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

[timlap]

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"

The key point is that he's so gleeful. With glee like that, it's hard to bring in a cold word like "logic."

 

[creative giant*]

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 ..

Nice attempt at backtracking.

As for the article, it's good news for the NHL.

 

[timlap]

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 ..

I think he was having fun, too. We are all enjoying your incredibly energetic and entertaining spin on everything hockey related.

Perhaps you should start a blog and compete with Eklund!

 

[Realm]

I hate this deal ..
it will give even more power to big market team then the last CBA IMO !!

You cant be serious, otherwise you have NO idea what the old CBA and this one is all about.

 

[LordHelmet]

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.

$26M-$28M? How do you figure?

If there's one thing we know about Owners, it's that they can't control their spending. They've addmitted as much themselves. Why would they suddenly start keeping salaries that low when many of them could easily afford the $43M (including tax) required to be at the top of the range?

 

[LordHelmet]

As for the article, it's good news for the NHL.

That's the funny thing here..

The PA side is saying "Woah, I can't believe we got this. It's way, way better than we were expecting..."

The owner side is saying, "This is a huge victory for the league. It's better than we were expecting.."

Guess we'll see in 6 years..

 

[Mess]

The key point is that he's so gleeful. With glee like that, it's hard to bring in a cold word like "logic."

Gee gleeful is not a brush I get painted with too often on my home board as you know particularly when posting next years team roster ..

 

[Mess]

That's the funny thing here..

The PA side is saying "Woah, I can't believe we got this. It's way, way better than we were expecting..."

The owner side is saying, "This is a huge victory for the league. It's better than we were expecting.."

Guess we'll see in 6 years..

My biggest complaint is that BAD contracts can never be prevented even in a cap system , that is either based on interpretation of Owner overpaying or Player underperforming if you like .. With guaranteed contracts you are going to see a lot of bottom end glorified AHLer in NHL lineups to compensate and the Hard Cap ceiling promotes it ..

 

[gobuds]

yes, this is a stupid deal for the players

I wouldn't say that it is a stupid deal for the players at all. It is actually a better deal then has been rumored. The problem for the players all along has been that Bob thought the owners would cave, and he was wrong this time.

 

[A Good Flying Bird*]

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

Don't you know it.
I mean, unless we're drastically missing something here, the PA has won a major coup.
Sure, the big teams won't be able to spend as much. But now they'll be passing on money for the small market teams to use.

 

[gobuds]

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

Thanks! The article in the globe was not written very well, but after reading it a few times that is how it reads.

 

[HSHS]

My biggest complaint is that BAD contracts can never be prevented even in a cap system , that is either based on interpretation of Owner overpaying or Player underperforming if you like .. With guaranteed contracts you are going to see a lot of bottom end glorified AHLer in NHL lineups to compensate and the Hard Cap ceiling promotes it ..

Now that is one of the most informative, well thought positions I have seen you take and I agree 100%... the only other option I see is players getting lesser year deals or bonus money with longer deals.

 

[Chileiceman]

Here's something I didn't understand.
The cap is based on 54% revenue right? If so, What happens if a teams 54% is more than the 36 mill cap?

 

[A Good Flying Bird*]

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.

Okay, well if this is the interpretation, than the players got hosed.

 

[mrs9x]

Don't you know it.
I mean, unless we're drastically missing something here, the PA has won a major coup.
Sure, the big teams won't be able to spend as much. But now they'll be passing on money for the small market teams to use.

Yes, but this is better for the owners as well. It prevents salary escalation. The true winners on the players side are the 3rd liners on low payroll teams, because those teams can spend more. The losers are the huge salary players. In a 36 mil cap world, you can't pay a Jagr or Holik 10 million/year.

 

[gobuds]

No better than the $33 million hard cap with no tax that the league proposed a year ago. .

I am not on either side- but you raise a very good point. It is not any better then the deal put forth then. More importantly, the owners kept saying the deal will not get any better then it is now, so you should take it and not do damage to the game that no one can calculate.

 

[Morbo]

Here's something I didn't understand.
The cap is based on 54% revenue right? If so, What happens if a teams 54% is more than the 36 mill cap?

That's what they're figuring out right now.

 

[Ola]

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.

Of course taxes won't count against the cap. Come on guys.

 

[A Good Flying Bird*]

I am not on either side- but you raise a very good point. It is not any better then the deal put forth then. More importantly, the owners kept saying the deal will not get any better then it is now, so you should take it and not do damage to the game that no one can calculate.

Well, this would be better, because the poor teams will get luxury tax money to use for player salaries and get closer to the cap.

 

[txomisc]

Well, this would be better, because the poor teams will get luxury tax money to use for player salaries and get closer to the cap.

Well if they so choose to use the money that way.

 

[HSHS]

Here's something I didn't understand.
The cap is based on 54% revenue right? If so, What happens if a teams 54% is more than the 36 mill cap?

Then they get to pocket it, and share some of it... its such a regressive system that lesser revenue teams pay a higher percentage of fixed costs. But it is the one that is needed to bring SOME competetive balance (there I said it so shoot me).

 

[Mess]

Now that is one of the most informative, well thought positions I have seen you take and I agree 100%... the only other option I see is players getting lesser year deals or bonus money with longer deals.

Sorry I wasn't trying to accomplish that it must have happened by accident ..

 

[gobuds]

Of course taxes won't count against the cap. Come on guys.

According to this article, and what shoalts confirmed on PTS tonight- no team can spend more then 36- including the tax. I think you will see it spelled out more clearly in tomorrows papers.

 

[nomorekids]

Hm, I'm noticing that there's something in there now about Weatherdon claiming the report is "premature" and that they're still working on it.

 

[gobuds]

Well, this would be better, because the poor teams will get luxury tax money to use for player salaries and get closer to the cap.

No, its better because there is a floor. That means that no team can spend less then 22 million. That was the PA's argument all along.