Brooks:NHL's Salary Cap was actually less

$36 million with a 50% luxury tax to $42.5 million

All of the elements would have been included in the cap

All annual individual signing bonuses contained in contracts.

All personal achievement bonus payouts.

All contract buyouts.

All annual signing bonuses for players in Entry Level System.

All players on Injured Reserve.

All players in minor leagues earning over $75,000.

http://newyorkpost.com/sports/41703.htm

No wonder why the NHLPA turned this down

 

Well duh, of course every bonus is included under the cap, it would be an utter joke otherwise. The cap would be rendered virtually useless. Players would just ask for ridiculous bonuses money in every contract negotiation.

Only thing I don't like is players on the injured reserve list included. You want to be able to acquire a player if one of your guys is out for the year and you're at the cap limit. You also want to be able to call back players on 2-way contracts for temporary injuries. So a player making $50 000 in the minors might be making $800 000 when he plays in the NHL, becoming a cap issue for the team that tries to bring him up (of course, he'll only make a fraction of that salary if it's only a temporary stint). Having players under the injured reserve list count in the calculation of the cap doesn't serve the GMs. They end up with absolutely no margin of error.

As for the tax, it is perfectly logical and a must if you want to talk about revenue sharing down the road. Players have pushed for it all along. How exactly would this play against them? What would have likely happened is small market teams budgeting as if 36M was the hard cap and bigger markets going all the way up to 42M, which is exactly what the players were hoping for.

The over $75 000 minor leaguer's clause is a bit weak also.

Sure they did Larry. They are all evil worshippers afterall. It goes without saying Brooks knows full well what he's talking about. One of the most objective journalists out there. If only every others like McKenzie could put their agendas aside in the interest of information like Larry does on a regular basis.

Hmmm, how so? The only thing going against a team's cap per say is the minor league clause. Is there really 3.5M worth of $75 000+ contracts per team for players currently in the AHL? Silly me, there must be, Brooks just reported it.

 

This in contrast to NHL limiting revenue sharing with intents to eliminate it entirely in their last offer makes it obvious that they wasn't even interested in getting something done that late.

Its almost funny to read this now after hearing what Bettman & Co. had to say after the meeting in NY. "Oh we were set up" lol.... ´

Sure anyone is entilted to their opinion, the NHLPA IMO even deserves more blame then the NHL for this mess. But I can't seriously understand all the Bettman "supporters". Like this guy is on some crusade to save Edmonton Oilers? Under Bettmans latest proposal four teams would make annual profits between 40 and 25 million dollars a years. Thats why the fans where screwed this year....

 

You'll have to explain that one to me.

 

Are you serious?

No it wouldn't.... If you had a individual cap on signing bonuses for players in Entry Level System it wouldn't be a problem at all. You know one like that the NHL proposed?

Honestly think for a second what affects it would get if all players in the minors earning more then 75K would be included in the cap?
1. One way contracts for rookies? Forget about it if your name isn't Crosby.
2. Having the worst(cheapest) minor league team would be a competetive instrument.
3. Nice gesture from the NHLPA to the career AHL'ers, sorry we just took away your chance of making a living by accepting Bettmans latest offer...

What would it mean if players on the injury reserve list was counted against the cap?
1. Basically UFA isn't worth much anymore. Who would risk signing a vet to a multi year contract?
2. Who would risk siging anyone to a multi year contract?
3. Getting the stamp "injury prone" would take away every possibility of making money in the future. How many players would admit it if they got a concussion? This part of Bettmans offer could even end up killing someone in the end.

I hate to generelize people, but one group of fans on these boards are just to.......

 

Darn thoose greedy bastards!!!

 

Of course they are, they don't think like you. I could bother trying to discuss this rationally with you, but I'm just too...

 

Do you not understand the concept of putting things into proposals as bargaining tools?

 

Wasn't the players proposal in some cases higher that the stated $49M?

 

That can't be. They wouldn't do that. Only the owners are evil enough for such blatant disrespect of everything that is good in this world.

signed: Larry Brooks

 

Stop beeing so pathetic. Its reaveled that Bettmans offer was unacceptable and the entire meeting in NY just a setup from the owners part.

The NHL proposed a limited revenue sharing with intents to eliminate it entirely. The NHL proposed that injured players should be included in the cap. The NHL proposed that the salarys of players in the minor leagues should be included in the cap.

All you can come up with is, oh the NHLPA bla bla....

 

I'm sorry I didn't realize I was talking to such an objective fellow. Should have known better by reading your posts. Once again, most sincere apologies. Larry, is that you?

 

Montreal, Washington, LA have all had upwards of 10 players on injured reserve at some point in the last few seasons. I can understand everything else counting towards a cap, but injured reserve should not. How do you replace 10 guys in your lineup if you've got limited cap space? Only dress 14 players a game?

Plus, some of these weaker teams at $36 million, a guy gets hurt and they have to bring up a replacement who makes $1 million, but pay $1.5 million. This isn't good for anyone. They would bring up players based on how little they make, not how good they are.

 

hmm, now if i remember right, this is the offer about which bettman said there would be no negotiating, right?


now, why can't we criticize the owners proposal without bringing the players proposal into this? both appear to be crap in the end and not something that would get a deal done. can we all agree on that? maybe? probably not...

 

I agree. The injured reserve list should never count towards the cap. You don't want teams (good or bad) to be forced to forfeit because they have too much injuries and are at the cap limit. What if there was a cap last year when the flyers lost Dmen after Dmen? They would be royally screwed.

 

We can't agree to disagree on that for at least 100 more posts!

 

with the AHL contracts thing...i wonder if that just counts towards guys with two-way contracts, or all minor leaguers on the farm team? i can't imagine they could make AHL contracts (as in AHL contracts, not two-way contracts with the NHL and AHL) count towards the NHL parent teams cap, it'd make no sense. even though the AHL is a feeder league for the NHL, it's still it's own league and can sign players without being attached to NHL teams...

 

I certainly don't like either proposal as is. The injured reserve and minor league clauses are problematic. I also think the owners should be prepared to throw a bigger bone towards the PA, (lower UFA age and take the arbitration system the PA proposed).

On the other hand, the upward linkage proposed by the PA was pathetic. And a cap of 49M with the possibility to bring it at 52M 2 years out of 6 does very little for the small market teams.

 

Sounds very reasonable to me. The players should have taken it. Since 1994, its been all players and its the owners who are assuming all the risk.

 

The proposals from both sides are negotiable regardless of what crap both sides spew to the public.

Now that we have the dirty details from the league's offer I would like to see some of the dirty details from the player's offer. We know about section 7 and upwards linkage but I'd also like to know what kinds of things didn't count against the PA's 49 mil cap offer - I would bet signing bonuses didn't.

 

My bet is that we will se a new CBA this summer, Bettman will be able to sneak in linkage while giving up on several other issues....

The owners and Bettman was probably not to found about having a 28 game season. It would hardly be the new start of the NHL they are talking about.

I belive Bettman have the PA where he wants them. He have keept offering them unacceptable offers all along, now he will suddenly become mister nice guy and give in. But will also say that now when we have lost a year linkage is a must. Hopefully the PA will accept because another year without the NHL is unthinkable...

 

Contract buyouts would count against the cap?How does the NHL expect teams to get under the salary cap?Don't bring up this idiotic idea of a dispersal draft.If the 24% rollback by the NHLPA is off the table and buyouts count against the cap,the big market teams will need to have 10 minor leaguers on each roster to field a team.I am a fan of big market team who is 70%-30% on the NHL's side but the NHL needs to put some easier transitions rules in place.If there is no grandfathering,no rollback and the buyout option is off the table,then having a cap in the mid-$30 million range with linkage plus all of the other bells and whistles will lead to some pathetic teams charging $125 per ticket

 

IR salaries count towards the cap in every other league. NFL teams reserve $1-2 million cap space so they can bring in replacements. Unless the NHLPA wants to pay the salaries of injured players, they have to count towards the cap. Injuries are part of the game and should have an impact. It also goes to the issue of leveling the playing field and encouraging development. When a key player goes down on a small market team they call someone up from the minors. When one goes down on a large market team, they're able to trade for a player just as good, or better. I think there can be a little flexibility. Perhaps have 2 classes of IR; one temporary and the other permanant (player can't return until next season) and allow the team to exempt the salary of ONE player on permanant IR.

 

Bettman was going around telling everyone that the cap was $42.5 million.It was not.This is the same guy who proposed the trigger offer to the NHLPA knowing that those triggers would be meet as soon as the NHL reopened their doors.The guy is a blinking clown

 

I understand there is such a thing in other league, but I don't like the concept. I agree though there could be some flexibility introduced. But I can think of countless scenarios where this rule would cause a great deal of problems for teams, The Flyers example is one of them. Even when you keep a bit of breathing rooom, if you lose more than one key guy that makes in the 3-5M range, even if you want to replace them via a trade, you can't. The Kings, with this rule combined with their legendary bad luck (or bad conditioning staff) would become a bottom team. There is way too much injuries in a year, especially in hockey, a very physical sport, to not allow for teams to turn around in the event of major bad luck.