Globe and Mail -"Sides Agree to Salary Cap system" -all talk here !!!!

Discussion in 'Fugu's Business of Hockey Forum' started by DevilsFan, Jun 8, 2005.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
View Users: View Users
  1. DevilsFan

    DevilsFan Registered User

    Joined:
    Jun 2, 2005
    Messages:
    65
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20050608.wnhltalks8/BNStory/Sports/

    Hot off the press, it looks like previously to today, the NHL and NHLPA have agree to salary-cap system based on team-by-team revenue. Now it's left to the other issues.

    A few comments:
    1. I can't see them taken much longer than a couple weeks on the others issues like salary arbitration, free agency, qualifying contract offers, and entry-level contracts. The middle to end of June looks likely barring a wrench thrown in by either side.

    2. From the article, it looks like certain team will be able to spend more than others due to a floating cap. That was a big bone thrown to the PA, and I disagree with it. The luxury tax better have significant teeth, or smaller teams will suffer. Also, whatever other plan they come up with to share revenue better be substancial, or the league will have problems down the road.

    3. Nice to see the players like Linden take some control back from Goodenow. It is going to help their image a little bit.
     
  2. Beauty eh?

    Beauty eh? Not sure if serious.

    Joined:
    Dec 20, 2004
    Messages:
    5,367
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Southern California
    The ball is rolling....I can't see them not coming to an agreement now.
     
  3. Bring Back Bucky

    Bring Back Bucky Registered User

    Joined:
    May 19, 2004
    Messages:
    7,989
    Likes Received:
    52
    Trophy Points:
    101
    Occupation:
    Hamster Trainer
    Location:
    Delicieux!

    In reading the article, that made my stomach a tad uneasy, too. I'd like to see how it would pan out in practice..
     
  4. GKJ

    GKJ Global Moderator

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2002
    Messages:
    141,337
    Likes Received:
    2,762
    Trophy Points:
    232

    will you shut up already? you know the rules around here.
     
  5. the team by team floating cap is a great idea, because it won't lock everybody in at some 36-38 ceiling. Let the Wings, Leafs and Rangers spend into the 40's, the revenue will be there and you can keep teams together longer that way. You win a cup(or go to the finals, conference finals), revenue increases, your cap goes up, you can keep the cup team together longer.


    forget teeth, you want to deter the rangers, the luxury tax better have sabre tooth fangs.

    If this is the deal, Goodenow is going to be carried out of the boardroom on the players shoulders.
     
    Last edited by moderator : Jun 8, 2005
  6. Kaizer

    Kaizer Registered User

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2003
    Messages:
    4,321
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    36
    Location:
    Moscow , Russia
    There is official Alexei Kovalev site.
    http://www.kovalev27.ru/

    There is info directly from interview with Kovalev :
    - Season will start in October
    - Lockout may be cancelled in few days
    - Sides have almost agreed
    - The only problem that NHLPA and NHL has to solve - UFA status .
     
  7. Bring Back Bucky

    Bring Back Bucky Registered User

    Joined:
    May 19, 2004
    Messages:
    7,989
    Likes Received:
    52
    Trophy Points:
    101
    Occupation:
    Hamster Trainer
    Location:
    Delicieux!

    gokj, you missed our therapy session again today.. Sorry, but I'm going to have to bill you if this happens again ;)
     
  8. WC Handy*

    WC Handy* Guest

    No, it's not a great idea. If they agree to a system that allows the Wings or the Rangers to spend more than the rest of the league, I'll be cancelling my season tickets the day of the press conference.
     
  9. FLYLine27*

    FLYLine27* BUCH

    Joined:
    Nov 9, 2004
    Messages:
    42,410
    Likes Received:
    4
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Occupation:
    PO
    Location:
    NY

    You do realize if they do...it will be like an extra 1.5-2 million max right? (No way i can see it being more then that)
     
  10. Bruwinz37

    Bruwinz37 Registered User

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2002
    Messages:
    27,430
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Occupation:
    Sales
    I need more details, but jeez, this sounds like a very weird system that could create more trouble than it fixes.
     
  11. it all depends on how much money the rangers/leafs/avs etc make. they'll likely make more than most of the league so the cap will be higher. But it won't be 60 million or something, or probably even 50 million! so you'd better rethink canceling your season tickets.
     
  12. Levitate

    Levitate Registered User

    Joined:
    Jul 29, 2004
    Messages:
    26,216
    Likes Received:
    1,059
    Trophy Points:
    169
    er, how would it create more problems than it solves?
     
  13. joepeps

    joepeps Registered User

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2004
    Messages:
    11,932
    Likes Received:
    30
    Trophy Points:
    131
    Location:
    Toronto
    Home Page:

    Goodenow did **** on this deal...

    my guess is.. that it's the work of the PA Players.... ala.. Lindin, Gartner, and company........
     
  14. potential problems in reporting revenue for one, especially since certain teams will want a higher cap. but there will be a luxury tax, probably not a strong one, and I think they've now defined revenue at these meetings so it's going to be hard for the rangers to say we made X amount and deserve a 56mil cap, not likely.
     
  15. Levitate

    Levitate Registered User

    Joined:
    Jul 29, 2004
    Messages:
    26,216
    Likes Received:
    1,059
    Trophy Points:
    169
    yeah i don't see issues with reporting revenues if they've spent all this time defining what those revenues are, etc

    but even so, honestly compare the old CBA to this proposal, and tell me that this new one creates more problems than the last one...just try
     
  16. if you believe that myth floated by the PA haters :shakehead
     
  17. joepeps

    joepeps Registered User

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2004
    Messages:
    11,932
    Likes Received:
    30
    Trophy Points:
    131
    Location:
    Toronto
    Home Page:
    lol i'm pro PA... what are you talking about... I just believe goodenow has been told to straighten up a little... and do what they say...
     
  18. it seems odd though.

    goodenow is not so irrational to let a deal like this slip by and suggest the players hold out even longer, they shouldn't be holding his feet to the fire on this one, this is much better than the old 42 offer, which by the way is NOT looking good right now...

    jacobs, ok I could see how he's pissed off (some earlier reports had him sitting angrily at the meetings and glancing at his watch). so the NHL hardliners are upset, but I don't think Goodenow was as hardline as most made him out to be.
     
  19. tantalum

    tantalum Registered User

    Joined:
    Apr 2, 2002
    Messages:
    17,214
    Likes Received:
    1,269
    Trophy Points:
    214
    Gender:
    Male
    Occupation:
    Chemist
    Location:
    Missouri
    AS i mentioned in another thread it seems to me that the author of the story is saying that the payroll range will span a low of $22 mil and a potential high of $36 mil. I think he is saying that the formula for the calculation must be a complicated one because if you used direct percentages then the leafs would have a cap higher than $36 mil when that will not be the case. The allowing high revenue teams to spend more seems more to do with the tax system that lower revenue teams may not be abel to afford. SO if the PA folks are correct and that a cap doesn't act as a magnet then the richer teams will be able to spend $14 more million than the poor teams. No more than that.
     
  20. Shaynsaw

    Shaynsaw Registered User

    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2005
    Messages:
    167
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Why would the hardlines be mad. I am a fan of a small market team and this deal looks pretty good.

    34-36Mil Hard cap with a $1 for $1 between $29Mil and 36Mil.
    This mean if the Oilers spend $29 Mil and the Rangers spend 36Mil there is only a $7Mil gap. Thats pretty good. Plus the Ranger would have to pay $7Mil in taxes which could help the small market team gets to the min cap.
     
  21. Mess

    Mess Global Moderator

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2002
    Messages:
    75,817
    Likes Received:
    1,094
    Trophy Points:
    214
    Home Page:
    Well the article does say

     
  22. I've barely been following this at all lately.. if we get a deal done by mid June.. would there still be an entry draft at its normal time?
     
  23. FLYLine27*

    FLYLine27* BUCH

    Joined:
    Nov 9, 2004
    Messages:
    42,410
    Likes Received:
    4
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Occupation:
    PO
    Location:
    NY
    Most likely.
     
  24. Mess

    Mess Global Moderator

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2002
    Messages:
    75,817
    Likes Received:
    1,094
    Trophy Points:
    214
    Home Page:
    Or if this rumour is true at all .. (Which is hard to believe really) but ..

    Then it looks like Good Cop LINDEN verses Bad COP GOODENOW tactic seems to be working quite well against the NHL Owners at this stage.

    With each passing day it is getting closer and closer to the Dec 9th NHLPA proposal with a Hard Cap to prevent small market teams from losing money.
     
  25. Realm

    Realm Registered User

    Joined:
    Jun 5, 2005
    Messages:
    5,935
    Likes Received:
    42
    Trophy Points:
    101
    floating cap

    I dont like the idea of big market teams being able to spend more then "the cap" I gotta get some more info on this. Doesnt sound right. I hope its not a big difference, because I am sure it will grow EVERY year if there is a floating cap with linkage. It might seem like a small amount now, but year after year it would grow. Sounds like the loophole the PA is looking for. I guess I will wait until I see the numbers before I freak out about this.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page

monitoring_string = "358c248ada348a047a4b9bb27a146148"