If they constituted circumvention under the 2005 CBA, there was a remedy provided in that same CBA to address cap circumvention. It was, in fact, used (sort of) to deal with the Kovalchuk contract. In other words, you use the rules that are there, the punishments set out in existing rules, to deal with any breach of those rules. You don't make new rules to apply to past actions. Ex post facto law is fundamentally unfair. Period.
__________________
"The great promise of the Internet was that more information would automatically yield better decisions. The great disappointment is that more information actually yields more possibilities to confirm what you already believed anyway." - Brian Eno
|