Cba Faq

[GSC2k2*]

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.

Man, is YOUR skin thin ...

Your post is reflective of the ridiculous (IMO) amount of deference Bob McKenzie receives around here. Please note: I am not saying you are ridiculous; I am saying the board as a whole genuflects too much by half IMO whenever he deigns to post. Your post made the clear assumption that Bob was correct, in the face of a statement on the matter from the parties thmselves.

My "duh" reference was not directed to you per se, but more to the point of view that if The Bob says it, it HAS to be true.

I hope I was able to clarify my meaning for you.

 

[Foppa2118]

Yes. Clubs will have a one-time opportunity, during a six-day period, to exercise buy-outs of existing player contracts. Amounts paid to players pursuant to these compliance buy-outs will not be counted against a club's upper limit or the League-wide players' share. Clubs that choose to exercise compliance buy-outs must pay the buy-out amount over the remaining term of the contract.

There will be a six-day period commencing on July 23, 2005 and ending at 5:00 p.m. ET on July 29, 2005 during which Clubs may terminate and buy out player contracts.

A player that has been bought out during the compliance buy-out period cannot rejoin his old Club during the 2005-06 season.

I didn't see anything in there about the 2/3 buyout that we have been hearing about. Does that mean it's the full amount, or is this source not reliable enough to judge by yet?

 

[GSC2k2*]

I didn't see anything in there about the 2/3 buyout that we have been hearing about. Does that mean it's the full amount, or is this source not reliable enough to judge by yet?

"Reliable" is not the word, IMO. "Comprehensive" is more the point. As a FAQ, it is not the document language, nor does it contain all of the details of the details.

2/3 buyouts have always been the rule. Had it been revised, that revision is significant enough that the FAQ would have mentioned it. THe fact that it did not speaks to the likelihood that the rule remains unchanged. THe fact that the proposals from BOTH sides throughout the process confirmed that the rule would remain the same also speaks to support the assumption of status quo. So, I think the very safe bet is that buyouts are still 1/3 and 2/3 as per the old CBA.

 

[Foppa2118]

"Reliable" is not the word, IMO. "Comprehensive" is more the point. As a FAQ, it is not the document language, nor does it contain all of the details of the details.

2/3 buyouts have always been the rule. Had it been revised, that revision is significant enough that the FAQ would have mentioned it. THe fact that it did not speaks to the likelihood that the rule remains unchanged. THe fact that the proposals from BOTH sides throughout the process confirmed that the rule would remain the same also speaks to support the assumption of status quo. So, I think the very safe bet is that buyouts are still 1/3 and 2/3 as per the old CBA.

I figured as much. Just seemed odd that they didn't mention the 2/3 part, when they were so thorough in the other responses.

 

[danaluvsthekings]

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

Anaheim is included in the LA TV market so they're not eligible as well.

 

[littleD]

No renegotiations?

Making it even harder for teams to keep the players they want and stay under the cap.

 

[Tekneek]

No renegotiations?

Making it even harder for teams to keep the players they want and stay under the cap.

It prevents the kind of mass renegotiations that go on in the NFL everytime a team wants to add another high profile player. It becomes a joke in the NFL, where a whole lot of contract shuffling goes on during every offseason and salary keeps getting deferred. They are trying to keep teams from finding a way to screw themselves.

I was surprised at the loss of the Waiver Draft, but it does seem to be unnecessary as teams will not really be able to afford to stockpile players who are trying to get their break. I thought it was originally intended to keep teams from burying players. If it becomes a problem again, a similar sort of way to re-distribute players will find its way into the next agreement.

 

[FrenchKheldar]

For purposes of qualifying for unrestricted free agency, the 2004-05 cancelled season will be counted as a year of accrued service.

Maybe somebody talks about this somewhere else but I thought I would find it here... Is this not a surprise for anybody? I was hoping that would not be the case, so that the Thrashers would have to deal with Kovalchuk's and Heatley's cases one year later... So just 3 more years, we have to start winning fast if we want to convince them of staying...

 

[Tekneek]

Maybe somebody talks about this somewhere else but I thought I would find it here... Is this not a surprise for anybody? I was hoping that would not be the case, so that the Thrashers would have to deal with Kovalchuk's and Heatley's cases one year later... So just 3 more years, we have to start winning fast if we want to convince them of staying...

I heard that now they are on different years of experience as well, due to Heatley missing almost all of the 2003-04 season. This means that Ilya will be UFA eligible BEFORE Heatley. It messes up some of the planning for Don Waddell. Supposedly he is all about "no excuses" this year, so the future doesn't matter as much.

 

[FrenchKheldar]

Well he did play something like 30 games... That doesn't count as a full year? Interesting... I think it's better not to have both UFA the same year, but time will tell...

 

[Tekneek]

Well he did play something like 30 games... That doesn't count as a full year? Interesting... I think it's better not to have both UFA the same year, but time will tell...

It was 31 games. Maybe the report was wrong. It was Daren Eliot saying it, so that means it might be a little suspect from the start, but he should at least know what he is talking about in reference to a star on the team (one would hope).

 

[OpinionatedMike]

Still no sign of the full 600+ page CBA.

The only thing the fans got, so far, is a 2 page CBA FAQ

Thanks for sticking around fans! Watch our game....oh....pardon?.....what did we decide to do with the CBA after we showed you everything about the old one, and played this cat and mouse game out in the public eye...

You'll get to see it in 4-6 years....maybe

 

[Seachd]

Still no sign of the full 600+ page CBA.

The only thing the fans got, so far, is a 2 page CBA FAQ

Thanks for sticking around fans! Watch our game....oh....pardon?.....what did we decide to do with the CBA after we showed you everything about the old one, and played this cat and mouse game out in the public eye...

You'll get to see it in 4-6 years....maybe

Who cares? It's out when it's out. Maybe they're typing it out and still on page 346. It's been one day.

 

[MacDaddy TLC*]

It prevents the kind of mass renegotiations that go on in the NFL everytime a team wants to add another high profile player. It becomes a joke in the NFL, where a whole lot of contract shuffling goes on during every offseason and salary keeps getting deferred. They are trying to keep teams from finding a way to screw themselves.

I was surprised at the loss of the Waiver Draft, but it does seem to be unnecessary as teams will not really be able to afford to stockpile players who are trying to get their break. I thought it was originally intended to keep teams from burying players. If it becomes a problem again, a similar sort of way to re-distribute players will find its way into the next agreement.

Another thing no renogiations until the final year does is prevent little pukes like Keith Tkachuk from holding out after 1 year because 3 guys pass him on the pay scale.

Also with the December 1 deadline, I think we have just about killed the chance of anyone holding out for lengthy amounts of time. The players won't want to lose a year of service, especially those working towards an early unrestricted free agency.

 

[Tekneek]

The December 1 deadline deals with players who are not under contract. It is players who are restricted free agents and have not signed a new contract. It will prevent guys from coming in during January and still getting credit for a year. If a guy has gone to Europe and is playing there, he will just finish out the year if he doesn't like the offers.

 

[MacDaddy TLC*]

There was a date before (start of the season?) where if a player played in Europe past the date, he had to clear waivers if still signed. If that is still in there too, along with no renegotiating, players really don't have much leverage to try and hold out.

The Dec 1st deadline is good for teams to get their RFAs signed because it takes away some leverage. Players will play for less in hopes of more when they reach UFA status. The deadline is a bit of trouble for UFas. Teams now only have about 1 3/4 months to decide if they need to bring in a vet to replace the rookie they thought was ready. A team may not be ready to make that call by Dec 1st.

 

[Tekneek]

I still hate the use of the term 'holdout' when referring to players who are not under contract. As if somehow they should show up without a contract or just accept whatever they are being offered. I hope I never work at a place where I am expected to take whatever is being offered or even better, just turn up without any agreement to even pay me.

 

[MacDaddy TLC*]

Yes, holdout is for players with contracts. for RFA's term used should be Without a contract & under the thumb. There isn't a lot of leeway for RFAs to hold out on signing, especially now with caps and controls in place. They just have to sign only as long as it takes to reach their freedom age.

 

[MacDaddy TLC*]

I am a little disappointed they didn't move the draft eligibility date from September 15th to January 1st like it was rumoured.

 

[hillbillypriest]

Who cares? It's out when it's out. Maybe they're typing it out and still on page 346. It's been one day.

Sorry Seachd, but I disagree. The agreement has been ratified by both sides and we're into this fast paced implementation. Part of the "buzz" for the relaunch is the debate about the moves that teams may, and then do, make in the next several weeks. Fans should be able to know what's going on. Me, I'm particularly interested in RFA compensation details, and the FAQs don't give us much of a clue. Come on!! What's the hold up? The League needs to get its act together ASAP.

 

[Tekneek]

Maybe they will keep it under wraps until after the free agency period starts in August. Between now and then the player agents will be trying to figure it out.

 

[LuLuBelle]

I have a question about the $39 million cap per year. Is this a fiscal year? a tax year? a season which they're calling a year? It could make a difference as some teams may operate [at least in the USA] under differing business structures.

 

[MacDaddy TLC*]

I have a question about the $39 million cap per year. Is this a fiscal year? a tax year? a season which they're calling a year? It could make a difference as some teams may operate [at least in the USA] under differing business structures.

I believe the language used was season, so that would be in the paycheques they issue from mid september to April.

 

[19nazzy]

From NHLPA.com

THE NEW COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENT WILL BE MADE AVAILABLE HERE IN THE NEAR FUTURE. THANK YOU FOR YOUR UNDERSTANDING.

Near future. Now there's a wishy-washy legal term