Some fans refuse to face reality.

Status
Not open for further replies.

Captain Ron

Registered User
Jun 9, 2003
17,409
0
Gardnerville, NV
Visit site
Resolute said:
No one forced the union to sign the CBA. They could have said no.

Personally, I do not find it useful to feel sorry for people that don't deserve pity or sympathy. Especially when they knowingly accepted the consequences of the deal.

You are right and no one forced them to sign. But, how many people would have envisioned 4 or 5 teams hitting the cap less than 2 weeks into free agency. Without the escrow account clause the players salaries would definitely go over the 54% mark. The escrow account has basically become a safety net for bad money management. I remember several GM's just 2 or 3 weeks ago saying they wanted to stay under $37 million so they could have room to manuever later in the season. At least 5 teams will be over that mark.
 

Captain Ron

Registered User
Jun 9, 2003
17,409
0
Gardnerville, NV
Visit site
kdb209 said:
No, a team signing to the cap does absolutely nothing to any other teams (other than acting to drive up salaries).

Mathematically speaking this is my point. If the league as a whole has $918 million to spend then each team could average a $30.6 million payroll.

If team "A" spends $39 million then there is only $879 million remaining to pay the other 29 clubs salaries.

$879/29 = $30.310 million. So by 1 team paying the max you have in effect lowered the league average for the other teams by $290k. Does that make sense to you?
 

JayRice66

Registered User
Jul 31, 2005
140
0
Wheeling, WV
You also have to take into consideration that quite a few teams were already in there cap position before the CBA was signed. Now that have to find the money to keep there team together. Personally, as of right now. I have no problem with the way things are going. I thought things would be worse than what they are.

I can remember when the free agent period first began and people were talking about how many players would be signed at the highest mark a player could make under the new CBA.

This is the first year this has happened. Teams are only going to get better at this. But I personally don't see how we can hold a team responsible because they were willing to go out and be active and bring in free agents. And teams like washington chose not to.
 

me2

Go ahead foot
Jun 28, 2002
37,903
5,595
Make my day.
Players on low end teams will benefit just as much as players on high spending teams. Salaries throughout the league tend to head towards parity. So if a player of X quality is getting Y money on rich team then a player of X quality will want that money from the poor team. What goes around comes around. Players on lowest payroll teams at the moment tend to be the worst/youngest players and therefore should be getting less money. There is no problem. Why should a scrub on $25m team not have to contribute to escrow while a scrub on $38m should? The fact is, they are both scrubs, they should both be contributing.
 

Crazy_Ike

Cookin' with fire.
Mar 29, 2005
9,081
0
If they were united now nobody would get big pay increases.

Other than the players getting a huge wad of cash after they win the collusion lawsuit, of course...

Some of you people need to start thinking *before* you post. The owners are no more legally able to centrally control spending on salaries now than they were before the lockout. They get one chance to do so, during CBA negotiations. They did so, establishing the cap. As far as the league is concerned, spending to the cap but not over it is not irresponsible, no matter how it might bug some misinformed fans. That's why the escrow was put in in the first place.

Not to mention many to most teams pre-lockout were spending near where the cap is now. Those teams weren't really the problem. The good news is there's no longer teams spending *80* million and going up faster and faster. *Those* were the teams who's payrolls were sending the financial situation into terminal tailspin...
 

me2

Go ahead foot
Jun 28, 2002
37,903
5,595
Make my day.
kdb209 said:
No, a team signing to the cap does absolutely nothing to any other teams (other than acting to drive up salaries). The 54% is a league wide number enforced at the end of the year. Every team can legally sign up to the $39M cap max, independent of what any other teams have or haven't spent. If too many teams do, though, the players get screwed with an accross the board pay cut through escrow.

And actually the league wide cap of total player costs includes the ~$2.2M per team in benefits, all the league paid bonuses, money paid to IR replacement players, and probably more, so thet average payroll before escrow has to kick in (based on the $1.7B estimate) isn't $30.6M - it's more like $28.4M or less.

I think many teams are signing contracts up to or close to the cap, fully expecting to get $3M or $4M back as an escrow rebate.

I think once a few of the GMs worked it was going to go this way they figured they were no longer signing players with the owners money just other players. Why not join in the merriment!
 

NotJT

Registered User
Jun 28, 2005
97
0
SJeasy said:
Part of the CBA FAQ makes the point that the 54% works in reverse. If as an aggregate teams are below the 30.6 figure and revenues are as projected, the league must pay out to the players. The total payout from the league MUST be 54% and is corrected either way at the end of the year.

It is a new economic world for hockey GM's and we will see the business ethics and demands of this world evolve as the year passes.

I have not seen that, and just glancing at: http://www.nhl.com/nhlhq/cba/index.html

I didnt see it again. I am not doubting you, I am just wondering if you could point me to where it says that.

Thanks.
 

kdb209

Registered User
Jan 26, 2005
14,870
6
Spongebob said:
Mathematically speaking this is my point. If the league as a whole has $918 million to spend then each team could average a $30.6 million payroll.

If team "A" spends $39 million then there is only $879 million remaining to pay the other 29 clubs salaries.

$879/29 = $30.310 million. So by 1 team paying the max you have in effect lowered the league average for the other teams by $290k. Does that make sense to you?
No, because there is no restriction and no mechanism in place that prevents the teams from signing contracts totalling more than the 54% ($918M). Every team is legally able to spend up to the cap, independent of what any other team has or hasn't spent. The only effect will be that all the players on all the clubs would get a significant accross the board pay cut at the end of the year through escrow.

In the pathological case of all teams spending to the cap, total player costs would be $1.236B ($39M + $2.2M benefits * 30), or 73% of league $1.7B revenues. The owners are screwed, right? Nope. The players give back $318M, each team gets a $10.6M rebate, and their total player salary becomes not $39M, but only $28.4M (total player costs, the magical $30.6M).
 

GSC2k2*

Guest
Right here:

PLAYERS' SHARE OF LEAGUE REVENUES

What will be the players' share of League-wide revenues?

The players' share will be 54% to the extent League revenues in any year are below $2.2 billion; 55% when League revenues are between $2.2 billion and $2.4 billion; 56% when League revenues are between $2.4 billion and $2.7 billion, and 57% when League revenues in any year exceed $2.7 billion.
 

Seachd

Registered User
Mar 16, 2002
24,937
8,946
Spongebob said:
No one is forcing the GM's to sign these contracts. Have they ever heard of the word no?

If the players don't care about escrow, then why should the teams? There are two sides to every contract.

I was fiercely pro-NHL during the lockout, and am not worried about things the way they're going. If these big contracts become a problem, GMs are eventually going to have to smarten up, or it's their own team on the line.
 

NotJT

Registered User
Jun 28, 2005
97
0
gscarpenter2002 said:
Right here:

I just assumed that was the max, but if it is absolutely fixed it then "my bad" on that part. Thanks for the correction.
 

kdb209

Registered User
Jan 26, 2005
14,870
6
NotJT said:
I just assumed that was the max, but if it is absolutely fixed it then "my bad" on that part. Thanks for the correction.
The CBA FAQ is far from complete on the subject, but if you look at the previous NHL offers which first brought up the concept of linkage and escrow, they were quite clear - the 54% (actually then it was a 53-55% range) is both a max and a min. If the league spends below the linkage threshold, it writes a big check to the NHLPA who then distributes the money to the players.
 

Captain Ron

Registered User
Jun 9, 2003
17,409
0
Gardnerville, NV
Visit site
Seachd said:
If the players don't care about escrow, then why should the teams? There are two sides to every contract.

I was fiercely pro-NHL during the lockout, and am not worried about things the way they're going. If these big contracts become a problem, GMs are eventually going to have to smarten up, or it's their own team on the line.

Players will care about the escrow during the first evaluation period. I don't know if the percentage given back will be made public. But it is almost certain to be high.
 

ti-vite

Registered User
Jul 27, 2004
3,086
0
Spongebob said:
It could be alot more than 15%. That was a figure talked about before the CBA was finalized.

From the CBA FAQ.....




The escrow could mean an additional 20% or 30% or ? in lost wages.

Does the league minimum still apply, i.e. a guy at league minimum has no money removed from escrow, or simply does not contribute to escrow? :dunno:
 

GSC2k2*

Guest
ti-vite said:
Does the league minimum still apply, i.e. a guy at league minimum has no money removed from escrow, or simply does not contribute to escrow? :dunno:
That most assuredly is the case.
 

John Flyers Fan

Registered User
Feb 27, 2002
22,416
16
Visit site
triggrman said:
I thought the cap was supposed to be set at the 54% mark, so the only way the escrow would kick in is if the league fails to produce the revenue of the previous season.

The cap isn't set at the 54% mark. They use 54% to find the mid point and the the ceiling will is $5-7 million above, and the floow will be $5-7 million below.
 

AdmiralPred

Registered User
Jun 9, 2005
1,923
0
Spongebob said:
... But, how many people would have envisioned 4 or 5 teams hitting the cap less than 2 weeks into free agency.
Well given the uncharacteristic offseason we all were anticipating, this comes as no surprise to me. This is a very unique set of circumstances, every team in the NHL is basically retooling and the glut of FAs out there raised the level of uncertainty. Teams are also locking up some of their stars for the future setting a few benchmarks, ala Nash and Iginla.

Spongebob said:
... Without the escrow account clause the players salaries would definitely go over the 54% mark. The escrow account has basically become a safety net for bad money management.
Agreed. Even with a cap you've had to know that GMs will be paying a premium, sometimes overspending in the eyes of the fans, for players who will also be courted by other teams.

Spongebob said:
... I remember several GM's just 2 or 3 weeks ago saying they wanted to stay under $37 million so they could have room to manuever later in the season. At least 5 teams will be over that mark.
I remeber that also, but I also remember many GMs commenting on how no one is certain how this crazy offseason is going to unfold. Bobby Clarke had no idea Forsberg was going to show an interest at the last minute thus putting Philly over the cap needing to shed fan fav JR. Teams that leave themselves little or no wiggle-room will be in poor shape at the trade deadline if they need one more piece for a good cup run.

Point is, this is a one-of-a-kind offseason. However, each summer there are going to be outrageous signings and someone throwing their arms up saying "see, even with a cap the GMs/players will act like idiots". As with the old system, give the agents, players, and management a while and they will figure out how the system will actually work.
 

triggrman

Where is Hipcheck85
Sponsor
May 8, 2002
31,627
7,348
Murfreesboro, TN
hfboards.com
John Flyers Fan said:
The cap isn't set at the 54% mark. They use 54% to find the mid point and the the ceiling will is $5-7 million above, and the floow will be $5-7 million below.
Thank you. I was mistaking then.

So most teams should have stayed at the 32M mark. Unless the predict revenues increasing.

I know Nashville's ticket sales have been going great maybe everyone elses are too. We did lower ticket prices but not that much.
 

ResidentAlien*

Guest
Crazy_Ike said:
Other than the players getting a huge wad of cash after they win the collusion lawsuit, of course...

Some of you people need to start thinking *before* you post. The owners are no more legally able to centrally control spending on salaries now than they were before the lockout. They get one chance to do so, during CBA negotiations. They did so, establishing the cap. As far as the league is concerned, spending to the cap but not over it is not irresponsible, no matter how it might bug some misinformed fans. That's why the escrow was put in in the first place.

Not to mention many to most teams pre-lockout were spending near where the cap is now. Those teams weren't really the problem. The good news is there's no longer teams spending *80* million and going up faster and faster. *Those* were the teams who's payrolls were sending the financial situation into terminal tailspin...
ohhhh!! I see it was *those teams* sending the financial situation into a terminal tailspin! All this time I thought you were preaching it was the players:sarcasm:
 

GSC2k2*

Guest
ResidentAlien said:
ohhhh!! I see it was *those teams* sending the financial situation into a terminal tailspin! All this time I thought you were preaching it was the players:sarcasm:
Not to speak for Ike, but I do note that his post specifies that it was the teams' PAYROLLS "that sent the financial situation into, etc." I read that as "the players", since they are the payroll recipients. You misquoted him in a slight but relevant way.
 

Resolute

Registered User
Mar 4, 2005
4,125
0
AB
Spongebob said:
It's funny how quickly everybody forgets why we had a lockout in the first place. Players salaries were getting out of hand. How is what is going on now any different?

Well, there is this little thing called a salary cap.

And to argue to reference to collusion. TSN.ca had an article 2 or 3 weeks ago where an "unnamed source" said there would be an "unwritten" cap of about $5 million on players. This was probably stated because some GM's saw how having free reign to sign guys to outrageuos contracts could cause problems real quick.

Not relevent. One person opined that teams wouldnt spend more than $5 million on a player. Obviously this was false, and obviously there was no agreement among GMs not to spend more than $5 million. Obviously no collusion.
 
Last edited:

Resolute

Registered User
Mar 4, 2005
4,125
0
AB
Spongebob said:
You are right and no one forced them to sign. But, how many people would have envisioned 4 or 5 teams hitting the cap less than 2 weeks into free agency. Without the escrow account clause the players salaries would definitely go over the 54% mark. The escrow account has basically become a safety net for bad money management. I remember several GM's just 2 or 3 weeks ago saying they wanted to stay under $37 million so they could have room to manuever later in the season. At least 5 teams will be over that mark.

Anyone with half a brain would have envisioned several teams hitting against the cap.

Also, only one team has hit the cap thus far: Philly. And they had to dump players to remain under it. Several teams are close, but once again, anyone who thought about it would have realized this would be the case.

And yes, five teams might start the season over $37 million. What about the other 25?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad

-->