Given the language of Richard Bloch's ruling that sustained the NHL's rejection of New Jersey's contract with Ilya Kovalchuk, I ask an important yet difficult question: What exactly is the "line in the sand" now for future NHL contracts?
The arbitrator ruled in favor of the NHL in their rejection of Ilya Kovalchuk's contract. This post is a snap judgment, stating what the next step is and stating how confusing this all is.
The arbitration hearing between the NHL and the NHLPA over the league's rejection of the contract between Ilya Kovalchuk and the New Jersey Devils ended today. I summarize all of the reported news and find that all procedures have followed Article 11.6(a) of the CBA.
After explaining why I don't think Ilya Kovalchuk's contract with the New Jersey Devils violated Article 50, I explain that the current procedure after rejection that's being followed is Article 11.6 and people shouldn't worry about Article 26.13.
After reviewing the NHL Collective Bargaining Agreement, I am not convinced that New Jersey Devils contract with Ilya Kovalchuk violates Article 50. I cite the relevant provisions and make my argument in this post. The next one will go over Articles 11 and 26.
