Quote:
Originally Posted by The Cobra
If a player suffers a career ending injury he continues to get paid, although the contract would be equally frustrated? Teams have to pay in that situation. I assume that the CBA provides otherwise, so the frustration concept would not be applicable. While the contract may no longer count in terms of cap and contract numbers in effect, the obligation of the team to honour the payments under it still exist.
The amount of insurance that a team actually carries would not affect how much money the estate will get, it will get the full value of his contract. Otherwise, if they chose to carry a lesser number, the estate would suffer.
|
I don’t think the player contract exists any more. Death usually ends a contract like these. The CBA would have to provide expressly that it continues.
EDIT: Regarding the fact that the contracts are guaranteed for injured players - it has to be a hockey related injury. If a player suffers a career ending injury form non-hockey activities, that’s technically a player default under the SPC and the player can be suspended or eventually terminated.
Neither the CBA or the SPC talk about death specifically (except that a player’s family gets 6 months of pension benefits after a player’s death if the player was active).