It's literally a black and white issue, there's no grey area. It doesn't mean everybody has to like it, but it's a clear cut situation.
- BulliesPhan87

That’s the thing, it absolutely isn’t black and white. As I said earlier, the circumvention section was created with very vague verbiage for exactly that reason. The NHL wanted the flexibility to penalize for actions they felt were against the spirit of the CBA. They didn’t spell out every little situation, because they know they can’t. I’ve posted parts of the section twice already. They don’t point out a single unique action/circumstance, but what they say certainly fits many situations/circumstances, and in my opinion, this contract definitely fits.

except we are doing pretty good financially and phoenix doesn't even have an owner
- kypredsfan

your doing ok, your not doing great, if im not mistaken you guys lost money last year, no?

Yep might as well just have 24 weak teams that act as a farm teams to 6 or so super rich teams that will be competing for the cup
- top shelf 15

yes because out new york detroit toronto theyve wont pretty much everycup

That’s the thing, it absolutely isn’t black and white. As I said earlier, the circumvention section was created with very vague verbiage for exactly that reason. The NHL wanted the flexibility to penalize for actions they felt were against the spirit of the CBA. They didn’t spell out every little situation, because they know they can’t. I’ve posted parts of the section twice already. They don’t point out a single unique action/circumstance, but what they say certainly fits many situations/circumstances, and in my opinion, this contract definitely fits.
- prock

no it is black and white.... if the league says good contract then nothing was wrong... if thhe league says bad contract then something was wrong... only 2 options

the hell do you mean it's not exploiting anything? it's a loophole and it's exploiting it. if you don't see how this is a lame contract then you've got blinders on.
- rangerdanger94

Ignoring the strange analogy, it's not a loophole, it's just a stupidly thought out rule. But it's the rules everybody agreed on. Hopefully, they're more careful with the new CBA.

it's technically in rules but you can obviously see how it's a lame contract to give out and is exploiting a poopty loophole.
- rangerdanger94

I get that but a lot of teams do it including your own. Yet now small market teams are doing it too. This CBA will be a mess cause the owners don't have a leg to stand on. Is it a loophole when teams like the Rangers and Flyers give money to small market teams to keep them afloat?

That’s the thing, it absolutely isn’t black and white. As I said earlier, the circumvention section was created with very vague verbiage for exactly that reason. The NHL wanted the flexibility to penalize for actions they felt were against the spirit of the CBA. They didn’t spell out every little situation, because they know they can’t. I’ve posted parts of the section twice already. They don’t point out a single unique action/circumstance, but what they say certainly fits many situations/circumstances, and in my opinion, this contract definitely fits.
- prock

..but that's were things go awry with all your arguing.
this isn't a matter of opinion, it is a matter of fact.
the rules are in place, philly has followed them, no cap has been circumvented.
the end.

the hell do you mean it's not exploiting anything? it's a loophole and it's exploiting it. if you don't see how this is a lame contract then you've got blinders on.

a few years ago, a person broke into a woman's home and tried to rape her. she asked him to use a condom so she wouldn't get any STDs or pregnant and he obliged. later, the cops found him and took him to court. the jury found him NOT GUILTY because they say that since she asked him to use a condom, she consented. true story. he exploited a loophole and got away with it but it's obvious he broke the law and raped her.

it's obviously WRONG and fcked up and exploits a loophole but since it's a loophole, they'll get away with it. what philly is doing is RAPING the predators but getting away with it.
- rangerdanger94

awesome, and yes, this guys out to lunch. (DarcyT)

That’s the thing, it absolutely isn’t black and white. As I said earlier, the circumvention section was created with very vague verbiage for exactly that reason. The NHL wanted the flexibility to penalize for actions they felt were against the spirit of the CBA. They didn’t spell out every little situation, because they know they can’t. I’ve posted parts of the section twice already. They don’t point out a single unique action/circumstance, but what they say certainly fits many situations/circumstances, and in my opinion, this contract definitely fits.
- prock

It absolutely IS a black and white issue. They set precedent on the matter of front loaded contracts, so that everybody knows how far they can go.

the hell do you mean it's not exploiting anything? it's a loophole and it's exploiting it. if you don't see how this is a lame contract then you've got blinders on.

a few years ago, a person broke into a woman's home and tried to rape her. she asked him to use a condom so she wouldn't get any STDs or pregnant and he obliged. later, the cops found him and took him to court. the jury found him NOT GUILTY because they say that since she asked him to use a condom, she consented. true story. he exploited a loophole and got away with it but it's obvious he broke the law and raped her.

it's obviously WRONG and fcked up and exploits a loophole but since it's a loophole, they'll get away with it. what philly is doing is RAPING the predators but getting away with it.
- rangerdanger94

youve got blinders on if you think that just after these contracts have been looked at the league is going to allow another one to happen... i not a lawyer... i dont know whether its good... all ive been saying is that if the league approves then it is good and no one can be pissed about it

Ignoring the strange analogy, it's not a loophole, it's just a stupidly thought out rule. But it's the rules everybody agreed on. Hopefully, they're more careful with the new CBA.
- BulliesPhan87

its a loophole. why do you think they are making a new CBA as we speak and your ramming this lame ass offersheet through with a ridiculous contract...because you can, you wont be able to in a couple months.

dirt.

hey im a leafs fan and im arguing for you guys saying well played
- DarcyTucker16

My bad thought you had it the other way

awesome, and yes, this guys out to lunch. (DarcyT)
- big_dion

im out too lunch by saying im not a lawyer but ill agree with the leagues ones if they approve it?

the hell do you mean it's not exploiting anything? it's a loophole and it's exploiting it. if you don't see how this is a lame contract then you've got blinders on.

a few years ago, a person broke into a woman's home and tried to rape her. she asked him to use a condom so she wouldn't get any STDs or pregnant and he obliged. later, the cops found him and took him to court. the jury found him NOT GUILTY because they say that since she asked him to use a condom, she consented. true story. he exploited a loophole and got away with it but it's obvious he broke the law and raped her.

it's obviously WRONG and fcked up and exploits a loophole but since it's a loophole, they'll get away with it. what philly is doing is RAPING the predators but getting away with it.
- rangerdanger94

She wanted him to use a condom, which means she wanted it clearly.

Ignoring the strange analogy, it's not a loophole, it's just a stupidly thought out rule. But it's the rules everybody agreed on. Hopefully, they're more careful with the new CBA.
- BulliesPhan87

trying to make a point

idk i'd still say it's a loophole. it's legal within the rules technically, but you're crazy if you don't see that those last years at a super low rate compared to the beginning isn't there purposely to lower the cap hit.

it's the exact same structure as the kovy contract, just not as extreme.

i'll even admit that the brad richards contract follows similar suit and circumvents the cap.

good on you guys for doing it tho. it's legal and you guys are about to get the best defenseman in the NHL for 4 crap 1st round picks.

the hell do you mean it's not exploiting anything? it's a loophole and it's exploiting it. if you don't see how this is a lame contract then you've got blinders on.

a few years ago, a person broke into a woman's home and tried to rape her. she asked him to use a condom so she wouldn't get any STDs or pregnant and he obliged. later, the cops found him and took him to court. the jury found him NOT GUILTY because they say that since she asked him to use a condom, she consented. true story. he exploited a loophole and got away with it but it's obvious he broke the law and raped her.

it's obviously WRONG and fcked up and exploits a loophole but since it's a loophole, they'll get away with it. what philly is doing is RAPING the predators but getting away with it.
- rangerdanger94

If the Rags did it you would be singing a different tune. Loophole is just another way of being creative.

yes because out new york detroit toronto theyve wont pretty much everycup
- DarcyTucker16

They can afford to bury millions in the minors when they make a mistake ,they can afford to pay a single player almost half a 110 milion dollar contract in a year or so.Think nashville ,s team sold is worth 110 million

..but that's were things go awry with all your arguing.
this isn't a matter of opinion, it is a matter of fact.
the rules are in place, philly has followed them, no cap has been circumvented.
the end.
- Barx

Don't hate the player, hate the game.

For real, though, the NHL salary cap was not the best thought out structure IMO. Why they opted for the AAV as the cap hit is beyond me, it was like asking for these situations.

its a loophole. why do you think they are making a new CBA as we speak and your ramming this lame ass offersheet through with a ridiculous contract...because you can, you wont be able to in a couple months.

dirt.
- big_dion

if he can then he should... well played

..but that's were things go awry with all your arguing.
this isn't a matter of opinion, it is a matter of fact.
the rules are in place, philly has followed them, no cap has been circumvented.
the end.
- Barx

the rules are being changed as we speak, things take time.

They can afford to bury millions in the minors when they make a mistake ,they can afford to pay a single player almost half a 110 milion dollar contract in a year or so.Think nashville ,s team sold is worth 110 million
- top shelf 15

Nashville is worth a little more. The 26 million in the first calender year would be 16% of their franchise worth according to Forbes.

They can afford to bury millions in the minors when they make a mistake ,they can afford to pay a single player almost half a 110 milion dollar contract in a year or so.Think nashville ,s team sold is worth 110 million
- top shelf 15

so your saying all owners should have equal money? i am not saying this CBA is awesome... all i am saying is you guys cannot be pissed about the contract if the league approves... im saying its a well played deal by philly to get the guy they want IF it is within the rules... if the league approves... then it is in the rules

..but that's were things go awry with all your arguing.
this isn't a matter of opinion, it is a matter of fact.
the rules are in place, philly has followed them, no cap has been circumvented.
the end.
- Barx

So, when New Jersey put a contract in place with Kovalchuk, that followed all of the specific parts of the CBA to a tee, why did they get penalized? Why was it found to be circumvention? How does that fit with your logic? That contract didn't break any specific parts of the CBA.

trying to make a point

idk i'd still say it's a loophole. it's legal within the rules technically, but you're crazy if you don't see that those last years at a super low rate compared to the beginning isn't there purposely to lower the cap hit.

it's the exact same structure as the kovy contract, just not as extreme.

i'll even admit that the brad richards contract follows similar suit and circumvents the cap.

good on you guys for doing it tho. it's legal and you guys are about to get the best defenseman in the NHL for 4 crap 1st round picks.
- rangerdanger94[/quote]

If phili wanted Weber so bad they should have offered a trade, not 20-28th pick overall.

sorry bryz will never win a cup, hes (frank)in awful.

If the Rags did it you would be singing a different tune. Loophole is just another way of being creative.
- flyers2001

we did do it with brad richards.

i've said multiple times that holmgren played this very well and good for you guys. you guys should be thrilled but when you guys make excuses that it's not circumvention, it's a little annoying. you can admit it... it's alright. you'll still get the best defenseman in hockey.

although now that i'm thinking about it.. how many of these contracts has philly given out? pronger, carter, weber, bryz, richards