Cap Floor/Unattainable Bonuses/Circumvention?
- Thread starter trentmccleary
- Start date
mouser
Business of Hockey
We're pretty certain this happened a couple years ago with the Kings and there were no reports of the league taking any action.
kdb209
Registered User
- Jan 26, 2005
- 14,870
- 6
This would technically be a violation of the CBA which requires a team remain above the Lower Limit for the entire League Year - however, as Mouser pointed out, this has happened a couple of times and the League has chosen not to pursue Circumvention proceedings and penalties (as far as we know).
However, if a team attempted to reach the cap floor via Performance Bonuses which were deemed very unlikely to be earned, the League has the power to reject that SPC under Article 11.6 as Circumvention - and the NHLPA (not the team) would have to file a grievance to challenge that determination before an arbiter.
However, if a team attempted to reach the cap floor via Performance Bonuses which were deemed very unlikely to be earned, the League has the power to reject that SPC under Article 11.6 as Circumvention - and the NHLPA (not the team) would have to file a grievance to challenge that determination before an arbiter.
Fourier
Registered User
I have always wondered why the NHLPA has not made a bigger deal of this on behalf of the players on those teams. Of course it is a zero sum game, but you would expect that they would be interested in a situation like this.
LadyStanley
Registered User
http://starsblog.dallasnews.com/archives/2011/10/new-york-rangers-demotion-of-sean-avery.html
With Avery clearing waivers, whom they were paying half of his salary, the Stars may be forced to sign a player (at like $1m) to stay above cap floor.
With Avery clearing waivers, whom they were paying half of his salary, the Stars may be forced to sign a player (at like $1m) to stay above cap floor.
If a team can violate the CBA by not achieving the cap floor, then why can't a team violate the CBA by going over the cap ceiling?
I guess we can just all hope that there will not be anymore of this salary cap nonsense by this time next year.
I guess we can just all hope that there will not be anymore of this salary cap nonsense by this time next year.
mouser
Business of Hockey
chasespace
Registered User
If a team can violate the CBA by not achieving the cap floor, then why can't a team violate the CBA by going over the cap ceiling?
I guess we can just all hope that there will not be anymore of this salary cap nonsense by this time next year.
But there will be, so there's no point in wasting time with posts like this.
Most real fans would hope otherwise. That said, it looks like teams are violating the CBA and should be punished for it.
chasespace
Registered User
Define "most" and "real". There has been no documented existence of the players union looking to abolish the salary cap or draft as you seem to believe they want.
kdb209
Registered User
- Jan 26, 2005
- 14,870
- 6
I'm fairly confident that a poll of members of this site would show the opposite.
Well, it's up to either the NHL or NHLPA to file a grievance with the System Arbitrator. Neither has - end of story.
The owners won the cap. For the players to change that now would require a major war, not a minor contract negotiation. That war is hard to see on the short term horizon.
--
In situations such as the Kovalchuk one, the team is getting an unfair monetary advantage and using it to their competitive advantage, so naturally there would be complaints of circumvention, by many parties.
When a team fails to meet the floor of the payroll range though, say because on the last game of the season for example, the player couldn’t score his 30th goal triggering the $2 mil bonus, it is perhaps a technical violation of the administrative payroll range procedures, but , at least from an NHLPA perspective, the players still get 57%; said bonus structure is not costing them any shortfall in their overall share. And no real competitive advantage was gained, so why would they bother with such a grievance? Perhaps if this was becoming some sort of systemic problem that teams were exploiting, they might want to address it through grievance, but otherwise - to what end?
Perhaps the owners themselves may want to have an internal discussion about it. Perhaps such a failure to meet the floor would disqualify the team from certain rounds of revenue sharing or escrow redistribution.
But circumvention i always figured, had a value judgement or cheating aspect to it, that salary to revenue linkage in this case kind of negates.
--
In situations such as the Kovalchuk one, the team is getting an unfair monetary advantage and using it to their competitive advantage, so naturally there would be complaints of circumvention, by many parties.
When a team fails to meet the floor of the payroll range though, say because on the last game of the season for example, the player couldn’t score his 30th goal triggering the $2 mil bonus, it is perhaps a technical violation of the administrative payroll range procedures, but , at least from an NHLPA perspective, the players still get 57%; said bonus structure is not costing them any shortfall in their overall share. And no real competitive advantage was gained, so why would they bother with such a grievance? Perhaps if this was becoming some sort of systemic problem that teams were exploiting, they might want to address it through grievance, but otherwise - to what end?
Perhaps the owners themselves may want to have an internal discussion about it. Perhaps such a failure to meet the floor would disqualify the team from certain rounds of revenue sharing or escrow redistribution.
But circumvention i always figured, had a value judgement or cheating aspect to it, that salary to revenue linkage in this case kind of negates.
