Cba Faq

[BigE]

http://www.nhl.com/nhlhq/cba/cba_faq072205.html

Notice, no change in draft age. This should give everyone all they need to know.

Click to read more...

 

[Lard_Lad]

No contract renegotiation allowed, ever, aside from extensions:

Will Clubs be able to renegotiate contracts with players?

No. Player contracts will not be renegotiated (upward or downward) during their term. Extensions may be negotiated but only in the final year of the contract and only if such extension is for an amount that can be accommodated in a Club's upper limit for the current year or as computed for future years.

 

[Kritter471]

Will enhanced revenue sharing be part of the new CBA?

Yes. The League has committed to enhanced revenue sharing in an amount that is necessary to allow all Clubs the ability to afford competitive payrolls within the payroll range.

What Clubs will be eligible for revenue-sharing subsidies?

All Clubs that: (1) are ranked in the bottom half (bottom 15) in League revenues, and (2) operate in markets with a Demographic Market Area of 2.5 million or fewer TV households

So who is eligable for this? I assume Boston and Chicago are out with the TV households qualifier...

 

[BigE]

Edmonton, Calgary, Ottawa would be eligible demographic wise from Canada.

As I am unfamiliar with American population levels I cannot say but I'd imagine Columbus would be one, Buffalo another.

 

[ti-vite]

No more waivers???

 

[NewGuy]

WAIVER DRAFT

Will there continue to be a Waiver Draft?

The CBA does not provide for the continuation of the Waiver Draft.

No more waiver draft either.

 

[BigE]

With the six-day buyout period each year, I imagine there is going to be enough opportunity for turnover that a waiver draft/system isn't really needed.

 

[incawg]

The waiver draft was always a joke anyway.

 

[Lard_Lad]

No more waivers???

Where does it say that? It just says no more waiver draft.

 

[rabi]

With the six-day buyout period each year, I imagine there is going to be enough opportunity for turnover that a waiver draft/system isn't really needed.

I don't think there will be a six-day buyout period each year...

 

[hockeytown9321]

Edmonton, Calgary, Ottawa would be eligible demographic wise from Canada.

As I am unfamiliar with American population levels I cannot say but I'd imagine Columbus would be one, Buffalo another.

I beleive Anaheim wouldn't qualify.

 

[Kritter471]

I just ran my own numers with this (see the other thread).

Anaheim doesn't qualify. Calgary misses due to being 15th in revenue last year.

 

[OpinionatedMike]

TSN said early on, that the FULL CBA would be available to read.

I haven't seen it. I'd like to see it.

If anyone has a link to it. I'd love to read it.

Thanks.

 

[BigE]

I imagine there is going to be enough opportunity for turnover that a waiver draft/system isn't really needed.

I should have corrected this earlier.

 

[kdb209]

REVENUE SHARING

Will enhanced revenue sharing be part of the new CBA?

Yes. The League has committed to enhanced revenue sharing in an amount that is necessary to allow all Clubs the ability to afford competitive payrolls within the payroll range.

What Clubs will be eligible for revenue-sharing subsidies?

All Clubs that: (1) are ranked in the bottom half (bottom 15) in League revenues, and (2) operate in markets with a Demographic Market Area of 2.5 million or fewer TV households.

Note that it is 2.5M TV households, not population.

So this is really just an anti-Wirtz provision.

The only US markets affected are New York, LA, Chicago, and Philly - Rangers, Isles, Devils, Kings, Ducks, Hawks, and Flyers.

In Canada, I would guess that only the Leafs are affected.

http://www.nielsenmedia.com/DMAs.html

Nielsen Media Research Local Universe Estimates* (US)

*Estimates used throughout the 2004-2005 television season which starts on September 20, 2004

RANK Designated Market Area (DMA) - TV Homes - % of US
1 New York - 7,355,710 - 6.712
2 Los Angeles - 5,431,140 - 4.956
3 Chicago - 3,417,330 - 3.118
4 Philadelphia - 2,919,410 - 2.664

5 Boston (Manchester) - 2,391,840 - 2.183
6 San Francisco-Oak-San Jose - 2,359,870 - 2.153
7 Dallas-Ft. Worth - 2,292,760 - 2.092
8 Washington, DC (Hagrstwn) - 2,241,610 - 2.045
9 Atlanta - 2,059,450 - 1.879
10 Detroit - 1,943,930 - 1.774

 

[19nazzy]

TSN said early on, that the FULL CBA would be available to read.

I haven't seen it. I'd like to see it.

If anyone has a link to it. I'd love to read it.

Thanks.

Same here, if any one finds a link.

 

[kdb209]

CLUB PAYROLLS

What will be the range of Club payrolls?

The payroll range in Year One (2005-06) of the CBA will be $21.5 million (U.S.) at the lower limit and $39 million (U.S.) at the upper limit. A Club's payroll will include all salaries, signing bonuses and performance bonuses paid to players. Except in the case of bona fide long-term injury (injuries that sideline a player for a minimum of 24 days and 10 games) to one or more of a club's players, Club payrolls will never be permitted to be below the minimum or in excess of the maximum. Clubs at or near the upper limit that have players who incur a bona fide long-term injury will be entitled to replace up to the full value of the injured player's NHL salary (even if such salary would result in the club's team salary exceeding the upper limit). The "replacement salary" will not count against the club's upper limit but will count against the League-wide players' share. Upon return of the injured player, the team must come into immediate compliance with the requirements of the payroll range.

This strongly implies that it is a solid cap based on annualized salaries and not the total payroll spent, as has been speculated. It looks like Iconoclast's info was spot on. So much for stocking up at the trading deadline.

 

[Peter]

What I haven't seen or heard yet, in an official way, is what punishment is in place for those teams that go over the cap? Has anyone seen anything.

As well, what about any draft picks that have been acquired for future drafts that were to be in 8th and 9th round? What happens to those picks?

 

[OpinionatedMike]

What I haven't seen or heard yet, in an official way, is what punishment is in place for those teams that go over the cap? Has anyone seen anything.

As well, what about any draft picks that have been acquired for future drafts that were to be in 8th and 9th round? What happens to those picks?

I'm also VERY curious about 8th and 9th round picks that were acquired.

As for penalties, if you mean going over the cap, the NHL just won't allow it.....
As for reporting revenues....The Score had them yesterday.

1st offence - $1 Million Dollar fine, loss of a first round pick, and the price of the revenues not reported.

2nd offence - $5 Million dollar fine, loss of 3 first round draft picks, and the double the price of revenues not reported

 

[ColoradoHockeyFan]

This strongly implies that it is a solid cap based on annualized salaries and not the total payroll spent, as has been speculated. It looks like Iconoclast's info was spot on. So much for stocking up at the trading deadline.

That language certainly makes it appear that way. It was in this column by Bob McKenzie that the "total payroll spent" idea was advanced:

http://www.tsn.ca/columnists/bob_mckenzie.asp?id=130373

Another key thing to understand is the cap figure. Yes, it's $39 million, but that doesn't mean you can't have players on your roster whose annual salaries add up to more than $39 million.

You just can't have them on your roster for the whole year. That $39 million figure is not some mythical paper-number, it's how much a team can actually spend on salaries in one year.

So a team that runs way below the cap for most of the year could conceivably add a big salary player at the trade deadline and, on a paper payroll, go over the cap - so long as the actual money spent on salaries stays below $39 million, it's not a problem.

A team could conceivably go into the playoffs with a roster whose salaries add up to more than $39 million. It's all a matter of balancing the books.

So if Bob's column is correct, the language in the CBA Faq seems misleading. Maybe Bob can help us out with a clarification/confirmation when he gets back from New York?

 

[sharkattack]

I'm waiting for a link to the new CBA myself. Would like to take a look at it first hand.

Once someone discovers it please provide a link here.

 

[Buffaloed]

No contract renegotiation allowed, ever, aside from extensions:

If a player's average salary is used for computing his cap amount this will allow teams to retain their overpayed veterans. They can just extend the contract at a low salary to bring the average down. A guy on the last year of a contract that'll pay $7 million could sign a 2 year extention for $2 million, and it would count $3 million against the cap for the next 3 years. Of course teams could really put themselves into salary cap hell if they don't do this wisely.

 

[GSC2k2*]

That language certainly makes it appear that way. It was in this column by Bob McKenzie that the "total payroll spent" idea was advanced:

http://www.tsn.ca/columnists/bob_mckenzie.asp?id=130373

So if Bob's column is correct, the language in the CBA Faq seems misleading. Maybe Bob can help us out with a clarification/confirmation when he gets back from New York?

Um, maybe Bob had it WRONG???!?

Duh.

 

[GSC2k2*]

This strongly implies that it is a solid cap based on annualized salaries and not the total payroll spent, as has been speculated. It looks like Iconoclast's info was spot on. So much for stocking up at the trading deadline.

Implies? I would go further than that, kdp. Clearly they have read the rumours. This unequivocally runs them over with a Mack truck.

As well, so much for Massager's and other's suggestion that teams will be able to be over the cap in the off-season.

 

[ColoradoHockeyFan]

Um, maybe Bob had it WRONG???!?

Duh.

Yes, maybe he did. That's why I'm inviting clarification. I figured I'd do it in a civil, mature manner, though, as opposed to the approach you apparently prefer.