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

[MS]

$26M-$28M? How do you figure?

If there's one thing we know about Owners, it's that they can't control their spending. They've addmitted as much themselves. Why would they suddenly start keeping salaries that low when many of them could easily afford the $43M (including tax) required to be at the top of the range?

If the average team has $4-5 million in other bonuses and expenses, that put the average payroll counted against the cap at $30-33 million. A few teams will spend to the $36 million limit. Others will be near the floor. It will average out, minus bonuses, to probably $26-28 million base payroll. Average base payroll before the lockout was $42 million. That's a 50% drop.

 

[Cloned]

Al Strachan (so take with whatever grain of salt you please) is on The Score now.

Says that they have NOT agreed on any numbers for the cap and that it is "a kaleidoscope" where one side will ask for a cap here and the other side will counter with a cap there and everything's changing constantly.

 

[Realm]

Yes, dont be surprised if this isnt the exact deal or that this is finished. Until the NHL announces it and its signed, it could go another way.

 

[HSHS]

Sorry I wasn't trying to accomplish that it must have happened by accident ..

Come on... at least I can say when I agree with someone.

I hate the one-sided pro-owner vs pro-player or republican vs democrat arguments that are part of todays culture. I'd much rather see people take positions that lean one way then the other based on the individual merits of the issue.

 

[Greschner4]

Here's something I didn't understand.
The cap is based on 54% revenue right? If so, What happens if a teams 54% is more than the 36 mill cap?

Sounds like they can spend the high end of the cap range -- or $36 million. They'd then pay $7 mil into the kitty as revenue sharing.

It sounds like all the world that the deal is you can spend 54% of your revenues but no more than $36 mil. Teams with revenues for which 54% falls between $34 and $36 million can spend 54% of revenues. Teams with revenues so low that 54% doesn't even reach $34 can spend $34.

Agreed that the article is poorly-written, but there's no way the cap is simply 54% of your own revenues ... that's not even a cap.

Teams without revenues to go up to $36 can now tell fans that they aren't paying players trying to shake them down because THEY CAN'T. Come to the games more and maybe we'll be able to. Perfect. No more media attacks and agent attacks about the team being cheap; they can just point to revenues and the rules. Want to be able to spend $36, pay higher ticket prices ... your choice. Big win for the league.

The $2 million play between $34 and $36M strikes me at first glance as just a face-saver for the PA to say "it really isn't a hard cap." It doesn't really mean squat; it's still for all intents and purposes a pretty hard cap.

 

[gobuds]

Al Strachan (so take with whatever grain of salt you please) is on The Score now.

Says that they have NOT agreed on any numbers for the cap and that it is "a kaleidoscope" where one side will ask for a cap here and the other side will counter with a cap there and everything's changing constantly.

Big AL is so out of the loop- he is praying that this isn't the system because there is no way he can understand it.

 

[blamebettman*]

Originally Posted by Chileiceman
Here's something I didn't understand.
The cap is based on 54% revenue right? If so, What happens if a teams 54% is more than the 36 mill cap?

then the cap goes up, that's the point of floating

 

[Ola]

Here's something I didn't understand.
The cap is based on 54% revenue right? If so, What happens if a teams 54% is more than the 36 mill cap?

The 54% is overall league revenue. The cap is set after what the highest&lowest earning teams are making.(which means that teams can't make more or less the the upper or lower limit, since it based on the numbers at the start of the year) They belive this would give them a system where the overall spending lands somewhere in the neighborhood of 54% of the overall revenues.

If after a season revenues are lower or higher then 54% they will probably either just raise the cap level the year after or maybe they will just de-/in-crease all salarys with a 1% or 2%.

I don't think they want to have a complex system with saved revenues that goes back the year after or something like that.

 

[Cloned]

Big AL is so out of the loop- he is praying that this isn't the system because there is no way he can understand it.

Heh. I hope he's wrong as well. But there are so many rumors out there now that I wouldn't be surprised if he's right.

 

[HSHS]

then the cap goes up, that's the point of floating

the only thing that's floating is that Baby Ruth you left in the pool...

Floating means it changes from team to team within a preset range. Your delusion that it goes into the 40-50 (excluding tax) range is unhealthy.

 

[Ola]

According to this article, and what shoalts confirmed on PTS tonight- no team can spend more then 36- including the tax. I think you will see it spelled out more clearly in tomorrows papers.

What they mean is that a team can't spend more then 36m. Taxes payed out won't count against the cap, you now like a team that have 32.5 million in salary costs and pays 3.5m in taxes wouldn't be able to spend anymore since 32.5+3.5 is 36 million. That won't be the case. Its common sense that it won't, if a the papers say it will tomorrow they are wrong and I am right.(as usual)

 

[txomisc]

No, its better because there is a floor. That means that no team can spend less then 22 million. That was the PA's argument all along.

IMO a floor this low is a nonissue. Its pretty reasonable to assume that teams would spend at least 22 million whether there was a floor or not.

 

[Cloned]

What they mean is that a team can't spend more then 36m. Taxes payed out won't count against the cap, you now like a team that have 32.5 million in salary costs and pays 3.5m in taxes wouldn't be able to spend anymore since 32.5+3.5 is 36 million. That won't be the case. Its common sense that it won't, if a the papers say it will tomorrow they are wrong and I am right.(as usual)

A 32.5 effective max would really be something, though. That would be some pretty crazy salary parity.

 

[Ola]

It sounds like all the world that the deal is you can spend 54% of your revenues but no more than $36 mil. Teams with revenues for which 54% falls between $34 and $36 million can spend 54% of revenues. Teams with revenues so low that 54% doesn't even reach $34 can spend $34.

Agreed that the article is poorly-written, but there's no way the cap is simply 54% of your own revenues ... that's not even a cap.

Teams without revenues to go up to $36 can now tell fans that they aren't paying players trying to shake them down because THEY CAN'T. Come to the games more and maybe we'll be able to. Perfect. No more media attacks and agent attacks about the team being cheap; they can just point to revenues and the rules. Want to be able to spend $36, pay higher ticket prices ... your choice. Big win for the league.

Since the upper limit is based somewhere around 54% of what the highest revenue team is predicted to make next year it would be impossible for a team to be able to spend more then 54% of their revenues anyway. If for some reason a team next year makes a bussload of money more then any other team they alone would be able to spen more then any other team in 06´-07´. Most likely this won't be the case. Its would be really interesting to see how this cap would look based on the revenues in 04' and not on whats predicted for next year.

I belive this can be, under the circumstances, a better deal for the players then what some people thinks. Remeber these numbers are based on predicted revenues for next year and they aren't that high.

 

[Gary]

Al Strachan (so take with whatever grain of salt you please) is on The Score now.

Says that they have NOT agreed on any numbers for the cap and that it is "a kaleidoscope" where one side will ask for a cap here and the other side will counter with a cap there and everything's changing constantly.

Here's an article on good ole Al I agree with 110%

http://nhl.gongshow.net/2005/03/12/can-al-strachan-write-in-swedish/

 

[LordHelmet]

If the average team has $4-5 million in other bonuses and expenses, that put the average payroll counted against the cap at $30-33 million. A few teams will spend to the $36 million limit. Others will be near the floor. It will average out, minus bonuses, to probably $26-28 million base payroll. Average base payroll before the lockout was $42 million. That's a 50% drop.

I don't see the reason for distinguishing between base & bonus. It's been understood all along that bonuses & other compensation all fall under "player costs" and are included in cap levels & tax thresholds..

So add the bonuses in and your average of $26-$28 is actually an average $30-$33. Compared to Levitt's player costs of $1.494B, that's a drop of 33%-39%. The players are/were giving back 24% anyway, and then you figure something in for revenue decreases and a 33%-39% sounds about right.

Plus - remember that these cap numbers are only for the first year. The phrases "floating" & "team-by-team" suggest that each team's cap will move up or down based on their revenues.

And again, the big win for the players is that the owners will now have an incentive to report every dime of revenue.

 

[Cloned]

Here's an article on good ole Al I agree with 110%

[url="http://nhl.gongshow.net/2005/03/12/can-al-strachan-write-in-swedish/"]http://nhl.gongshow.net/2005/03/12/can-al-strachan-write-in-swedish/[/url]

A pretty good read, and I especially liked the detailing of my Oilers versus the Flames.

 

[AXN]

They report wrong things all the time. They probably do have some agreement.
Let them announce a CBA agreement and then you can judge who won.

 

[Wolfpack]

I don't see the reason for distinguishing between base & bonus. It's been understood all along that bonuses & other compensation all fall under "player costs" and are included in cap levels & tax thresholds..

So add the bonuses in and your average of $26-$28 is actually an average $30-$33. Compared to Levitt's player costs of $1.494B, that's a drop of 33%-39%. The players are/were giving back 24% anyway, and then you figure something in for revenue decreases and a 33%-39% sounds about right.

Plus - remember that these cap numbers are only for the first year. The phrases "floating" & "team-by-team" suggest that each team's cap will move up or down based on their revenues.

And again, the big win for the players is that the owners will now have an incentive to report every dime of revenue.

That is the "big win" for the players? Boy, they're really left scraping the bottom of the barrel. If my employer reduced my salary by 39% I wouldn't care how much revenue he was bringing in. I'd be looking for a job somewhere else.

Even if league or team-by-team revenues increase over the next six years I still can't see the players regaining that 39%... not even considering the year of salary they lost. I almost feel sorry for them.

Almost.

 

[not quite yoda]

I'm not getting excited. Until something gets confirmed or canceled TWICE by Bettman, then nothing is done. If the CBA had already been agreed on, there would be the 1st of 2 press conferences right now. Yet there is no such thing. And all could still blow up and all of this could be false. Like that last "agreement in principle".

Many of you guys are getting fooled into believing something that isn't factual. Again.

 

[ArtG]

I'm not getting excited. Until something gets confirmed or canceled TWICE by Bettman, then nothing is done. If the CBA had already been agreed on, there would be the 1st of 2 press conferences right now. Yet there is no such thing. And all could still blow up and all of this could be false. Like that last "agreement in principle".

Many of you guys are getting fooled into believing something that isn't factual. Again.

Well it didn't say that the CBA was agreed upon, just the salary cap system...

 

[not quite yoda]

Well it didn't say that the CBA was agreed upon, just the salary cap system...

"it said"... that's gold.

i'm waiting for bettman's 2 press conferences.

media's been completely false about this before.

 

[ArtG]

"it said"... that's gold.

i'm waiting for bettman's 2 press conferences.

media's been completely false about this before.

That's beside the point. What I was referring to was that they won't make an announcement until the entire CBA is agreed upon -- not just the salary cap system -- so don't hold your breath.

 

[BobMckenzie]

Maybe it's just me, but I'm confused by this story.

If, as the story suggests, each team's salary cap is determined by a percentage of each team's revenue, huge win for the NHLPA, which gets it market. But the story also says it's unrealistic to expect, say, Toronto's and Phoenix's cap numbers to be determined by a fixed percentage of their respective revenues because the gap would be too big. Of course it would, that's what the lockout is basically about.

How can individual club caps be determined by individual club revenues if the range is 22 on the low end and 36 on the high end? And if your answer is the high revenue teams get to spend at the high end of the 22-36 range and the low revenue teams have to spend in the lower regions of it, consider it a huge win for the NHL. Because not only would the league have gotten a respectable range (22-36) but certain teams would be restricted from spending to the top of the range, guaranteeing the league that the cap average would be in the mid-range, or less than $30 million per team.

So which is it, huge win for the players (a pretty wide-range marketplace based on club revenues) or huge win for the NHL (a cap within the cap for some teams)? Very confusing, IMHO, but maybe I'm missing something.

p.s. my personal opinion is they agreed on a macro-economic linked cap system last Friday and have moved on to other issues, but also remember they can re-visit the economic system and re-open negotiations at any time...until it's all done, it's not done...blah,blah, blah...you know the drill.

 

[ColoradoHockeyFan]

Maybe it's just me, but I'm confused by this story.

If, as the story suggests, each team's salary cap is determined by a percentage of each team's revenue, huge win for the NHLPA, which gets it market. But the story also says it's unrealistic to expect, say, Toronto's and Phoenix's cap numbers to be determined by a fixed percentage of their respective revenues because the gap would be too big. Of course it would, that's what the lockout is basically about.

How can individual club caps be determined by individual club revenues if the range is 22 on the low end and 36 on the high end? And if your answer is the high revenue teams get to spend at the high end of the 22-36 range and the low revenue teams have to spend in the lower regions of it, consider it a huge win for the NHL. Because not only would the league have gotten a respectable range (22-36) but certain teams would be restricted from spending to the top of the range, guaranteeing the league that the cap average would be in the mid-range, or less than $30 million per team.

So which is it, huge win for the players (a pretty wide-range marketplace based on club revenues) or huge win for the NHL (a cap within the cap for some teams)? Very confusing, IMHO, but maybe I'm missing something.

p.s. my personal opinion is they agreed on a macro-economic linked cap system last Friday and have moved on to other issues, but also remember they can re-visit the economic system and re-open negotiations at any time...until it's all done, it's not done...blah,blah, blah...you know the drill.

Bob, is it possible that the cap does in fact vary by team, but only within a small range? In other words, all teams' celings fall within a range of, say, $34-36 million. A top-revenue team would have a cap at 36, while a bottom revenue team would have a cap at 34. Similar range for the floor. So there is varation from team to team, based on their revenue, but it's very limited. So there's a little extra room for a high-revenue team to spend a few million more, but the disparity between the top and bottom of the league is still kept basically in check (probably an overall range of 12-14 million league-wide, not to mention the top-spending teams would be paying tax to the low teams as well).