s the pertinent language:
“26.3 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.”
Obviously this bylaw has been broken in the past, but I think Kovy’s contract is basically the straw that’s broken the camel’s back. It’s been push, push, push (Hossa, Luongo, etc.), and now it’s OK, THAT’S IT, NO MORE!
The real tipping point? Those final six years at less than league minumum. That’s the “haha, I’m thumbing my nose at the salary cap” clincher. Two years, maybe. Four years, pushing it. SIX years? Nuh uh.
I loved that Uncle Lou thumbed his nose at the NHL and stated that the contract was circumventing the cap. But then…let’s talk about those other contracts that are doing the same thing. Tell me, do you expect Kipper to play for 1.5 his final year? I think the problem with this one is that you’ve got a number of years under a million. The others have their lowest at that million number. Seems to be the magical part. As for DiPietro…wasn’t that contract before the current CBA? (didn’t check to see if it was or not)
The biggest fear is that we’re going to lose hockey again in 2 years. To me it’s almost a certainty with the players about to annoint Donald Fehr as their grand poobah. :(
I laughed and laughed and am still laughing. Greed gets you nowhere! Kovy you suck!!
Kovalchuk’s deal is without question a way of circumventing the salary cap… but it is doing so through a loophole, it isn’t breaking the rules as written, or as established by previous precedence of other contracts. The NHL should allow this, and then close the loophole asap.