NHL on verge of deal to end lockout

[GirardIsStupid]

anyone else notice this:

The new CBA will feature a floating team-by-team salary cap that will tie players' salaries to overall league revenues.

 

[Kritter471]

anyone else notice this:

The new CBA will feature a floating team-by-team salary cap that will tie players' salaries to overall league revenues.

That's almost the exact same sentence that's been in every article about the "framework concept" agreed to by the league and PA. Still no elaboration on the details.

 

[GirardIsStupid]

That's almost the exact same sentence that's been in every article about the "framework concept" agreed to by the league and PA. Still no elaboration on the details.

yes but the concept of a team by team cap was apparently shot down in some recent articles.

 

[Beauty eh?]

I made one too and tried to put it on here the other day but the logo is just a bit too big and I can't figure out how to shrink it.

*Edit - I managed to shrink it.

I like yours better....the black outline makes it look nice.

BTW, the silver/black badge is the same that has been on the back right leg of player's pants for years.

 

[Gus Fring]

???

 

[GSC2k2*]

yes but the concept of a team by team cap was apparently shot down in some recent articles.

"Shot down"? Not true, at least in my estimation. I defended that position and thought I did well in doing so. I maintain it will be a cap range(34-36, 36-38, etc), with a floor range (22-24. 24-36) based on an idividual team's revenue, with an overall limit based on 54% of league revenues. We will see.

 

[Limey FK]

yes but the concept of a team by team cap was apparently shot down in some recent articles.

I take it as meaning team-by-team as opposed to player-by-player cap. Meaning it's a cap on team payroll not on individual player's salaries.

 

[kdb209]

I take it as meaning team-by-team as opposed to player-by-player cap. Meaning it's a cap on team payroll not on individual player's salaries.

I think the best interpretation of the oft quoted, grammatically incomprehensible, and now largeley discredited G&M article is team-by-team revenues. Rather than come up with a one size fits all definition of HRI (Hockey Related Income) like the NBA has done, they instead went through all 30 teams and came up with a different team-by-team definition of revenues to handle all the corner cases of affiliated third parties that the PA was concerned about.

I am certain that there will not be different caps for different teams - especially not the 54% of individual team revenues as Messenger has advocated. There is no way in hell the small revenue teams would let themselves be institutionalized as second class citizens - it would be a PR disaster.

 

[GSC2k2*]

I think the best interpretation of the oft quoted, grammatically incomprehensible, and now largeley discredited G&M article is team-by-team revenues. Rather than come up with a one size fits all definition of HRI (Hockey Related Income) like the NBA has done, they instead went through all 30 teams and came up with a different team-by-team definition of revenues to handle all the corner cases of affiliated third parties that the PA was concerned about.

I am certain that there will not be different caps for different teams - especially not the 54% of individual team revenues as Messenger has advocated. There is no way in hell the small revenue teams would let themselves be institutionalized as second class citizens - it would be a PR disaster.

What you say may be true, but maybe not also. As for being "second class citizens", I think they would not be so upset if the class is only $2 million wide, as would be the case with a $34-36 million cap range.

I continue to ask the same question. If there is ONE cap number for all teams, WHY is the cap being reported as often as not as $34 to $36 million, or $36-38 million? How can there be a range?

I am not advocating it as a system, mind you. I am just saying I can see it as an acceptable system with the safeguard of a fairly tight range of caps (so as not to create different "classes"), and appropriate incentives to small market teams (to increase their cap to the max by increasing their revenues). I am saying i can easily see how the PA would be able to sell that to the NHL as a system back in April from which the NHL could adapt it as they seem to have done (with the tight cap range), all of which was the tenor of the reports in April(?) when the ball started to really roll.

I am saying, IF that turns out to be the system, don't be surprised, and don't be dismissive of it. A $2 million gap in salary caps between teams is not that big a deal.

 

[Timmy]

I continue to ask the same question. If there is ONE cap number for all teams, WHY is the cap being reported as often as not as $34 to $36 million, or $36-38 million? How can there be a range?

.

Because nobody knows what it's going to be yet?

 

[Boltsfan2029]

I continue to ask the same question. If there is ONE cap number for all teams, WHY is the cap being reported as often as not as $34 to $36 million, or $36-38 million? How can there be a range?

I'm guessing that they simply don't want to announce the final number until they've formalized the agreement, subject to last minute changes.

 

[AH]

The cap numbe to include the 2.2 million in pension/benefits?

Maybe they are still haggling over it. If that amount gets included in the cap number, then the difference would be $2 million higher.

 

[GSC2k2*]

The cap numbe to include the 2.2 million in pension/benefits?

Maybe they are still haggling over it. If that amount gets included in the cap number, then the difference would be $2 million higher.

That part I MIGHT buy.

The other arguments, I don't. Just because they don't know what it will be? Why use an oddball number like a $2 million range when we are talking in tens of millions of dollars? Why use a range at all if it is in negotiation? Don't forget, a team-by-team cap was what was rumoured to be suggested by the PA, which got the ball rolling. Also, I believe one of the NHL's original suggestiosn was a team-by-team cap, IIRC.

 

[Timmy]

That part I MIGHT buy.

The other arguments, I don't. Just because they don't know what it will be? Why use an oddball number like a $2 million range when we are talking in tens of millions of dollars? Why use a range at all if it is in negotiation? Don't forget, a team-by-team cap was what was rumoured to be suggested by the PA, which got the ball rolling. Also, I believe one of the NHL's original suggestiosn was a team-by-team cap, IIRC.

I think we're getting confused by the term.

It's team-by-team rather than player-by-player.

I don't think (and of course, will probably be wrong) that it applies to anything other than (league revenues * X%)/30.

 

[coppernblue]

The cap numbe to include the 2.2 million in pension/benefits?

Maybe they are still haggling over it. If that amount gets included in the cap number, then the difference would be $2 million higher.

i think it has to be included because what will stop teams from circumventing the cap by including exoberant benefits that are just disguised salary?

 

[zeke]

I continue to ask the same question. If there is ONE cap number for all teams, WHY is the cap being reported as often as not as $34 to $36 million, or $36-38 million? How can there be a range?

I think it's a simple answer.

The Cap number is decided as a percentage of league revenues.

54%, if reports are correct.

What the cap number is will be determined by their assesssment of revenues.

It won't be precisely $38, or precisely $39, or whatever.

It won't be a simple number.

it's the 54% number which matters.