I know, we have heard this before - But NHL reportedly close to announcing deal

Discussion in 'Fugu's Business of Hockey Forum' started by Jaded-Fan, Jul 1, 2005.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
View Users: View Users
  1. Jaded-Fan

    Jaded-Fan Registered User

    Joined:
    Mar 18, 2004
    Messages:
    43,914
    Likes Received:
    3,161
    Trophy Points:
    186
    NHL, NHLPA nearing deal: report
    WebPosted Fri, 01 Jul 2005 12:18:42 EDT
    CBC Sports

    A tentative deal between the NHL and the NHL Players' Association that would end the lockout will be announced within a matter of days, according to a Canadian Press report.

    Commissioner Gary Bettman cancelled the 2004-05 NHL season on Feb. 16.
    The league and union wrapped up four days of talks this week late Thursday night and have agreed to resume negotiations over a new collective bargaining agreement Monday in New York.

    According to CP, the two sides have had their respective lawyers compose agreement papers and are very close to announcing a tentative deal.


    http://www.cbc.ca/story/sports/national/2005/07/01/Sports/NHL050701.html
     
  2. abracanada

    abracanada Registered User

    Joined:
    Aug 29, 2004
    Messages:
    5,574
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    According to the article, it states there will be a team by team cap (meaning different amounts I take it) and a range of cap from 34 mill to 36 mill. Didn't Bettman state there would be no difference from team to team? One cap for all?
     
  3. bcrt2000

    bcrt2000 Registered User

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2005
    Messages:
    3,496
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    i think team by team means each team has a cap rather than a player by player cap-- i'm pretty sure it doesn't mean every team has a different cap-- if they do, it will only differ by 2 M at most
     
  4. London Knights

    London Knights Registered User

    Joined:
    Jun 1, 2004
    Messages:
    831
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    It's possible that a clause was written in based on revenue sharing that an additional level may be added to the cap.

    So say a team has profits that forces them to deliver X of revenue sharing, they can get up to 2 million in additional cap space because of this. It could be one of those keep the big market teams happy clauses. This isn't like the NFL where revenue sharing benefits every team. The NHL's version of revenue sharing is going to be taking the direct profits of a handful of teams and distributing it over the rest of the league. The NHL doesn't have a lucrative TV deal...or any kind of TV deal to back up a revenue sharing plan. So all the revenue sharing is going to come from ticket sales, merchandize, and other direct team related incomes.

    I really don't care all that much about it personally, but it certainly wouldn't kill the league is something like this happened. If you are successful financially then you get a little bonus. If you aren't succesful financially you are still getting the financial incentive from the financially balanced teams.
     
  5. abracanada

    abracanada Registered User

    Joined:
    Aug 29, 2004
    Messages:
    5,574
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    It could make a difference to a small market team that was trying to make the playoffs by bringing in that extra forward. It is an unnecessary advantage IMHO and one that only tends to inflame.
     
  6. Mess

    Mess Global Moderator

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2002
    Messages:
    75,835
    Likes Received:
    1,103
    Trophy Points:
    214
    Home Page:
    Well every team will have a different cap in the new CBA ..

    The rules are a min around $22 mil and max 36-38 mil as reported so far and all 30 teams will be at a self determined cap inbetween the HIGH and the LOW governed by 54% by any team via spending ..

    That means ever team will have a different cap just not more then the ceiling and less then the floor ..
     
  7. London Knights

    London Knights Registered User

    Joined:
    Jun 1, 2004
    Messages:
    831
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    But if that small market team is spending other teams money, it might be a way to get the big market clubs on side with the cap.

    The NHL can get away with Detroit, New York, Philadelphia, Toronto, not signing off on the deal, but they can't afford to have these teams pissed off at the league.

    I'm not saying it needs to be done, and it would simple for me to just say yes as a fan of one of the big market teams, but I am just trying to provide a possible reasoning for something like this.

    It steps on fewer toes in the small-market fanbase to not do this, but sometimes you have to throw things back the other way when a lot of it is already going in the other direction. Financially the big market teams are going to be well off coming out of the lockout as the CBA improves their money-making ability, but it also takes away their competitive advantage for making money. And all revenue sharing is essentially going to come out of their pockets. So the small market teams are getting supposed financial stability, revenue sharing, and the decreased stability of the big market teams.
    I wouldn't be surprised if we see something go to the big market teams to quiet them down and to get them to come out with the small market owners in unison.
     
  8. abracanada

    abracanada Registered User

    Joined:
    Aug 29, 2004
    Messages:
    5,574
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Not only big market teams will be penalized for exceeding guidelines - so some big market teams will be getting cash from small market teams that exceed the cap. Then you have some small market teams subsidizing big market teams that stay withing guidelines. Not exactly revenue sharing I think.
     
  9. Spungo*

    Spungo* Guest

    It's 54% (or whatever percentage they agree to) league wide... not team by team. All this "team by team" cap nonsense started because of the flawed Globe & Mail article about a month ago. Bettman has said so himself. Every team will have the same minimum and the same maximum.
     
  10. WC Handy*

    WC Handy* Guest


    No, they wont.
     
  11. Mess

    Mess Global Moderator

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2002
    Messages:
    75,835
    Likes Received:
    1,103
    Trophy Points:
    214
    Home Page:
    What ???

    Explain please ..
     
  12. X8oD

    X8oD Registered User

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2002
    Messages:
    7,492
    Likes Received:
    3
    Trophy Points:
    141
    Occupation:
    *********orial Engineer
    Location:
    612 Warf Ave.
    you are calling a self imposed Payroll range a reasonable interpretation of a "team by Team Cap imposed by the league" as the article states.

    if you would like to REALLY grasp at straws, i heard Pucks arent black, but A Dark shade of Grey.

    and Eklund is never wrong, hes just not right most of the time.... a Glass Half Empty\half full type of person.
     
  13. abracanada

    abracanada Registered User

    Joined:
    Aug 29, 2004
    Messages:
    5,574
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    That is my point. The article linked in this thread, would suggest otherwise.
     
  14. Spungo*

    Spungo* Guest

    Blame it on the Globe & Mail article about a month ago. Everybody in the media has been repeating that article even though it was inaccurate in the first place.
     
  15. GSC2k2*

    GSC2k2* Guest

    I believe that is correct.

    Even a blind squirrel finds an acorn sometimes.

    I had heard that was what was proposed way back when post-cancellation the NHL indicated that the PA had come forth with a workable proposal. THe G&M article has nothing to do with my views.

    I guess we will see.

    Me on the same side as Massager! My head is going to explode!!!!
     
  16. Boltsfan2029

    Boltsfan2029 Registered User

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2002
    Messages:
    6,264
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Occupation:
    Paralegal
    Location:
    In deleted threads
    For what it's worth. I didn't see the exact date on this article, but it was around the time recently when we had the false alarm about a deal having been reached... (Of course, things can change...)

    Edit: From the URL, it looks as though it may have been 6/10/2005.

    http://slam.canoe.ca/Slam/Hockey/NHL/2005/06/10/1080709.html
     
  17. abracanada

    abracanada Registered User

    Joined:
    Aug 29, 2004
    Messages:
    5,574
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Since the NHL votes as a board, I doubt the league would want to introduce something as divisive as an advantage to big market teams when the final deal is put on the table. I may be wrong and they may do it, but I fail to see how this would benefit the league whatsoever.
     
  18. Mess

    Mess Global Moderator

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2002
    Messages:
    75,835
    Likes Received:
    1,103
    Trophy Points:
    214
    Home Page:
    While that's all very colourful and all ..

    Have you given any thought at all how the new CBA will work ??

    The goal is to make all teams profitable ..NO ??

    So how do you suggest the NHL is going to do that ?? By letting each team spend to its self imposed payroll range ??

    The league has set a range 22 mil to 36 mil as rumoured .. with a luxury tax beginning at 29-30 mil ..

    Have you heard of 54% being mentioned as the max that any team can afford .

    If you are a small market team and your team Revenue for the year is 50 mil .. Do you think the NHL is going to let them spend all the way to the 36 mil cap incuring a luxury tax as well that would see them spend in excess of 40 mil in the process?? Would it make any sense that this team receive Revenue Sharing money and then spend above the Luxury tax line and incur its own luxury fines ??

    Or perhaps would it make more sense that NO TEAM could spend more then 54% .. This would mean that a team that brought in $50 mil in Revenue would ONLY BE PERMITTED to spend 54% = $27 mil MAX.. So this team League enforced team cap is $27 mil not self imposed as you suggested .. The team could chose to spend less as long as its above the floor ..

    Big Market teams like say the Leafs could spend every penny of the $36 mil Cap ceiling and incur $6-7 mil in luxury fines making total spending $ 42 -43 mil total .. If they are bringing in excess of $ 100 mil as a team, as they did according to Forbes then they are still legally below 54% .. They can't spend their full 54% however because no team can exceed the Hard Cap Ceiling.

    SO as I see it each team will have a different league imposed Hard Cap based on 54% max OF THEIR OWN REVENUE within the range of the ceiling and floor..

    So the incentive in this case is for all teams to declare all revenue for your team and increase your own market as much as possible so that you can spend more on player salaries.

    ALL 30 teams are guaranteed to be profitable if spending is capped by the league.
     
    Last edited: Jul 2, 2005
  19. kdb209

    kdb209 Registered User

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2005
    Messages:
    16,252
    Likes Received:
    5
    Trophy Points:
    126
    Messenger. Bettman. Messenger. Bettman.

    Whom to believe.

    I think I'll take Gary.
     
  20. Mess

    Mess Global Moderator

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2002
    Messages:
    75,835
    Likes Received:
    1,103
    Trophy Points:
    214
    Home Page:
    Okay ..

    So please explain how you see it ..

    So you believe a team like Carolina or Nashville or other small market team that is bringing in $50 mil can spend $36 mil .....IF they chose ??

    That would then cost them an additional $6-7 mil in Luxury taxes ..

    If they spent $42 mil on players of $50 total team revenue they would be spending 84% on salaries which would be worse then the old CBA ever was ..

    How are they going to pay all their other non-player costs and still make a profit ??

    What happened to their budget in all this that you think this makes sense ??. Shouldn't their budgets be no higher then 54%

    A team that is receiving Revenue Sharing money will spend into the luxury tax range and incur fines?? What will happen to that money go to even a smaller market team as revenue sharing .. ??

    This is what you think Bettmans new CBA is going to be like ??.

    How is mine any different then Bettman's in the first place ??
     
    Last edited: Jul 2, 2005
  21. Simon

    Simon Registered User

    Joined:
    Oct 11, 2004
    Messages:
    112
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    To the guy who doesn't get it;

    Suppose the total league revenue is 2280m, 54% of that would be divided by 30. so 37m per team. This appears to be at least close to the amount that owners are negotiating within. None of this individual team rev% or anything. The profits are meant to be spent giving shareholders at least a semblance of their investment value and for making payments on area constuction costs. Which are huge.

    But back to the topic..

    Depending on how the revenue sharing works I'd have little to no problem with the HAVE's getting a little (2-3m) boost over the HAVE-NOTs. It's not their fault that they have enough money to try to bring in the talent. I don't fault anyone team for trying to put a winner on the ice through bought talent. The past CBA's have allowed it, and if I owned a franchise and it'd bring in another 20m to my pocket to add 10m to the payroll, I would. And so would you.
     
  22. Mess

    Mess Global Moderator

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2002
    Messages:
    75,835
    Likes Received:
    1,103
    Trophy Points:
    214
    Home Page:
    Actually the NHL originally presented it this way from an earlier proposal to define the cap.

    It is actually far more complicated then you are suggesting ..

    The top 5 teams and bottom 5 teams are excluded and FLOOR and CEILING are set based on the remaining 20 teams revenues..

    The top 10 teams remaining set the CEILING and the bottom 10 remaining determine the FLOOR ..

    See below for full details as per the NHL actual definition.

    I realize the Salary Cap ceiling is based on 54% based on total league revenue ..

    I am suggesting the team by team 54% exists within the range as well Possibly so that all teams would remain profitable at all times .
     
    Last edited: Jul 2, 2005
  23. GSC2k2*

    GSC2k2* Guest

    People are forgetting: BETTMAN HAS NEVER SAID THIS!

    People are basing their reaction on a report from a paper who asked an anonymous GM who supposedly asked Bettman who supposedly told him "no different caps per team". Not even a reference to a direct quote. NOTHING!

    I wish people would get off this and acept what Massager is saying. He is correct in all likelihood, and when he is proven correct, he is going to be insufferable and point to this and trumpet how "right" he was rather than the months and months of being wrong, wrong, wrong!!!!!

    I am not even sure why people find it so objectionable. Witha tight rtange of a couple of million, the difference is fairly immaterial. What it does from the PA's view is that it gives the lower market teams a huge incentive to raise their individual team revenues in their own marketplaces so that they can elevate "their" cap to the maximum within the salary cap band. From the league's perspective, it works because it still can't go over 54% overall, which was their prime directive all along. I fully understand why the league jumped all over it when the PA suggested it. I am sure the key aspect negotiated within that frame work was not the spread between the floor and cap (since teams will almost unanimously exced the floor) but the allowable spread within the cap.

    Sweet Jesus, my head is going to explode.

    {edit: by the way, simply ask yourselves. If the cap is not team-by-team, then how in God's name do you have a cap "range" of $36 to 38 milion???? If it is a single cap for each team, it is a single number!}
     
  24. Boltsfan2029

    Boltsfan2029 Registered User

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2002
    Messages:
    6,264
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Occupation:
    Paralegal
    Location:
    In deleted threads
    That's not the only place where the "one cap for all teams" was reported, it's just the first one I could find. I distinctly remembered hearing this from several sources, at least I bothered to look for one!


    I always interpreted this as they were negotiating a single cap figure which would ultimately be between the range of $36M to $38M. Meaning, league wants $36M, union demands $38M, they will settle on a figure somewhere in that range. Impossible?

    Don't let your brain explode because people interpret things differently than you do, it's not worth it.
     
  25. GSC2k2*

    GSC2k2* Guest

    You misunderstand. My head is not going to explode because people are disagreeing. My head is going to explode because I am being forced to agree with Massager. Oh it hurts!!! It hurts!! ;)
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page

monitoring_string = "358c248ada348a047a4b9bb27a146148"