Cap Floor/Unattainable Bonuses/Circumvention?

Discussion in 'Fugu's Business of Hockey Forum' started by trentmccleary, Oct 9, 2011.

View Users: View Users
  1. trentmccleary

    trentmccleary Registered User

    Joined:
    Mar 2, 2002
    Messages:
    21,337
    Likes Received:
    101
    Trophy Points:
    186
    Location:
    Alfie-Ville
    Home Page:
    It seems the CBA was mostly concerned with upper limit regulations and I can't seem to find anything on lower limit rules.

    The scenario I'm wondering about would be if a team were significantly under the cap except for potential bonus money:

    - what would happen if a team feel $2M short of the cap floor after Game 82 ended because bonuses became unattainable?
    - what would happen if they had a full roster in the last few games of the season, but bonuses were wiped out putting them under?
    - would you expect the PA to argue to the league that either case amounts to circumvention and should be dealt with as harshly as the Kovalchuk contract?

    I'm curious because the CBA is about revenue linkages and the cap floor sets a minimum standard for how much players will be paid. I just can't imagine the PA staying too quiet if rarely attained bonus structures could cause a shortfall in their share.
     
  2. mouser

    mouser Business of Hockey

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2006
    Messages:
    21,645
    Likes Received:
    2,176
    Trophy Points:
    187
    Location:
    South Mountain
    We're pretty certain this happened a couple years ago with the Kings and there were no reports of the league taking any action.
     
  3. kdb209

    kdb209 Registered User

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2005
    Messages:
    14,870
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    126
    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.
     
  4. Fourier

    Fourier Registered User

    Joined:
    Dec 29, 2006
    Messages:
    13,788
    Likes Received:
    852
    Trophy Points:
    169
    Location:
    Waterloo Ontario
    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.
     
  5. LadyStanley

    LadyStanley RIP Fugu

    Joined:
    Sep 22, 2004
    Messages:
    75,331
    Likes Received:
    3,028
    Trophy Points:
    186
    Gender:
    Female
    Location:
    Sin City
  6. Fehr Time*

    Fehr Time* Guest

    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. :nod:
     
  7. mouser

    mouser Business of Hockey

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2006
    Messages:
    21,645
    Likes Received:
    2,176
    Trophy Points:
    187
    Location:
    South Mountain
    Smaller escrow refund :)
     
  8. chasespace

    chasespace Registered User

    Joined:
    Jul 19, 2010
    Messages:
    9,045
    Likes Received:
    16
    Trophy Points:
    140
    Location:
    Gator Nation
    But there will be, so there's no point in wasting time with posts like this.
     
  9. Fehr Time*

    Fehr Time* Guest

    Most real fans would hope otherwise. That said, it looks like teams are violating the CBA and should be punished for it.
     
  10. chasespace

    chasespace Registered User

    Joined:
    Jul 19, 2010
    Messages:
    9,045
    Likes Received:
    16
    Trophy Points:
    140
    Location:
    Gator Nation
    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.
     
  11. kdb209

    kdb209 Registered User

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2005
    Messages:
    14,870
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    126
    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.
     
  12. thinkwild

    thinkwild Veni Vidi Toga

    Joined:
    Jul 29, 2003
    Messages:
    8,926
    Likes Received:
    192
    Trophy Points:
    156
    Location:
    Ottawa
    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.
     

Share This Page

monitoring_string = "358c248ada348a047a4b9bb27a146148"