from Amazon
Tuesday, July 27, 2010
Kovulchuk: playing with fire?
When arbitrators attack:
The source said that when the league rejected the contract, it cited two different provisions in Article 26 of the collective bargaining agreement, which deals with circumvention. One of the provisions would call for the contract to be declared null and void if the arbitrator sided with the NHL, the other calls for the arbitrator to reform the contract… Whether the arbitrator declared the Kovalchuk contract null and void or reworked it to evenly distribute the cap hit, in reality, doesn’t make a huge difference to the NHL. But it would to the NHLPA and Kovalchuk because not only would he not get any front-loaded money, he would have to play 16 years to get the same money he could get in the first 11 years of the current deal.... Under another set of circumstances, if the arbitrator sides with the league, he or she, “shall reform the SPC such that if conforms to the requirements of this agreement, in a manner such that the term of the SPC shall not be modified and the aggregate compensation to be paid to the player pursuant to the SPC shall, to the extent possible, be preserved. In such event, immediately upon the issuance of the arbitrator’s decision, the SPC shall for all purposes be deemed to be amended in accordance therewith and the player shall be eligible to play. The player and the club shall be free to agree on a different conforming SPC within three days.”
The Devils will *love* it, and Kovulchuk will hate it. I can’t believe the arbitrator would have this kind of power.
More important than preserving the aggregate value, you would have to preserve the present-day value. It’s a ridiculous provision if that’s what it actually says.
Time to read Article 26 tomorrow…
Recent comments
Older comments
Page 1 of 344 pages 1 2 3 > Last »Complete Archive – By Category
Complete Archive – By Date