Re-evaluating financial changes for 05-06?

Discussion in 'HFNHL Talk' started by Ohio Jones, Jul 14, 2005.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Ohio Jones

    Ohio Jones Game on...

    Joined:
    Feb 28, 2002
    Messages:
    7,885
    Likes Received:
    32
    Trophy Points:
    146
    Location:
    Great White North
    I recognize that our revenue picture is different than the NHL, so we went about designing our own cap system. I'm just wondering whether there's anything in our new financial structure that we should be prepared to reexamine in the face of the NHL changes, or whether we are comfortable that our changes are still appropriate.

    The financial changes thread is locked, or I would have commented there...
     
  2. Douglas - read your admin team messages on this subject :p:

    The suggestion that is on the table (though not finalized) was then, and continues to be, that the structure we announced would stay pretty much as is for the coming season. We will evaluate the CBA when the details are out and look at phasing in any remaining changes in the future.
    The biggest issue is that we rolled 2004-05 contracts forward and have basically no free agents vs. the NHL that has about 60% of it's players as FAs making it more difficult for us to get down to a $39M cap.
    What we don't know is if there is a luxury tax in the NHL deal. A couple of sources went out of their way yesterday to clarify that point. The speculation is that there isn't (which we have in our model) but we won't know for sure until the 21st when details are realeased.
     
  3. Dr.Sens(e)

    Dr.Sens(e) Registered User

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2002
    Messages:
    7,014
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Ottawa
    Home Page:
    We'll have to wait and see, but my inclination would be that if there is no cap in the NHL, we scrap our tax as well. It is already going to be pretty complicated to track, and having a hard cap with stiff penalties should suffice.

    We can then decide on the 2006-2007 model (probably more based on the NHL model) early this year, so teams can plan appropriately for the following season.
     
  4. Wildman

    Wildman Registered User

    Joined:
    Feb 28, 2002
    Messages:
    1,826
    Likes Received:
    8
    Trophy Points:
    141
    Occupation:
    Accountant
    Location:
    Toronto
    Home Page:
    Re: 05/06 salary structure

    Are we still having the dispersement draft before the season. I am one of teams that has a salary of more than $45 MM and would like to release some players. I cannot trade these players because I signed them this season as UFA
     
  5. If indeed we still have teams over $45M (based on 21 players outlined) after the rollback than yes. I know you are one of only 2 or 3 teams that are around that range and so we were waiting for the webpage updates from Dion. besides GM's still have a couple of months to make trades.
     
  6. You wouldn't be suggesting this b/c you're one of only a couple of teams that's looking to have to pay a luxury are you :sarcasm:

    Anyway, if I recall correctly we reduced the draft pick penalty for being over the cap from the original level b/c there was already going to be a luxury tax. We also agreed on the one time 'measurement period' exception rule b/c the luxury tax was supposed to be somewhat of a deteriment from that being overly abused.

    That's not to say that things can't be reopened (and looking back at the post we did put the caveat in that we reserve the right to revisit the plan) but it might mean we have to revisit several items in light of the new information.

    IMO if we are moving towards a $39M cap the luxury tax between $40 and $45M might help us transition there faster.

    Again this all assumes there isn't a luxury tax in the NHL. Most sites made it clear that no official information has been released on the CBA and that they are only speculating on what will probably be in it. Sportsnet kept making if statements about several key items like 'if 2004/05 salaries are going to be honoured ... if the phasing in of reduced UFA eligibility ages begins in 2005 ... if there is not a luxury tax ...' etc. etc.

    Geez I swore I'd try to stay out of these debates and let the 'league speak' but I just can't seem to keep my mouth shut on anything can I :dunno:
     
  7. Wildman

    Wildman Registered User

    Joined:
    Feb 28, 2002
    Messages:
    1,826
    Likes Received:
    8
    Trophy Points:
    141
    Occupation:
    Accountant
    Location:
    Toronto
    Home Page:
    My problem is the players with large salary were all signed last season and our rule does not allow teams to trade them. Therefore, I am stuck with them for now. :dunno:
     
  8. kasper11

    kasper11 Registered User

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2002
    Messages:
    7,668
    Likes Received:
    6
    Trophy Points:
    141
    Location:
    New York
    Home Page:
    You won't be that far over the cap after the rollback, you will be under 47M. You could probably dump a player or two to get under if you don't ask for much back.
     
  9. Dr.Sens(e)

    Dr.Sens(e) Registered User

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2002
    Messages:
    7,014
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Ottawa
    Home Page:
    The transition point is a good one. But for me, I'm not really worried about the luxury tax. I'm likely to be at $42 million as is (that is if Yzerman doesn't retire), so I'm not too worried about the luxury tax that will create given the Blues cash balance. If Stevie Y does retire, I'll have a gap on my second-third line, but will be $5 million under the luxury tax thresh-hold with lots of options to fill the spot with room to spare. I'm kind of on the fence as to whether I want him to retire or not (as a fan I'd like to see him play).

    In the end, it's more the workload associated with it, as simple is always better IMO. But I'm cool with the luxury tax if we want to keep it.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page

monitoring_string = "358c248ada348a047a4b9bb27a146148"