Salary cap penalties

Peter10

Registered User
Dec 7, 2003
4,193
5,042
Germany
I m sorry if this has been asked before or if its covered already in another topic but i didnt find anything useful with the search.

What are the exact penalties for being over the cap? I ve read that new contracts that would put teams above the upper limit would be rejected but what happens if a team is way over the cap? Forfeiting games? Having to play with only 18 players (sending the others down, till they are below the cap)? Loss of draft picks?

I cant seem to find the exact definition for the fines. Appriciate any help. Thanks a lot.
 

GetPucksDeep

Registered User
Oct 29, 2005
3,412
0
the other Duluth
The amount you are over is applied to next year's cap. Due to bonuses paid to Bondra, the Thrashers were 1.m over last year. Their cap is lowered by that amount this year.
 

abev

Registered User
Sep 30, 2005
3,596
0
NY
www.fakepuppy.com
See Article 26 age 121 of the CBA.

CBA said:
In the event that the System Arbitrator finds that a Circumvention has been committed by a Player or Player Actor, the System Arbitrator may impose any or all of the following penalties and/or remedies set forth below. In the event that the System Arbitrator finds that a Circumvention has been committed by a Club or a Club Actor, the Commissioner may impose any or all of the following penalties and/or remedies set forth below:

"Circumvention" in plain english means going over the cap. According to what it says, any or all of the following may be imposed.

CBA said:
  • Impose a fine of up to $5 million in the case of a Circumvention by
    a Club or Club Actor, but in no circumstances shall such fine be
    less than $1 million against any Club or Club Actor if such party is
    found to have violated Article 50 of this Agreement. If such a fine
    is assessed against a Club (except in the case of a financial
    reporting violation), that Club's Payroll Room shall also be
    reduced by such amount for the following League Year;
  • Impose a fine against a Player of up to the lesser of $1 million or
    twenty-five (25%) percent of a Player's Paragraph 1 Salary in the
    case of a Circumvention by a Player or Player Actor, but in no
    circumstances shall such fine be below the lesser of $250,000 or
    twenty-five (25%) percent of the Player's Paragraph 1 Salary;
  • Direct a Club to forfeit draft picks (the number, placement, and
    League Year of which shall be determined in the Commissioner's
    sole discretion);
  • Declare a forfeiture of any NHL Game(s) determined to have been
    affected by a Circumvention;
  • Void any SPC, or any extension of an SPC, between any Player
    and any Club when both the Player or Player Actor and the Club or
    Club Actor are found to have committed such a violation with
    respect to such SPC or extension;
  • Suspend any Club employee, Player, or Certified Agent involved
    in such a violation for a period of time determined in the sole
    discretion of the Commissioner, the System Arbitrator, or the
    NHLPA, respectively.
 

Ted Hoffman

The other Rick Zombo
Dec 15, 2002
28,855
8,110
"Circumvention" in plain english means going over the cap.
Incorrect. I'm not going to cut-and-paste the relevant parts of the CBA, but if anyone is interested, find a copy (there's a link stuck at the top of this forum to point you to it) and look at Article 26.1; that defines what counts as a Circumvention. It's not just "oh, Team X exceeded the Upper Limit."

The original question is ambiguous and should clarify at what point in time we're talking about, so it needs to clarify what exactly we're talking about.

If we're talking about going into the regular season, ... no one is really sure. I seem to recall hearing (but can't find a link at the moment - I've been digging for a while) that if a team didn't get under voluntarily by the start of the season, the league would force it by cutting players in reverse order of signing (i.e. the last one signed gets cut first, and so on) until the team is back in compliance; all players cut as a result would become UFA's. However, there's nothing in the CBA to back this up so I'm guessing it's in the League By-Laws which AFAIK are not available to John Q. Public.

If we're talking about during the regular season ... well, it won't happen. If a team tries to make a roster move that would put it out of compliance, the move will be rejected by the League, period and the team fined $25,000.

If we're talking about at the end of the season, see the 1st response in this thread - it gives a *very* general answer.
 

kdb209

Registered User
Jan 26, 2005
14,870
6
Incorrect. I'm not going to cut-and-paste the relevant parts of the CBA, but if anyone is interested, find a copy (there's a link stuck at the top of this forum to point you to it) and look at Article 26.1; that defines what counts as a Circumvention. It's not just "oh, Team X exceeded the Upper Limit."

The original question is ambiguous and should clarify at what point in time we're talking about, so it needs to clarify what exactly we're talking about.

If we're talking about going into the regular season, ... no one is really sure. I seem to recall hearing (but can't find a link at the moment - I've been digging for a while) that if a team didn't get under voluntarily by the start of the season, the league would force it by cutting players in reverse order of signing (i.e. the last one signed gets cut first, and so on) until the team is back in compliance; all players cut as a result would become UFA's. However, there's nothing in the CBA to back this up so I'm guessing it's in the League By-Laws which AFAIK are not available to John Q. Public.

If we're talking about during the regular season ... well, it won't happen. If a team tries to make a roster move that would put it out of compliance, the move will be rejected by the League, period and the team fined $25,000.

If we're talking about at the end of the season, see the 1st response in this thread - it gives a *very* general answer.


It is obvious that the examples given in Article 26 - No Circumvention - are directed towards Joe Smith / Minnesota Timberwolves kinds of salary cap circumventions, but the scope and wording of the Article is very broad and the examples are explicitly non exhaustive.

Based on my reading, a GM's explicit action (or inaction) that leaves a team over the cap at the start of the season would constitute Circumvention and be subject to the Article 26 sanctions.

26.3 Circumventions.

(a) No Club or Club Actor, directly or indirectly, may: (i) enter into any
agreements, promises, undertakings, representations, commitments, inducements,
assurances of intent, or understandings of any kind, whether express, implied, oral or
written, including without limitation, any SPC, Qualifying Offer, Offer Sheet or other
transaction, or (ii) take or fail to take any action whatsoever, if either (i) or (ii) is intended
to or has the effect of defeating or Circumventing the provisions of this Agreement or the
intention of the parties as reflected by the provisions of this Agreement
, including
without limitation, provisions with respect to the financial and other reporting obligations
of the Clubs and the League, Team Payroll Range, Player Compensation Cost
Redistribution System, the Entry Level System and/or Free Agency.

The league has no authority under the CBA to void any contracts that were signed in good faith and already approved and registered with the league. The only SPCs that can bo nullified under the no circumvention rules are those where the player was also complicit in the circumvention.

(vi) Void any SPC, or any extension of an SPC, between any Player
and any Club when both the Player or Player Actor and the Club or
Club Actor are found to have committed such a violation
with
respect to such SPC or extension; and

I do not think terms in league rules or bylaws would be sufficent to nullify a players contract and survive an NHLPA grievence if they tried.
 

Ted Hoffman

The other Rick Zombo
Dec 15, 2002
28,855
8,110
The league has no authority under the CBA to void any contracts that were signed in good faith and already approved and registered with the league. The only SPCs that can bo nullified under the no circumvention rules are those where the player was also complicit in the circumvention.
There could be something in the League By-Laws and we'd never know about it because they're not available to the public ... or it could be that if a team doesn't get under by the start of the season, the League will move to find they're in violation of Article 26. I don't know what the answer is here.

I tried digging again to find a source that might answer this, I've got nothing. I may make a few calls and see if someone will tell me anything if no one else finds something in the next week or so. We may just have to wait until it happens before we all find out.
 
Last edited:

kdb209

Registered User
Jan 26, 2005
14,870
6
There could be something in the League By-Laws and we'd never know about it because they're not available to the public.

I tried digging again to find a source that might answer this, I've got nothing. I may make a few calls and see if someone will tell me anything if no one else finds something in the next week or so.

But "League Rules" (League bylaws, rules, etc) are trumped by anything in the CBA.

ARTICLE 30
NHL CONSTITUTION AND BYLAWS, LEAGUE AND CLUB RULES

30.1 League Rules. Subject to Section 30.3, the NHL, each Club and each Player
shall be bound by the provisions of the League Rules. In the event of a conflict between
this Agreement and said League Rules, the provisions of this Agreement shall govern. A
copy of the current League Rules, all amendments thereto, and any official interpretations
of this Agreement shall be available at the office of each Club. On or before September 1
of each League Year, the League shall send to the NHLPA a complete set of current
League Rules. No Player shall be bound by any provision of a League Rule that has not
been furnished to the NHLPA in accordance with this Article.

This was a point of relevance in the Yashin decision. The arbiter ruled against Yashin, based on league rulings on specific performance going back to the Stein/Zeigler era. The arbiter ruled that because the CBA did not address the issue, and that CBA negotiations brought up the issue but an explicit decision was made to take no action, that the status-quo held and the old "League Rules" were valid and enforceable, because the NHLPA had copies of the complete body of rulings, and thus accepted them by default.

And note that the league cannot change the "League Rules" without the consent of the NHLPA.

30.3 Amendments. The NHL and its Clubs shall not, during the term of this
Agreement or any extension thereof, amend or modify the provisions (or portions
thereof) of the League Rules or any of the League's Playing Rules in existence on the
date of this Agreement which affect terms or conditions of employment of any Player,
without the prior written consent of the NHLPA which shall not be unreasonably
withheld. The NHL shall furnish any proposed amendment to the League Rules to the
NHLPA on a rolling basis regardless of whether such proposed amendment may impact
terms and conditions of employment.

And I think it's safe to say that voiding a contract would fall under the "terms or conditions of employment of any Player" and that consent could reasonably be witheld.

I think it is very unlikely that this issue would have been dealt with as a new addition to the body of "League Rules" rather than in the CBA - especially since it can be reasonably argued (and I do) that it is dealt with under Article 26.
 

Ted Hoffman

The other Rick Zombo
Dec 15, 2002
28,855
8,110
It's entirely possible to write something into the League bylaws that isn't trumped by the CBA and would cover what we're talking about. No, I can't envision what at the moment - but it's not out of the realm of possiblilty.

I'll make calls, see if I can learn anything.
 

kdb209

Registered User
Jan 26, 2005
14,870
6
It's entirely possible to write something into the League bylaws that isn't trumped by the CBA and would cover what we're talking about. No, I can't envision what at the moment - but it's not out of the realm of possiblilty.

I'll make calls, see if I can learn anything.
It is possible to write something into the league bylaws - having it survive an NHLPA grievence is something else.

Article 30.1 is pretty clear - "In the event of a conflict between this Agreement and said League Rules, the provisions of this Agreement shall govern".

IIRC, (my link to the text of Holden's decision in the Yashin case is dead), Holden's analysis implied that since the issue came up in CBA negotiations, had both sides not (in Holden's opinion) agreed to maintain the status quo, just the fact that the issue was argued would have been sufficient for just the CBA negotiations to trump the precedent in the League Rules.
 

Ted Hoffman

The other Rick Zombo
Dec 15, 2002
28,855
8,110
It is possible to write something into the league bylaws - having it survive an NHLPA grievence is something else.

Article 30.1 is pretty clear - "In the event of a conflict between this Agreement and said League Rules, the provisions of this Agreement shall govern".

IIRC, (my link to the text of Holden's decision in the Yashin case is dead), Holden's analysis implied that since the issue came up in CBA negotiations, had both sides not (in Holden's opinion) agreed to maintain the status quo, just the fact that the issue was argued would have been sufficient for just the CBA negotiations to trump the precedent in the League Rules.
I could debate this longer, but it still doesn't change the fact that we're both guessing and supposing various things. I'll see if I can get a definitive answer.
 

abev

Registered User
Sep 30, 2005
3,596
0
NY
www.fakepuppy.com
Incorrect. I'm not going to cut-and-paste the relevant parts of the CBA, but if anyone is interested, find a copy (there's a link stuck at the top of this forum to point you to it) and look at Article 26.1; that defines what counts as a Circumvention. It's not just "oh, Team X exceeded the Upper Limit."

IB I wasnt arguing with you that "is just going over". I just assumed that since there was nothing explicitly noted about willfully going over the cap, that circumvention was everything.

There could be something in the League By-Laws and we'd never know about it because they're not available to the public ... or it could be that if a team doesn't get under by the start of the season, the League will move to find they're in violation of Article 26. I don't know what the answer is here.

Again, not arguing. But why the heck would there even be something in the league by-laws about exceeding the cap. Why not just put it in the CBA where it belongs? And if there's this item in the by-laws, then theres probably other things. And if there are, why has no one (media) picked up on it?

Based on the amount of time its taking to resolve this, I have to believe that everthing we are speculating is wrong.
 

Mr. Make-Believe

The happy genius of my household
IB I wasnt arguing with you that "is just going over". I just assumed that since there was nothing explicitly noted about willfully going over the cap, that circumvention was everything.



Again, not arguing. But why the heck would there even be something in the league by-laws about exceeding the cap. Why not just put it in the CBA where it belongs? And if there's this item in the by-laws, then theres probably other things. And if there are, why has no one (media) picked up on it?

Based on the amount of time its taking to resolve this, I have to believe that everthing we are speculating is wrong.

"Circumvention" to me implies deceit in disclosing salary numbers or other compensation to the league in order to bypass the salary cap. Taking a look at the entire article, I believe this to be the case.

I'm in a conversation on my Bruins board here over this. Something is definitely amiss here, there's no doubt about it.
 

kdb209

Registered User
Jan 26, 2005
14,870
6
"Circumvention" to me implies deceit in disclosing salary numbers or other compensation to the league in order to bypass the salary cap. Taking a look at the entire article, I believe this to be the case.

I'm in a conversation on my Bruins board here over this. Something is definitely amiss here, there's no doubt about it.

Wow. Resurrecting a two-year old thread. Is that an HFBoards record? Or just an HFBoards DB hiccup?

But as far as circumvention goes - the definition in Article 26 is VERY broad - refer to my post #5 above.



And as to actual penalties - well, it's two years later and the answer is still a resounding:

We Don't Know
 

Bruwinz37

Registered User
Feb 27, 2002
27,429
1
"Circumvention" to me implies deceit in disclosing salary numbers or other compensation to the league in order to bypass the salary cap. Taking a look at the entire article, I believe this to be the case.

I'm in a conversation on my Bruins board here over this. Something is definitely amiss here, there's no doubt about it.

I knew I would find you here.

Still no luck on any answer. :D
 

Mr. Make-Believe

The happy genius of my household
I knew I would find you here.

Still no luck on any answer. :D

Nothing!

It's funny... I think everybody just thought they knew what was going on here, and nobody actually did. Now we're getting to crunch time, and it looks like a couple of teams could go into the season in violation, and everyone is shrugging their shoulders.

It's crazy to me.
 

Mr. Make-Believe

The happy genius of my household
OK - so what's the question?

Where are any of the cap violation penalties specified?

What happens?

No one knows. Everyone just knew that you "weren't allowed." Anaheim could be in a position where they say, "Oh yeah? We'll just see about that. What are you going to do? Fire the Anaheim Ducks?"

It's interesting to me.
 

Bill_Crosby*

Guest
If a team goes over the cap during the season, the GM of that team has to give Cliff Fletcher a total body massage.
 

Bruwinz37

Registered User
Feb 27, 2002
27,429
1
Where are any of the cap violation penalties specified?

What happens?

No one knows. Everyone just knew that you "weren't allowed." Anaheim could be in a position where they say, "Oh yeah? We'll just see about that. What are you going to do? Fire the Anaheim Ducks?"

It's interesting to me.

The only thing I remember was when the Devs were over the cap a few years ago there was talk about them having to forfeit which then led them to trade Malakhov and a 1st round pick to SJ.
 

kdb209

Registered User
Jan 26, 2005
14,870
6
Where are any of the cap violation penalties specified?

What happens?

No one knows. Everyone just knew that you "weren't allowed." Anaheim could be in a position where they say, "Oh yeah? We'll just see about that. What are you going to do? Fire the Anaheim Ducks?"

It's interesting to me.

The Consensus here is that the sanctions available under Article 26 (Fines of $1M-$5M, forfeiture of draft picks, forfeiture of games, suspension of team employees, etc) would apply at the discretion of the Commissioner.

Just how would they be applied, OK, everybody now: We Don't Know

And I doubt that we will ever find out. I sincerely doubt that any team will ever attempt to go there.

One sanction which is NOT available - voiding any contracts signed in good faith and already registered with the league.
 

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad

-->