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

[King_Brown]

53-56% hard linkage on league revenues. Thats all it takes.

 

[Mr Sakich]

the way I read it is that there is a strict hard upper cap of 36 mill. That makes sense to me as it is what the owners have been pushing for. If this is true, there are going to be a lot of happy retired teachers in ontario.

 

[blamebettman*]

of course the rangers/wings/leafs will spend more, and they'll make more. why not?

but I think what is taken out of them by the luxury tax will help raise the floor. So the disparity won't be 28mil 50mil, more like 34mil 48mil, which gives more competitive balance you'd figure. The luxury tax won't restrain the top teams, but it'll keep the bottom teams close enough.

everybody will be making money under this proposal, but the competitive balance won't be there like some fans want it. Calgary is still not standing on the same ground as Toronto, and likely never will.

but now at least calgary, edmonton and pittsburgh will survive.

 

[King_Brown]

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.

There is no flexibility. We cannot spend more then 54% of our reveues, either can Toronto, but there revenues are much higher then ours, how does this help us? If we suck one year, and they get to the playoffs one year our cap probablly shrinks, theres go up. Screw this system.

 

[A Good Flying Bird*]

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.

No dude. I wanted this over a long time ago.

But what is being reported doesn't seem worth this kind of fight.

 

[LordHelmet]

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...

Ummm, no. It was widely discussed a week or so ago how the league's concessions regarding a salary floor, FA age, QO's, and Arbitration made the deal as it stood then better for players than the February offer. If this is how the cap system actually works as is rumored in these articles, this deal is even better for the players than it was a few weeks ago..

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.

Dead on.

 

[blamebettman*]

of course this is a win for the owners, the entire negotiations were set as a giveback.

but goodenow won alot more for his side than expected. in the end I think all non hardliners will be happy. everybody makes money, all 30 teams likely survive. Calgary, Edmonton, and nashville get a boost.

 

[MarkZackKarl]

There is no flexibility. We cannot spend more then 54% of our reveues, either can Toronto, but there revenues are much higher then ours, how does this help us? If we suck one year, and they get to the playoffs one year our cap probablly shrinks, theres go up. Screw this system.

I am not sure what the system is, but:

a) It goes to show uninformed fans that the previous CBA was far more desirable from a fans point of view than the Gary Bettman / Bill Daly vision.

b) It is unclear hwether the % of the team by team cap is really 54%. I could see it anywhere from 54% - 61%

c) I am sure we'll get a lockouit again within the next decade and you can misalign yourself with the owners once again, and whatever comissioner is leading them at that point (I doubt Gary will still be here.)

 

[Mess]

53-56% hard linkage on league revenues. Thats all it takes.

But the problem is that the percentange based on league revenues just works for small market teams .. $24 - $36 range ..

but for a big market teams they are only spending 25 % - 30 % of thier revenues at those levels.

 

[King_Brown]

But the problem is that the percentange based on league revenues just works for small market teams .. $24 - $36 range ..

but for a big market teams they are only spending 25 % - 30 % of thier revenues at those levels.

I dont see a problem in the NFL at all. No team is crying or complaing to be spending less then 61.25% of there revenues.

 

[ranold26]

If there is no hard cap at 36m, floor at 22m, with tax provisions at 29m+, then why would the article mention it?
As for the 54%, I believe that is the amount that salaries and cap level are linked to league wise, each year.

The cap level change, year per year, according to league wide revenue.


[LWR * 54%]/30 = cap limit...

[36m * 30] *[1/.54] = 2 billion revenue.

 

[Slats432]

I am a fan of this.

The PA gets some marketplace. The NHL gets some control of cost. Small markets get financial assistance to hit the floor. Large markets can spend some of their excess revenue.

The PA doesn't get murdered as bad as some were expecting, the moderates in the PA get credit for getting a deal.

And now we can have a Merry F'ing Christmas.

 

[Jeffrey]

I hate this deal ..
it will give even more power to big market team then the last CBA IMO !!

 

[MHA]

if the ceiling is no higher than 36 million no matter what then the owners won big time.

What the owners should do is agree to the deal but tell the big-market teams that they can only spend up to 40 million and 36 is the ceiling. for instance that means that their dollar to dollar if the floor was 22 million would still be 29 and teams spending 40 would have to pay 11 million in luxury tax. that would be brilliant

 

[King_Brown]

Yup. They just said a big FU to the defending champs of the west the Flames. Its master plan to get Phanuef and Iginla out of Calgary and to New York ASAP, and this is how they can do it.

 

[Mess]

I dont see a problem in the NFL at all. No team is crying or complaing to be spending less then 61.25% of there revenues.

But the NFL is a different animal they have a huge TV contract to divide up so league revenue when sharing these things makes more sense ..

In the NHL as TSN has picked up on team by team revenues is more accurate then league ..

Report: NHL, NHLPA agree on cap formula


TSN.ca Staff with CP, Globe and Mail files
6/8/2005 2:06:13 PM

The Globe and Mail reports that the NHL and NHL Players' Association have agreed on a formula for a salary-cap system based on team-by-team revenue.

http://www.tsn.ca/nhl/news_story.asp?ID=127314&hubName=nhl

 

[TruGr1t]

Its master plan to get Phanuef and Iginla out of Calgary and to New York ASAP, and this is how they can do it.

Just...

Wow.

 

[habfan4]

If there is no hard cap at 36m, floor at 22m, with tax provisions at 29m+, then why would the article mention it?
As for the 54%, I believe that is the amount that salaries and cap level are linked to league wise, each year.

The cap level change, year per year, according to league wide revenue.


[LWR * 54%]/30 = cap limit...

[36m * 30] *[1/.54] = 2 billion revenue.

Glad to see I'm not the only one who views the article in that light - what it appears to be saying is an absolute cap at $36 million (for which you have to pay and additional $7 million in taxes).

 

[LordHelmet]

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.

Remember, the 22-34 or 24-36 range is just for 05-06. After that, your team's cap moves around based on their revenue. The $12M range is just where the cap & floor start at. Depending on how the formula works, by the end of the deal, we could have a range of $20M-$55M.. Big win owners, huh?

Serously though, I'm sure that the formula will have factors that prevent that big of a disparity. I think everyone sees the problem with having some teams spend three times what others do. The PA wanted to fix that problem with a tax & sharing, the League wanted to fix that problem with a hard cap. What we've got is something in between..

I agree with whoever called this a budget and not a salary cap. That's exactly what this is. The ugly part is the fact that this is only a six year deal. Another work stoppage in 2011 is pretty much guaranteed..

 

[MarkZackKarl]

from the article

From the TSN article:

The Globe and Mail reports that the NHL and NHL Players' Association have agreed on a formula for a salary-cap system based on team-by-team revenue.

How does that sound like 'league wide revenues'?

If the cap (rumoured only) would be league wide, they would surely have specified it, not said team-by-team.

Of course this report could be false, but a team by team cap based on revenue generation is far better than a league wide lockdown on all teams from Toronto to Raleigh despite the fact that they are at completely different ends of the spectrum...

The big loss in this new deal will be the reduced UFA age, that will suck for fans of teams who can actually develop talent. I guess it will be better for fans of drafting incompetent teams like Edmonton (at least until recently), The Rangers and the Blues, though.

 

[blamebettman*]

But the NFL is a different animal they have a huge TV contract to divide up so league revenue when sharing these things makes more sense ..

In the NHL as TSN has picked up on team by team revenues is more accurate then league ..

it probably will be team by team revenues, how in the world would Toronto, NYR, Philly sign off on it otherwise?

but the calgarys and nashvilles of the world, the luxury tax money they'd be getting for the big market teams going over the cap, would that be counted as revenue for them? because it could be quite a high number.

essentially, the big market teams are still making big money but are now paying to keep calgary and pittsburgh afloat and somewhat competitive.

 

[LordHelmet]

If there is no hard cap at 36m, floor at 22m, with tax provisions at 29m+, then why would the article mention it?

Like I said a minute ago, the 22-34 or 24-36 range is where the range is for 05-06. After that, each team's cap moves around based on their revenue.

 

[Eddie Vedder]

If this thread has proven anything, its that peoples own interpetation of language can give a huge variety of results. That being said, we dont and wont know anything until they have it written out and the language and legal jargon worded, signed, and delivered. Im fine with being patient and not forming judgements of the deal until its actually finished and we have something to go buy. That article on the Globe and Mail was written and posted this morning so I imagine they didnt put a huge amount of time into making sure wording didnt imply different things.

However, great news on this part of the negotiations, lets hope this is the homestretch.

 

[V for Voodoo]

The big loss in this new deal will be the reduced UFA age, that will suck for fans of teams who can actually develop talent.

If it's under 27 I will be unbelievably ticked (I really want 29 max, but that's a pipedream at this point). At least let teams keep their stars for a few of their prime years.

 

[MarkZackKarl]

Uh... Calgary DID make the finals last year, thats slightly more than 'somewhat competitive' don't you think?

Don't forget that Pittsburgh had one of the league highest payrolls from about 1991 - 1997 as well...

Winning fixes a lot of problems for the so called struggling teams... notice how almost no one mentions Tampa Bay anymore in those simpleton contraction threads?



Here is the breakdown one last time of the old system, which made a lot of sense:

Team drafts and develops well
Team starts winning games with good talent
More fans go to see a better team
team starts making playoffs
team wins some playoff games, players get rewarded
tseam payroll goes up in accordance with increased revenues
team continues to win until their players age beyond their prime
Team is OK if they still produce players through the draft, if they dont they are in trouble.
Eventually the team blows itself up and rebuilds.