Globe and Mail -"Sides Agree to Salary Cap system" -all talk here !!!!

[Drury_Sakic]

Well the article does say

I think that passage refers to IF they NHL was using a strict % system that it would be MUCH more than the actual 36 million number that is on the table..

IF means if they were not using this system, then the number would be much higher than 36.. but they are using this number so the % numbers are wonky in regards to what level of renenue places you at wherever you are in the 34-36 range...


jezze.. I sound like bill clinton...



I have no problem with big market clubs getting a bit more for their cap.... a 2 million dollar cap gap between rich and poor... even moreso at this level of a cap... seems fair.. and really a just way of doing things....It prevents teams from spending past their means.. and alows spenders to spend a bit more since they are the ones being "limited' the most..

 

[FlyersFan10*]

I've barely been following this at all lately.. if we get a deal done by mid June.. would there still be an entry draft at its normal time?

That's gonna be something else to see. The whole draft bit. Oh well. I'm just hopeful that teams will be able to resign their 2003 picks. I can't see Snider or anyone like that letting the league get by without some kind of protection in place so they can sign their 2003 picks.

I just want to see what kind of wheeling and dealing will take place. The number of players who will be free agents and the number of cuts that will take place should be astronomical. As well, the new financial landscape should be something to see.

Who wants to bet that ticket prices won't come down either?

 

[King_Brown]

Thanks for the memories Calgary FLames and Jarome Iginla. We enjoyed your time in a FLames uniform, I hope you have fun in New York where they have more money to offer you then us. Don't worry about your teamates, Dion Phanuef will join you once he wins the rookie of the year, and has 2 outstanding seasons, and comes to join you in New York.

I hope the Maple Leafs enjoy Robyn Regher and Jordan Leopold.

 

[CalgaryThrasher]

Why would the hardlines be mad. I am a fan of a small market team and this deal looks pretty good.

34-36Mil Hard cap with a $1 for $1 between $29Mil and 36Mil.
This mean if the Oilers spend $29 Mil and the Rangers spend 36Mil there is only a $7Mil gap. Thats pretty good. Plus the Ranger would have to pay $7Mil in taxes which could help the small market team gets to the min cap.

I second this, as a Flames fan. Tell me the Rangers could spend only up to $36 million and i'm laughing, and saying "You're full of ****"

I'll take it

 

[Mess]

AS i mentioned in another thread it seems to me that the author of the story is saying that the payroll range will span a low of $22 mil and a potential high of $36 mil. I think he is saying that the formula for the calculation must be a complicated one because if you used direct percentages then the leafs would have a cap higher than $36 mil when that will not be the case. The allowing high revenue teams to spend more seems more to do with the tax system that lower revenue teams may not be abel to afford. SO if the PA folks are correct and that a cap doesn't act as a magnet then the richer teams will be able to spend $14 more million than the poor teams. No more than that.

This is closer to the what the papers before today have reported of a soft cap tax within a Hard Cap floor and ceiling, but you really wouldn't need that tax at a $36 mil ceiling though, would you ??

Seems more like a badly written article that fact .. but it was rumoured that this NHLPA proposal was a floating cap per team system though ..

Well I guess we will just have to wait and see .. regardless though it brings back a hockey so everyone wins ..





.

 

[shakes]

I think that passage refers to IF they NHL was using a strict % system that it would be MUCH more than the actual 36 million number that is on the table..

IF means if they were not using this system, then the number would be much higher than 36.. but they are using this number so the % numbers are wonky in regards to what level of renenue places you at wherever you are in the 34-36 range...


jezze.. I sound like bill clinton...

So 54% doesnt really mean 54%.. so in the leafs case that would be 30%? I honestly think there is more to it than that and there is the ability for teams to go over 36 million if revenues allow.

 

[habfan4]

Thanks for the memories Calgary FLames and Jarome Iginla. We enjoyed your time in a FLames uniform, I hope you have fun in New York where they have more money to offer you then us. Don't worry about your teamates, Dion Phanuef will join you once he wins the rookie of the year, and has 2 outstanding seasons, and comes to join you in New York.

I hope the Maple Leafs enjoy Robyn Regher and Jordan Leopold.

I think you need to reread the article:

The Cap for both the Leafs and the Flames would be the half way point between the ($22M) floor and the ($36M) ceiling - $29 million dollars Cap. If either team wants to exceed the $29M (up to an absolute maximum of $36M) they have to pay a dollar for dollar tax.

That seems to level the playing field a fair bit.

 

[Drury_Sakic]

This is closer to the what the papers before today have reported of a soft cap tax within a Hard Cap floor and ceiling, but you really wouldn't need that tax at a $36 mil ceiling though, would you ??

Not really.. but its a bone for the players... more revenue for lower spending teams means they will spend more on players(in theory at leaast)... this helps adjust for the PA the fact that colorados spending will go from 56 million to 36 million...but the Pens with better revenue sharing might be able to up their 20 million dollar payroll to say 23 or 24 million due to the extra cash it gets from other teams paying into the tax....

Thats in theory of course..

 

[Slats432]

So 54% doesnt really mean 54%.. so in the leafs case that would be 30%? I honestly think there is more to it than that and there is the ability for teams to go over 36 million if revenues allow.

It might be hard to discern, but maybe the hard cap is 54% of each team revenues.

For example the Leafs generate $100 M, their HARD cap is $54 million.

If they spend $41 million, add their tax, it would get them to $53 million. (I hope that makes sense.)

And I wouldn't be disgusted if that was the deal either.

 

[Drury_Sakic]

So 54% doesnt really mean 54%.. so in the leafs case that would be 30%? I honestly think there is more to it than that and there is the ability for teams to go over 36 million if revenues allow.

I would think so.. but no way the hard line owners would give into that... No friggen way.... right?

 

[shakes]

It might be hard to discern, but maybe the hard cap is 54% of each team revenues.

For example the Leafs generate $100 M, their HARD cap is $54 million.

If they spend $41 million, add their tax, it would get them to $53 million. (I hope that makes sense.)

And I wouldn't be disgusted if that was the deal either.

Thats the way I read it too. Makes sense really. Too many people still think this is about competitve balance. All this is about is $$$$

 

[blamebettman*]

It might be hard to discern, but maybe the hard cap is 54% of each team revenues.

For example the Leafs generate $100 M, their HARD cap is $54 million.

If they spend $41 million, add their tax, it would get them to $53 million. (I hope that makes sense.)

And I wouldn't be disgusted if that was the deal either.

it's not a bad deal, the tax would raise the floor as well. This would be a boost to pittsburgh and calgary as well who would divide up the luxury tax money.

 

[Drury_Sakic]

It might be hard to discern, but maybe the hard cap is 54% of each team revenues.

For example the Leafs generate $100 M, their HARD cap is $54 million.

If they spend $41 million, add their tax, it would get them to $53 million. (I hope that makes sense.)

And I wouldn't be disgusted if that was the deal either.

That would put a rather large gap between rich and poor again though, and while thats not the official goal of the lockout..I would hope its on someones radar...

Only think I could think of is that past 36 million, each dollar spent on the lux tax also counts against your cap(meaning if the leafs cap was at 46 million and they spent up to it it would actually only give them 5 million more in spending power as the rest of the cap space would go to tax money)...

But I really doubt that..... its gotta be locked into the 34-36 range.... I am 99.9% positive of that..

 

[A Good Flying Bird*]

A team by team cap with revenue sharing/luxury tax represents a win for the PA, at least relative to the what was expected.

I mean, a lot will depend on how the percentage is worked out.
But it looks as if the NHL is basically agreeing to nothing more than a mandatory budget. Plus a luxury tax/revenue sharing.

Incredible.

So the WIngs might get a $50 Million cap and the Predators might get a $28 Million cap?

Incredible.

 

[habfan4]

Thats the way I read it too. Makes sense really. Too many people still think this is about competitve balance. All this is about is $$$$

I don't know how they are getting the numbers, but this quote from the article seems to imply the opposite of a strictly 54% of each teams revenue.

In the first year of what is thought to be a six-year deal, based on revenue projections by both sides, the salary cap will range from $34-million to $36-million, with the floor from $22-million to $24-million.

 

[blamebettman*]

I would think so.. but no way the hard line owners would give into that... No friggen way.... right?

well, jacobs was reported to be getting quite irritated recently...

but the hard line players and owners are on the sidelines. and I don't believe goodenow is one of them because I feel as though he's not as hardline as some portray him. I'm sure Guerin is tossing furniture as we speak.

it is all about $$$

 

[LordHelmet]

Well the article does say:

"If a strict percentage were used, then a large-revenue team like the Toronto Maple Leafs would have a salary cap not only much higher than $36-million, but vastly higher than a team like the Phoenix Coyotes".

That's a big if. I think it's safe to say that it's not a strict percentage. It's a formula, and we won't know what it is until the CBA is released.

In my mind, there's a big win for the players in hiding in this. All along they've been concerned with underreporting of revenue. To some extent this has been addressed with the formula that has been negotiated, but with a linked/escrowed system like the hardliners were wanting, ownership would still have an incentive to hide revenue - or at least try to.

This system flips it around the other way. Owners will now have an incentive to report every single penny of revenue - as this gives their team a higher cap to work with.

 

[417]

Either way...i think the consensus is the players are going to get a worse deal then they could of gotten in January/February...what idiots...

 

[The Old Master]

floating cap,...i', hopeing that its put in place so that the good teams don't have to gut their rosters right away. this way they can keep their players and give them time to slowly get their payroll down.

 

[A Good Flying Bird*]

yeah i don't see issues with reporting revenues if they've spent all this time defining what those revenues are, etc

but even so, honestly compare the old CBA to this proposal, and tell me that this new one creates more problems than the last one...just try

Correct.
It's all about context.

In the context of the old CBA, this is a big win for the owners.

But in the context of what was expected, this is a big win for the PA.

Everybody was saying a $32 to $36 M cap for every team.

If the WIngs, Rangers, Avs, etc still get to spend more, this is crazy.

All this does is prevent a bad team from going out and signing a marquee player ... a player that could increase revenues and lead a team into the playoffs.

Bizarre.

If this is the deal, it hardly seems worth a year.

 

[Mess]

It might be hard to discern, but maybe the hard cap is 54% of each team revenues.

For example the Leafs generate $100 M, their HARD cap is $54 million.

If they spend $41 million, add their tax, it would get them to $53 million. (I hope that makes sense.)

And I wouldn't be disgusted if that was the deal either.

It could certainly be read that way as well .

To make it easier to understand you are saying that :

Team Salary + Luxury tax penalties < or = 54% Max of team revenue generated.

So a big market team can't go to the max and it will all depend on what kind of fees are involved as the luxuary tax ..

 

[King_Brown]

Explain to me how this is good for us the fans, and keeping our star players? If Toronto has a higher cap then us, which will happen, there is no way we can offer Iggy more money. What good is a salary tax if we cant spend some of that money to get better player and retain them? How is a dolllar for dollar tax going to discourage high spending team? Toronto already spends $60 million in salaries and about $20 more million for the nursing home for there players, so what if they pay 6 million in taxes they are at $42 million then, they still save a whopping $18 million. I hate this system, what the hell was Billbert Daly and Gary Bettman thinking.

 

[Art Vandelay]

If this is the deal, it hardly seems worth a year.

Would you like to wait another year for a better deal

IMO it doesnt matter what the deal is as long as they get it done.

 

[dem]

Should probably wait until details come out.

If it seems too ridiculous to be true.. it probably is.

 

[MarkZackKarl]

Explain to me how this is good for us the fans, and keeping our star players? If Toronto has a higher cap then us, which will happen, there is no way we can offer Iggy more money. What good is a salary tax if we cant spend some of that money to get better player and retain them? How is a dolllar for dollar tax going to discourage high spending team? Toronto already spends $60 million in salaries and about $20 more million for the nursing home for there players, so what if they pay 6 million in taxes they are at $42 million then, they still save a whopping $18 million. I hate this system, what the hell was Billbert Daly and Gary Bettman thinking.

What makes you think Calgary can keep more than a couple star players it develops if the cap is set in the low to mid 30s?



Any system that allows for flexibility dependent on team performance is far better than a non flexible cap on 30 different markets.