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

[LordHelmet]

essentially, the big market teams are still making big money but are now paying to keep calgary and pittsburgh afloat and somewhat competitive.

That sounds a lot like the PA's plan all along. Big markets sharing revenue with smaller markets through a payroll tax plan..

 

[FrenchKheldar]

Yup. They just said a big FU to the defending champs of the west the Flames. Its master plan to get Phanuef and Iginla out of Calgary and to New York ASAP, and this is how they can do it.

Well first you'll have to explain me how New York we'll be able to find the money under the cap to pay Iginla. I'm assuming here a 36M$ cap for all the teams, which is how I read the article...

 

[V for Voodoo]

Well first you'll have to explain me how New York we'll be able to find the money under the cap to pay Iginla. I'm assuming here a 36M$ cap for all the teams, which is how I read the article...

It's not New York you'll have to worry about, it's every single team.

 

[MarkZackKarl]

If it's under 27 I will be unbelievably ticked (I really want 29 max, but that's a pipedream at this point). At least let teams keep their stars for a few of their prime years.

Agreed on this point, and the biggest reason that I loved the old agreement is that a single team had control over a star player in their prime (lets ignore those rare RFA offer sheets for now).

That is why it is clear that the league and big markets are pushing for a lowered UFA age juset as much if not more than the players... I mean, if you are the Rangers, would you not rather get your hands on Havlat at age 28 instead of waiting till 31? Those 3 years make a huge difference.

The majority of fans are overlooking the fact that the system will lead to a far more rational player pay scale, that is the players in their prime will get the most money. This makes sense for obvious reasons, but it leads to a far less favourable CBA for the non-mega markets.

 

[Mess]

it probably will be team by team revenues, how in the world would Toronto, NYR, Philly sign off on it otherwise?

but the calgarys and nashvilles of the world, the luxury tax money they'd be getting for the big market teams going over the cap, would that be counted as revenue for them? because it could be quite a high number.

essentially, the big market teams are still making big money but are now paying to keep calgary and pittsburgh afloat and somewhat competitive.

Thats the million dollar question .. In other threads here it showed that the big market teams bring in the most league wide revenue. Toronto for example bring in the most , yet with a Cap set to the least they get the least from that as they only get to spend 30% of everything they raise on players. Sure they make money hand over fist, but that would be counter productive creating PA jobs ..

If that was the way then what is stopping a team like the Leafs saying fine we will cut ticket prices in 1/2 for the benefit of our fans and lower their League revenue contribution total for $100 mil to $70 mil so that they actually spends closer to 54% of their revenue.. The more your market generates the more everyone else but yourself benefits on the ice in player talent.

 

[ceber]

Depending on how the formula works, by the end of the deal, we could have a range of $20M-$55M.. Big win owners, huh?

Serously though, I'm sure that the formula will have factors that prevent that big of a disparity.

I think that's the key. The formula should be set to prevent a large disparity, and I would hope they've probably worked that out.

 

[gobuds]

read between the lines

Here is what it means:

in year one of the deal:

lower revenue clubs will have a floor of 22 million, higher revenue teams a floor of 24 million.

A dollar for dollar tax kicks in at 29 million

lower revenue teams can spend up to 34 million, but that includes things like bonues (which can be up to 5 million per team) and, here is the catch, it will also include any money spent as tax.

Big revenue teams can spend up to 36 million- with the same inclusions.

The last part is the most important, because if a team spends 30 in payroll, it will be at 31 total, if it spends 31, then its total will be 33, if it spends 32, then its total with tax will be 35.

This is a very creative deal and a very, very good one for the league.

 

[barnburner]

Would you like to wait another year for a better deal

IMO it doesnt matter what the deal is as long as they get it done.

I disagree. That's the kind of thinking that got us into this mess to begin with.
Keep it shut down until the problem is fixed, so we don't have to go thru this insanity again.

 

[MarkZackKarl]

The whole 'the deal doesn't matter just get it done' position makes no sense. The type of CBA drafted will DIRECLTY impact how teams are built, how long they stay together, how many trades there will be, how long a team holds a players rights, impact of having higher revenue etc...

The deal very much DOES matter. Sure we can't control the deal itself being made, but it will impact fans quite significantly.

 

[LordHelmet]

in year one of the deal:

lower revenue clubs will have a floor of 22 million, higher revenue teams a floor of 24 million.

A dollar for dollar tax kicks in at 29 million

lower revenue teams can spend up to 34 million, but that includes things like bonues (which can be up to 5 million per team) and, here is the catch, it will also include any money spent as tax.

Big revenue teams can spend up to 36 million- with the same inclusions.

I think you've nailed it..

The last part is the most important, because if a team spends 30 in payroll, it will be at 31 total, if it spends 31, then its total will be 33, if it spends 32, then its total with tax will be 35.

I'm curious - where are you (and others) getting the idea that tax dollars count against the cap? I didn't see that in there - maybe I just missed it. The way I see it, a team could have $36M in salaries but they'd have to pay $7M in taxes that would be shared into the pool bringing their total cost to $43M...

 

[X0ssbar]

Here is what it means:

in year one of the deal:

lower revenue clubs will have a floor of 22 million, higher revenue teams a floor of 24 million.

A dollar for dollar tax kicks in at 29 million

lower revenue teams can spend up to 34 million, but that includes things like bonues (which can be up to 5 million per team) and, here is the catch, it will also include any money spent as tax.

Big revenue teams can spend up to 36 million- with the same inclusions.

The last part is the most important, because if a team spends 30 in payroll, it will be at 31 total, if it spends 31, then its total will be 33, if it spends 32, then its total with tax will be 35.

This is a very creative deal and a very, very good one for the league.

This pretty much sums up my interpretation of the article as well.

Also - the linkage to revenues will be there to determine the salary cap range for future years of the agreement.

 

[hockeytown9321]

I dont see a problem in the NFL at all. No team is crying or complaing to be spending less then 61.25% of there revenues.

The NFL doesn't have the revenue disparities that hockey does. Teams like Dallas might spend only 50% while teams like Arizona spend 70%. Its much different for hockey when the Leafs are spending 30% and Nashville is still spending 80%.

 

[Levitate]

Here is what it means:

in year one of the deal:

lower revenue clubs will have a floor of 22 million, higher revenue teams a floor of 24 million.

A dollar for dollar tax kicks in at 29 million

lower revenue teams can spend up to 34 million, but that includes things like bonues (which can be up to 5 million per team) and, here is the catch, it will also include any money spent as tax.

Big revenue teams can spend up to 36 million- with the same inclusions.

The last part is the most important, because if a team spends 30 in payroll, it will be at 31 total, if it spends 31, then its total will be 33, if it spends 32, then its total with tax will be 35.

This is a very creative deal and a very, very good one for the league.

yes, this is a stupid deal for the players

 

[Dave in LA]

The NHLPA is stupid. We knew it would come to this. They had a 42.5 mil cap to save the season and now they are accepting a 36 mil cap based on revenue. We know the revenue is not going to be 2.1 billion. It will be significantly less due to the damage both sides created by not having a season.

I wonder if the likes of Bill Guerin, Joe Thornton, Ian Lapperriere and others who said they would quit or rather see the league go belly up than accept a salary cap will own up to their words and leave the league. Go play in Europe or Russia for a lot less money. Afterall, it is about principle, right?

I was a big JT fan until he said that. Being in LA, we loved IL for his heart and grit he gave to the kings night in & out. But what he said was stupid and Colorado is even more stupid paying him over a mil to play for the Avs.

D

 

[NYIsles1*]

It might be hard to discern, but maybe the hard cap is 54% of each team revenues.

For example the Leafs generate $100 M, their HARD cap is $54 million.

If they spend $41 million, add their tax, it would get them to $53 million. (I hope that makes sense.)

And I wouldn't be disgusted if that was the deal either.

If this is the case there is no reason to even mention a cap will be at a 34-36m dollar level. All that would be required is to write a teams cap will be fifty four percent of it's revenue, where the luxury tax starts and what the salary floor would be.

The writer did a poor job wording this and left more questions than answers. Besides one unknown source in one paper does anyone in North America have something since this article was written hours ago with more details?

The meetings are in New York and as usual all the information is coming from Canada.

 

[Lanny MacDonald*]

Here is what it means:

in year one of the deal:

lower revenue clubs will have a floor of 22 million, higher revenue teams a floor of 24 million.

A dollar for dollar tax kicks in at 29 million

lower revenue teams can spend up to 34 million, but that includes things like bonues (which can be up to 5 million per team) and, here is the catch, it will also include any money spent as tax.

Big revenue teams can spend up to 36 million- with the same inclusions.

The last part is the most important, because if a team spends 30 in payroll, it will be at 31 total, if it spends 31, then its total will be 33, if it spends 32, then its total with tax will be 35.

This is a very creative deal and a very, very good one for the league.

Very good interpretations and the smartest thing said in the whole thread. Good job!

 

[cgyfireman]

I really don't see too many negatives here.Even though the cap has a good chance of moving up after the first year,it does not look like it will move up too much.I think this is a good deal for the small market teams.Even though the UFA will go down,don't expect to see the huge contracts thrown at these guys like they were in the past.
Bring on October,my last game was Game 6 of the Finals.......and that was way too long ago

 

[Malakhov]

60 millions from the old cba = 44.5 millions in the new cba with 15 millions going as tax.



Let them Rangers spend, I don't care :p

 

[HSHS]

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.

Your gleeful victory logic is equivalent to:

King George (1783): "With each passing day it is getting closer and closer to the 1774 British Empire, except without the American colonies. Victory for the English!"

Or Saddam on his jail cell: "at least I still rule this Iraqi territory"

 

[RLC]

Your gleeful victory logic is equivalent to:

King George (1783): "With each passing day it is getting closer and closer to the 1774 British Empire, except without the American colonies. Victory for the English!"

Or Saddam on his jail cell: "at least I still rule this Iraqi territory"

or better yet, like when saddam was finaly cought
two weeks from Goodenow will state "My name is Bob and I am willing to negotiate" TOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO LATE !!!

 

[MS]

Here is what it means:

in year one of the deal:

lower revenue clubs will have a floor of 22 million, higher revenue teams a floor of 24 million.

A dollar for dollar tax kicks in at 29 million

lower revenue teams can spend up to 34 million, but that includes things like bonues (which can be up to 5 million per team) and, here is the catch, it will also include any money spent as tax.

Big revenue teams can spend up to 36 million- with the same inclusions.

The last part is the most important, because if a team spends 30 in payroll, it will be at 31 total, if it spends 31, then its total will be 33, if it spends 32, then its total with tax will be 35.

This is a very creative deal and a very, very good one for the league.

This was how I interpreted it also.

And, if correctly interpreted, this is a *terrible* deal for the players. No better than the $33 million hard cap with no tax that the league proposed a year ago.

This will likely cause the average team payroll (excluding bonuses) to stabilize at about $26-28 million (if bonuses and other expenses are $4-5 million/year). Average league base salary about $1.1 million.

It will be beyond ridiculous how much money the NHL owners make over the next 5 years. This would represent about a 50% cut in payrolls over 03-04 numbers when only about a 20% cut was needed to get the league as a whole to the break-even point.

 

[Deebo]

shoalts, the writer of the article on prime time sports now.

teams cannot exceed $36M, no matter who you are

 

[HSHS]

Here is what it means:

in year one of the deal:

lower revenue clubs will have a floor of 22 million, higher revenue teams a floor of 24 million.

A dollar for dollar tax kicks in at 29 million

lower revenue teams can spend up to 34 million, but that includes things like bonues (which can be up to 5 million per team) and, here is the catch, it will also include any money spent as tax.

Big revenue teams can spend up to 36 million- with the same inclusions.

The last part is the most important, because if a team spends 30 in payroll, it will be at 31 total, if it spends 31, then its total will be 33, if it spends 32, then its total with tax will be 35.

This is a very creative deal and a very, very good one for the league.

I disagree with you assumption that tax will be counted towards the cap. But many people on this board need reading comprehension skills or just common sense if they are thinking of any team spending over 36M in direct player costs.

 

[HSHS]

I think you've nailed it..


I'm curious - where are you (and others) getting the idea that tax dollars count against the cap? I didn't see that in there - maybe I just missed it. The way I see it, a team could have $36M in salaries but they'd have to pay $7M in taxes that would be shared into the pool bringing their total cost to $43M...

agree 100%

 

[Mess]

Your gleeful victory logic is equivalent to:

King George (1783): "With each passing day it is getting closer and closer to the 1774 British Empire, except without the American colonies. Victory for the English!"

Or Saddam on his jail cell: "at least I still rule this Iraqi territory"

Good grief unless you post a smilie people just don't get ..

Its a badly written article .. its a cap range from $22 - $36 with a soft cap at $29 ..

It was just fun to play up the chaos of a bad article ..