scaredsensfan said: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.
Bonde 007 said: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.
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..417 TO MTL said: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...
Dead on.Newsguyone said: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.
King_Brown said: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.
But the problem is that the percentange based on league revenues just works for small market teams .. $24 - $36 range ..King_Brown said:53-56% hard linkage on league revenues. Thats all it takes.
The Messenger said: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.
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 ..King_Brown said: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.
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
King_Brown said:Its master plan to get Phanuef and Iginla out of Calgary and to New York ASAP, and this is how they can do it.
ranold26 said: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.
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?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.
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.
The Messenger said: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 ..
ranold26 said:If there is no hard cap at 36m, floor at 22m, with tax provisions at 29m+, then why would the article mention it?
scaredsensfan said: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.