NHL salary cap rising to $40-45M

[Stephen]

''Hopefully it will restore a little more of the competitive advantage we had on the financing side which will be nice,'' said MLSE president and CEO Richard Peddie.

yet another reason it hate the Leafs....can't scout, so we'll just buy!

With the increase in the salary cap, you can buy yourself another Mike Peca too..

 

[Squiddy*]

I'm happy the NHL has a cap. I don't care how much the cap goes up it is still wayyyy better to develop your own players now rather then buying them like you would have pre new CBA era.

 

[GSC2k2*]

They were NOT stupid. The League threatened that the pie was shrinking which was a flaw in their negotiating tactics. How hard is it to understand that the players wouldn't want their salaries linked to an Incredible Shrinking Pie?

Just about every offer the League made was presented to the players as a "punishment" for not accepting a previous offer. Is that anyway to bargain/negotiate? Didn't think so.

Now, who's stupid again?

The players.

Next question.

 

[FlyerFan]

The players.

Next question.

What part of "the players didn't want their salaries linked to decreasing revenues" don't you understand?

The League rocked the players world by locking them out until they accepted a new CBA with salaries linked to 54% of League revenues and a hard salary cap. Oh, and the deals would just keep on getting worse the longer they waited because the Incredible Shrinking Pie would just keep on shrinking. The players reacted quite predictably, with fear, anger, and defiance. If you can't fathom how that MIGHT affect a negotiation, it's YOUR loss.

The bottom line is the League wanted this new CBA which means it was THEIR deal and THEIR responsibility to sell it to the players. They initially chose intimidation for negotiation, and it cost us all. Stupid.

 

[GSC2k2*]

What part of "the players didn't want their salaries linked to decreasing revenues" don't you understand?

The League rocked the players world by locking them out until they accepted a new CBA with salaries linked to 54% of League revenues and a hard salary cap. Oh, and the deals would just keep on getting worse the longer they waited because the Incredible Shrinking Pie would just keep on shrinking. The players reacted quite predictably, with fear, anger, and defiance. If you can't fathom how that MIGHT affect a negotiation, it's YOUR loss.

The bottom line is the League wanted this new CBA which means it was THEIR deal and THEIR responsibility to sell it to the players. They initially chose intimidation for negotiation, and it cost us all. Stupid.

Sorry if you don't understand how negotiations work. I don't really have the time to give you a primer. It's Christmas. I do appreciate your uninformed meanderings, however.

 

[rwilson99]

They were NOT stupid. The League threatened that the pie was shrinking which was a flaw in their negotiating tactics. How hard is it to understand that the players wouldn't want their salaries linked to an Incredible Shrinking Pie?

Find the quote from Bettman or any team owner about shrinking revenue leading up to the lockout.

The problem was players were making over 70% of what have now been defined as hockey related revenues. Revenue shrinkage was considered as a result of a lost season.

Chances are your side lost the argument long before you joined this message board.

The players were stupid and misrepresented by Mr. Goodenow.

 

[Timmy]

What part of "the players didn't want their salaries linked to decreasing revenues" don't you understand?


.

Well, I guess I don't understand the part about shrinking revenues.

I understand the part about profits (or should I say losses) affected by increased employee costs, but revenues?

 

[FlyerFan]

Sorry if you don't understand how negotiations work. I don't really have the time to give you a primer. It's Christmas. I do appreciate your uninformed meanderings, however.

I understand this. The 39M salary cap that we now have is based on PROJECTED revenue. In order to determine projected revenue you have to establish what revenue is. This all has to be negotiated and it eventually was, AFTER THE SEASON HAD BEEN CANCELED!!!

According to this link. http://www.miami.com/mld/miamiheral...04.htm?template=contentModules/printstory.jsp
The League's first salary cap threat was 31M. Now what projected revenue was this cap based on? Was it negotiated? It couldn't have been. This was intimidation plain and simple.

The bottom line is the players didn't want their salaries based on numbers that ONLY the League had established and I don't blame them.

 

[GSC2k2*]

I understand this. The 39M salary cap that we now have is based on PROJECTED revenue. In order to determine projected revenue you have to establish what revenue is. This all has to be negotiated and it eventually was, AFTER THE SEASON HAD BEEN CANCELED!!!

According to this link. http://www.miami.com/mld/miamiheral...04.htm?template=contentModules/printstory.jsp
The League's first salary cap threat was 31M. Now what projected revenue was this cap based on? Was it negotiated? It couldn't have been. This was intimidation plain and simple.

The bottom line is the players didn't want their salaries based on numbers that ONLY the League had established and I don't blame them.

First salary cap "threat" = first salary cap OFFER.

"Was it negotiated?"

Clearly you don't even understand the concept. Sorry, but that's the way it is.

As far as the players not wanting their salaries based on only the league's numbers, that is a significant re-writing of history. They did not want their salaries restricted at all. The NHL pleaded with the PA to HAVE THE DISCUSSION. They declined.

There were no "threats". There was one party begging for a good faith negotiation, and one who wanted the status quo only.

 

[FlyerFan]

First salary cap "threat" = first salary cap OFFER.

http://www.miami.com/mld/miamiheral...04.htm?template=contentModules/printstory.jsp
• Oct. 1, 2003: First meeting made public, includes players and owners. Union tables first proposal, offer which includes five percent salary rollback. League says no and counters by saying under any new system, team payrolls could not exceed $31 million -- the NHL's first official salary cap threat.

As you can read, there was no offer per se, only a threat that under any new system, team payrolls couldn't exceed 31M.

"Was it negotiated?"

Clearly you don't even understand the concept. Sorry, but that's the way it is.

Clearly you didn't understand my question. I asked was the PROJECTED REVENUE the League based its 31M "threat" on negotiated. It was a rhetorical question. You weren't supposed to answer it. You were just supposed to understand that it was the LEAGUE that had determined a conservative projected revenue for their 31M "threat".

The bottom line is the League shouldn't have made this "threat".

As far as the players not wanting their salaries based on only the league's numbers, that is a significant re-writing of history. They did not want their salaries restricted at all. The NHL pleaded with the PA to HAVE THE DISCUSSION. They declined.

I agree the players didn't want their salaries restricted, but the League demonstrated with the 31M "threat" that they would use a conservative PROJECTED REVENUE in any deal which is no wonder why the players didn't trust them.

The players knew that the League wanted a salary cap. This was NOT negotiable. So what was there to discuss? What was there to negotiate? How can you even negotiate when the very thing you're negotiating is NONNEGOTIABLE?

There were no "threats". There was one party begging for a good faith negotiation, and one who wanted the status quo only.

The League only wanted good faith bargaining AFTER the NHLPA had capitulated. In other words, the players had to have already lost before the League would even negotiate with them.

The League had financial problems. The potential solutions to these problems should have been just as negotiable as any other part of the CBA. The League didn't want this.

 

[Brent Burns Beard]

This all has to be negotiated and it eventually was, AFTER THE SEASON HAD BEEN CANCELED!!!
.

well, i was a big player supporter through all of this, but come on, the fact it was negotiated after the season was cancelled was 100% the fault of the players. they had plenty of opportunity to negotiate revenue prior to the lockout even starting, but chose to stick to their guns and not talk about it because they didnt want to go down the salary cap road.

 

[GSC2k2*]

http://www.miami.com/mld/miamiheral...04.htm?template=contentModules/printstory.jsp
• Oct. 1, 2003: First meeting made public, includes players and owners. Union tables first proposal, offer which includes five percent salary rollback. League says no and counters by saying under any new system, team payrolls could not exceed $31 million -- the NHL's first official salary cap threat.

As you can read, there was no offer per se, only a threat that under any new system, team payrolls couldn't exceed 31M.



Clearly you didn't understand my question. I asked was the PROJECTED REVENUE the League based its 31M "threat" on negotiated. It was a rhetorical question. You weren't supposed to answer it. You were just supposed to understand that it was the LEAGUE that had determined a conservative projected revenue for their 31M "threat".

The bottom line is the League shouldn't have made this "threat".



I agree the players didn't want their salaries restricted, but the League demonstrated with the 31M "threat" that they would use a conservative PROJECTED REVENUE in any deal which is no wonder why the players didn't trust them.

The players knew that the League wanted a salary cap. This was NOT negotiable. So what was there to discuss? What was there to negotiate? How can you even negotiate when the very thing you're negotiating is NONNEGOTIABLE?



The League only wanted good faith bargaining AFTER the NHLPA had capitulated. In other words, the players had to have already lost before the League would even negotiate with them.

The League had financial problems. The potential solutions to these problems should have been just as negotiable as any other part of the CBA. The League didn't want this.

You can call it a "threat" a hundred times. It will be Bull**** to the fullest degree each and every time. It was an offer to negotiate.

 

[FlyerFan]

You can call it a "threat" a hundred times. It will be Bull**** to the fullest degree each and every time. It was an offer to negotiate.

You're still missing my point. My point is the PROJECTED REVENUE that the 31M (insert preferred term here) was based on hadn't been negotiated. It had been determined SOLELY by the League, and it had to have been a CONSERVATIVE amount.

Since these projected revenues were determined by the League, it clearly shows that they thought revenues would, should, or could DECREASE. This is the very reason why they wanted a linkage deal and the players didn't.

This CBA wasn't just about the League carving into that 76% of the players wallet, it was also about the 54% that would be left being linked to the PROSPECT of decreasing revenues.

 

[braincramp]

Exactly which players are included in a team's cap calculation at any one time?

It is obviously more than the twenty players dressing for the game. I know it excludes a replacement for an injured player, at least until the injured player returns.

Are the players who have been sent down included? What about players under contract who have never played with the NHL club?

Any other clarifications or referrals would be appreciated.

 

[AXN]

Exactly how much of that salary cap does the Pittsburgh Penguins affect?

 

[Captain Ron]

Exactly which players are included in a team's cap calculation at any one time?

It is obviously more than the twenty players dressing for the game. I know it excludes a replacement for an injured player, at least until the injured player returns.

Are the players who have been sent down included? What about players under contract who have never played with the NHL club?

Any other clarifications or referrals would be appreciated.

1) Any player that is on a team's "active roster" are included in the salary cap calculations.

2) The injury replacements do count unless their salary would put a team over the cap.

3) Players who are sent down to the minors or clear waivers no longer count against a teams salary cap.

4) Players under contract who are not on the teams official NHL active roster do not count against the cap.

 

[Captain Ron]

Exactly how much of that salary cap does the Pittsburgh Penguins affect?

This question does not make sense.

The salary cap is determined by league-wide revenues. All teams to a certain extent affect the salary cap since the revenues they bring in are a percentage of the league-wide revenues.

 

[grego]

You're still missing my point. My point is the PROJECTED REVENUE that the 31M (insert preferred term here) was based on hadn't been negotiated. It had been determined SOLELY by the League, and it had to have been a CONSERVATIVE amount.

Since these projected revenues were determined by the League, it clearly shows that they thought revenues would, should, or could DECREASE. This is the very reason why they wanted a linkage deal and the players didn't.

This CBA wasn't just about the League carving into that 76% of the players wallet, it was also about the 54% that would be left being linked to the PROSPECT of decreasing revenues.

Most people here believe the NHL said 31 million the first time. Because they wanted the union to come back with a 50 million dollar cap to start negotiating or whatever number they chose.

From there they would work back and forth till they came to a number that likely would have resulted in a cap of about $45 million if the NHL had not shut down for the year. ( At least it is my belief the NHL would have given up a higher cap immediately if it would have meant no work stoppage at all, the 39 million was their high end negotation with the assumption that the game would be hurt financially. )

 

[GSC2k2*]

Most people here believe the NHL said 31 million the first time. Because they wanted the union to come back with a 50 million dollar cap to start negotiating or whatever number they chose.

From there they would work back and forth till they came to a number that likely would have resulted in a cap of about $45 million if the NHL had not shut down for the year. ( At least it is my belief the NHL would have given up a higher cap immediately if it would have meant no work stoppage at all, the 39 million was their high end negotation with the assumption that the game would be hurt financially. )

Don't be silly!!! THe $31 mil was only a threat!!!!! It was not a negotiating stance! It was a threat, threat, threat, threat, threat, threat, threat, threat!!!!!!

 

[FlyerFan]

Most people here believe the NHL said 31 million the first time. Because they wanted the union to come back with a 50 million dollar cap to start negotiating or whatever number they chose.

From there they would work back and forth till they came to a number that likely would have resulted in a cap of about $45 million if the NHL had not shut down for the year. ( At least it is my belief the NHL would have given up a higher cap immediately if it would have meant no work stoppage at all, the 39 million was their high end negotation with the assumption that the game would be hurt financially. )

The League didn't want a 31M, 39M, 45M, or 50M cap. What they wanted was player salaries linked to 54% of the revenues. That is the TRUE salary cap.

The players didn't want ANY kind of salary cap, but they especially didn't want their salaries linked to revenues that COULD decrease which the League warned that they would the longer it took for them to capitulate.

THAT'S the threat, and THAT'S why the players didn't want their salaries linked to revenues.

 

[grego]

actually if the players had known that the owners were that resolved to get a cap they would have been best suited to dump Goodenow or tell him to get the best cap possible prior to the NHL being shut down.

It was the reality that the NHL was dealing with Goodenow a very hard tough negotiator that made them make very tough stances that offended the union.

But what else can the NHL do. If you know you need a cap to survive, yet the players and NHLPA says they will never take a cap or any linkage they will sit out forever to get their will. You are forced to talk tough in response early and hope they understand that you are serious about the cap

 

[Fugu]

However....neither side ever made a truly convincing or irrefutable case.

The NHLPA never stated exactly what it was about linkage and salary caps that was so incredibly offensive and without merit (from a business perspective) to justify as hard a line as was taken.

The NHL never made a convincing case (from a business perspective) as to why linkage at 54% was the only option. It could have been 58% or 32% or 68%? If they had said 85% goes to the players, the players could have accepted linkage, for example, so it was hardly the principle of the thing.