should luongo, pronger, and hossa's contracts be revoked???
- Thread starter Lapper
- Start date
Can you point me to the "rule" that was broken in the Kovalchuk contract, along with the others you've listed?although not as blatant as kovie's contract, these contracts do bend the rules. i have a feeling luongo's contract will be voided. the league even let the canucks know this when the nhl 'approved' the contract last year.
The Kovalchuk decision was nonsense and any contracts that are retroactively voided should immediately start a huge lawsuit vs. the NHL. The NHL can't make up rules as it goes along. That is why there was a lockout and a new CBA - to set the rules of business. How Gary Bettman steamrolled the NHLPA with this decision (making up a new rule re: contracts, getting an arbitrator who was proven to have a pro-owner/NHL bias) is astonishing. Actually, I know why: hockey players are weak and somewhat dumb. They break under pressure from ownership and very quickly and easily turn on each other - and their NHLPA reps. Which is why they currently don't have an executive director or strong executive council.
I have a difficult time understanding why so many fans side with a group of owners who can't control themselves or their budgets while already having locked the players out twice in 10 years - and still can't seem to get it right. Let alone a commissioner who has done very little for the game of hockey. Perhaps because the players' salaries are public knowledge, but the owners' (bad) business is kept private?
Perhaps the "spirit" of the rule. The older contracts should be "grandfathered".Can you point me to the "rule" that was broken in the Kovalchuk contract, along with the others you've listed?
there is a bit of unfair but real conspiracy that they let Luongo sign and play under that contract...** through an Olympic year**... and immediately barred Kovalchuk's deal.
