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

Status
Not open for further replies.

Boltsfan2029

Registered User
Jul 8, 2002
6,264
0
In deleted threads
gscarpenter2002 said:
I think they are all based on the same "story", though.

(Emphasis added.)

*******************

When faced with things like this I always wonder why the quoted person would lie and, if he did, why the person the statement was attributed to didn't dispute it.

Who knows? It will be what it will be. I'm hoping there is a single cap figure because I fear a "floating" cap will simply allow the haves to continue to use the have nots as glorified farm teams if, as everyone suddenly seem to think, it's going to open the league up to unheard of numbers of RFA offers. :dunno:

I just want hockey back.
 

Mess

Global Moderator
Feb 27, 2002
86,912
11,862
Leafs Home Board
Boltsfan2029 said:
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.
I actually interpret the the $36 - $38 range to be actual real money spent on the CAP towards players and it can't be exact because in that the $38 mil inclusive is also those benefits they speak of (insurance, payroll tax etc) that are variable per team, and thus you can't have an exact figure.

Here is a direct quote from yesterdays Toronto star ..

"As the two sides get closer, snippets of the deal are beginning to emerge. It looks as though the upper limit of the salary cap will be between $36 million and $38 million (all figures U.S.) including benefits."

Its the benefits IMO that force the variable payroll ceiling comment.
 
Last edited:

abracanada

Registered User
Aug 29, 2004
5,574
0
The Messenger said:
"As the two sides get closer, snippets of the deal are beginning to emerge. It looks as though the upper limit of the salary cap will be between $36 million and $38 million (all figures U.S.) including benefits."

Between 36 and 38 million. Hence, one cap number rather than two.
 

Boltsfan2029

Registered User
Jul 8, 2002
6,264
0
In deleted threads
The Messenger said:
I actually interpret the the $36 - $38 range to be actual real money spent on the CAP towards players and it can't be exact because in that the $38 mil inclusive is also those benefits they speak of (insurance, payroll tax etc) that are variable per team, and thus you can't have an exact figure.

Sure you can. Each team has $38M, period. Each GM would have to make his payroll and benefits fit under that figure.

If what you're saying is correct and that benefits alone make up the difference, we have to wonder, tho, why they don't just come out and say so.

Until the CBA comes out, we're all just guessing.
 

Mess

Global Moderator
Feb 27, 2002
86,912
11,862
Leafs Home Board
abracanada said:
"As the two sides get closer, snippets of the deal are beginning to emerge. It looks as though the upper limit of the salary cap will be between $36 million and $38 million (all figures U.S.) including benefits."

Between 36 and 38 million. Hence, one cap number rather than two.
BETWEEN is the KEY WORD in the range given..


However it is team dependant and different for every team based on their team.

One team like Colorado may have taken out insurance in case of injury to Big $$$ contracts for Sakic, Blake and Forsberg for example and that cost is included in benefits and taken off of the $38 mil reducing the amount remaining to go directly to players ..

Another team that doesn't have 3 bid Star players doesn't need to take out injury insurance and for them their benefits would be less and their Player Cap higher and closer to 38 mil as a result..

Insurance is only one item, their are numerous ones that are included in the payroll benefits.

The Levitt reported these Benefits to be ..
MAJOR LEAGUE PLAYER COSTS

Player Payroll
  • Base Salary
  • Signing Bonuses
  • Performance Bonuses, Reporting Bonuses, etc.
  • Present Value of Deferred Compensation
  • Contract Buyouts
  • Benefits and Other Payments
Player Pension Benefits
  • Medical and Dental Insurance Benefits
  • Disability Insurance Benefits
  • Player per diems and Training Camp Allowances
  • Employer Payroll Taxes
  • Other Miscellaneous Costs
http://www.nhlcbanews.com/ap_d.html
So the two items above added together would fall into the $36 - $38 range
 

Mess

Global Moderator
Feb 27, 2002
86,912
11,862
Leafs Home Board
Boltsfan2029 said:
Sure you can. Each team has $38M, period. Each GM would have to make his payroll and benefits fit under that figure.

If what you're saying is correct and that benefits alone make up the difference, we have to wonder, tho, why they don't just come out and say so.

Until the CBA comes out, we're all just guessing.
Yes I agree $38 mil PERIOD not 1 penny higher for any team. (according to rumours anyways, the figures may be different when the CBA is final), but the point remains there will be 1 max Hard cap figure and all payroll cost including player benefits would have to be below it for all 30 teams.

That figure in future years will be determined based on Total League Revenue and be floating at about 54% of it.

Are we not saying the exact same thing ??

See the example as to how the Levitt report was created and defined it .. in my above example.

I didn't understand what you meant when you said..

" 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?"

That is something completely different to the first part though so you confused me with that "league wants" , "union demands" part ..
 

GSC2k2*

Guest
The Messenger said:
One team like Colorado may have taken out insurance in case of injury to Big $$$ contracts for Sakic, Blake and Forsberg for example and that cost is included in benefits and taken off of the $38 mil reducing the amount remaining to go directly to players ..

Another team that doesn't have 3 bid Star players doesn't need to take out injury insurance and for them their benefits would be less and their Player Cap higher and closer to 38 mil as a result..
I think I can pretty well guarantee you that the insurance you are talking about is NOT included within the player benefits. In the part you quoted, they are talking about the standard major medical and disability and dental bewnefits that the players have in their package.

THe insurance you are talking about (insurance on player contracts) is not a player benefit. It is protection provided by the insurance company to the team. The salaries are guaranteed to the player by the team. It protects the team in the event of injury. There is no benefit to the player, as they get paid either way. You are getting a little mixed up.
 

Boltsfan2029

Registered User
Jul 8, 2002
6,264
0
In deleted threads
The Messenger said:
Are we not saying the exact same thing ??

If you are saying there is one max cap in the same amount for all 30 teams, then, yes, we are saying the same thing.

From your posts I was getting the impression that you were saying, for example, the Rangers would have a total $38M cap (salary & benefits) but the Panthers would have a total $29M cap (salary & benefits), giving the Rangers the ability to spend $9M more than the Panthers, even if the Panthers wanted to (and were capable of) spending more than their $29M.

Each team may well have its own budget which is below the allowed maximum. That lower figure would be an owner mandated budget as opposed to a league mandated cap. If that's what you're saying and I misunderstood, my apologies.
 

GSC2k2*

Guest
Boltsfan2029 said:
If you are saying there is one max cap in the same amount for all 30 teams, then, yes, we are saying the same thing.

From your posts I was getting the impression that you were saying, for example, the Rangers would have a total $38M cap (salary & benefits) but the Panthers would have a total $29M cap (salary & benefits), giving the Rangers the ability to spend $9M more than the Panthers, even if the Panthers wanted to (and were capable of) spending more than their $29M.

Each team may well have its own budget which is below the allowed maximum. That lower figure would be an owner mandated budget as opposed to a league mandated cap. If that's what you're saying and I misunderstood, my apologies.
If I may be so bold, I think he was saying (or at least I am saying) the cap for the Panthers in your example is not 29 million but 36 million (which is the minimum within the "cap band". Assuming the reports are correct, each cap will be within 36-38 million (including benefits) regardless of whether it is 54% of their particular revenues.
 

Boltsfan2029

Registered User
Jul 8, 2002
6,264
0
In deleted threads
gscarpenter2002 said:
If I may be so bold, I think he was saying (or at least I am saying) the cap for the Panthers in your example is not 29 million but 36 million (which is the minimum within the "cap band". Assuming the reports are correct, each cap will be within 36-38 million (including benefits) regardless of whether it is 54% of their particular revenues.

So you two are saying that Team A can spend a max of $38M and Team B can only spend $36M. Then we're not saying the same thing. I'm going to hold out hope that the "cap" is the same for all teams. The "lower level" teams probably won't spend to the cap amount, anyway, of course, but they should be allowed to do so if they are willing and capable.

True it's only a $2M difference, I see a situation like the Lightning, which really needed that one missing element to get over the hump -- a top defenseman. We got him, our play improved from there & we won the Cup. To be told we couldn't get that final piece of the puzzle because we fall in a lower cap bracket would be pretty discouraging and could cost a legitimate contender a shot at the Cup.

That would be pretty sad.
 

SedinFan*

Guest
Boltsfan2029 said:
So you two are saying that Team A can spend a max of $38M and Team B can only spend $36M. Then we're not saying the same thing. I'm going to hold out hope that the "cap" is the same for all teams. The "lower level" teams probably won't spend to the cap amount, anyway, of course, but they should be allowed to do so if they are willing and capable.

True it's only a $2M difference, I see a situation like the Lightning, which really needed that one missing element to get over the hump -- a top defenseman. We got him, our play improved from there & we won the Cup. To be told we couldn't get that final piece of the puzzle because we fall in a lower cap bracket would be pretty discouraging and could cost a legitimate contender a shot at the Cup.

That would be pretty sad.

It would make absolutely NO sense for the NHL to take a team by team cap. Bettman has stated this.
 

GSC2k2*

Guest
Boltsfan2029 said:
So you two are saying that Team A can spend a max of $38M and Team B can only spend $36M. Then we're not saying the same thing. I'm going to hold out hope that the "cap" is the same for all teams. The "lower level" teams probably won't spend to the cap amount, anyway, of course, but they should be allowed to do so if they are willing and capable.

True it's only a $2M difference, I see a situation like the Lightning, which really needed that one missing element to get over the hump -- a top defenseman. We got him, our play improved from there & we won the Cup. To be told we couldn't get that final piece of the puzzle because we fall in a lower cap bracket would be pretty discouraging and could cost a legitimate contender a shot at the Cup.

That would be pretty sad.
1. If team B has only 54% of its revenue work out to something below $38 million, they shouldn't be spending more than that. That is what all this has been about. You used the word "capable". In the new environment, that term now has a defined meaning: 54% of revenues.

2. THe extra piece of the puzzle doesn't always have to be an expensive one.

3. Even if the extra piece is an expensive one, that is not the point. Teams should not be buying themselves a better chance. THat is the old paradigm. I can see from this board that people constantly are thinking in the old system about "oh, woe, how can we afford our players, blah blah". It is going to take a long time for fans to get their heads around this.

4. If the team's fans want to have their team have a higher cap, THEY need to give the team more money.

5. It is rarely if ever as simple as "one final piece of the puzzle". Team sports is simply too dynamic an environment. Everything affects everything else. As for th eone-time lightning in a bottle (no pun intended) situation where a team could get a push with one guy, that is the price to pay for a better more fiscally prudent system. If you ask me, it is a miniscule price and far from "pretty sad". Build your team better from the beginning.
 

GSC2k2*

Guest
Zack Attack said:
It would make absolutely NO sense for the NHL to take a team by team cap. Bettman has stated this.
No, Bettman has not said this. The only reports were from some anonymous NHL source who supposedly got something like it from Bettman - a second hand source at best. No mention of how the question was asked, the context or anything (assuming the conversation took place).

Somehow it seems to have become received wisdom that Bettman said it. He has not, or if he has he certainly has not publicly stated it.

It makes tons of sense. People keep talking about how the NHL had to give something to get what they are getting. What they got was a little extra room for the big market teams. It gives smaller markets continued incentive to grow their own revenues.
 

Boltsfan2029

Registered User
Jul 8, 2002
6,264
0
In deleted threads
gscarpenter2002 said:
1. If team B has only 54% of its revenue work out to something below $38 million, they shouldn't be spending more than that. That is what all this has been about. You used the word "capable". In the new environment, that term now has a defined meaning: 54% of revenues.

My impression is that it is 54% of league revenues. And I thought revenue sharing (and luxury tax) were supposed to kick in...

Build your team better from the beginning.

Which is basically what the Lightning did. Drafted well (Lecavalier, Kubina, Richards), smart free agent signings (St. Louis) and intelligent trades (Khabibulin). We simply made one more smart trade for Sydor and, at least according to some players and the GM, that was the move that finally put us over the top. We've been held up, along with some other "small market" or "low budget" teams, as being the model of the way to do things. But in your eyes we should have passed on St. Louis and not traded for Khabby and Sydor? Surely you can't mean that.

Building a team is just that -- building. Drafting, hanging onto your core and building around them. When the time is right, apprpriate trades and smart UFA acquisitions. Why prevent a team from making that final move to take them to a higher level? That's once again punishing the teams who have tried to do it the right way all along.
 

CGG

Registered User
Jan 6, 2005
4,136
55
416
So there's a few people saying that teams will be able to spend whatever they want up to but not over 54% of their own team's revenue or $36 million, whatever is higher? Bull****. Doesn't work at all. There will be one cap number as a max, one as a min. Each and every team will be able to spend whatever they want in that range.

Please explain how, if teams can only spend 54% of their OWN revenues and not a penny more, how in the heck does the total leaguewide payroll equal 54%? Not every team will spend the full 54%. Many won't be able to. If the Leafs rake in $100 million in revenues, their max payroll is still $36 million, which is 36%. Maybe the Penguins could spend $28 million (54%) but choose to only pay $22 million.

Therefore the players get WAAAAAAAY less than 54% as a whole, and therefore would never bloody agree to it ever.
 

Spungo*

Guest
gscarpenter2002 said:
No, Bettman has not said this. The only reports were from some anonymous NHL source who supposedly got something like it from Bettman - a second hand source at best. No mention of how the question was asked, the context or anything (assuming the conversation took place).

Not true. It wasn't an anonymous NHL source, it was a current NHL GM. The GM told the reporter exactly how the question was asked and what Bettmans answer was. The GM asked Bettman flat out "will there be team by team caps" and the answer was "no". He even asked again.

Isn't the article posted in this thread? If not, it's in one of the threads posted here recently.
 

Spungo*

Guest
gc2005 said:
So there's a few people saying that teams will be able to spend whatever they want up to but not over 54% of their own team's revenue or $36 million, whatever is higher? Bull****. Doesn't work at all. There will be one cap number as a max, one as a min. Each and every team will be able to spend whatever they want in that range.

Please explain how, if teams can only spend 54% of their OWN revenues and not a penny more, how in the heck does the total leaguewide payroll equal 54%? Not every team will spend the full 54%. Many won't be able to. If the Leafs rake in $100 million in revenues, their max payroll is still $36 million, which is 36%. Maybe the Penguins could spend $28 million (54%) but choose to only pay $22 million.

Therefore the players get WAAAAAAAY less than 54% as a whole, and therefore would never bloody agree to it ever.

I agree 100% with you, but it doesn't have anything to do with what players would agree to. We've seen that it doesn't much matter what the players would agree to as they are going to get whatever the owners decide they should get, and nothing more. The NHLPA has been owned by the league.
 

GSC2k2*

Guest
Spungo said:
Not true. It wasn't an anonymous NHL source, it was a current NHL GM. The GM told the reporter exactly how the question was asked and what Bettmans answer was. The GM asked Bettman flat out "will there be team by team caps" and the answer was "no". He even asked again.

Isn't the article posted in this thread? If not, it's in one of the threads posted here recently.
An unnamed GM. That is all I have to say.

I guess we will see soon enough.

All I am saying is if it is a team-by-team cap, I am jumping on people who suggest Bettman is going back on what he said or any rubbish to that effect.
 

GSC2k2*

Guest
Boltsfan2029 said:
My impression is that it is 54% of league revenues. And I thought revenue sharing (and luxury tax) were supposed to kick in...



Which is basically what the Lightning did. Drafted well (Lecavalier, Kubina, Richards), smart free agent signings (St. Louis) and intelligent trades (Khabibulin). We simply made one more smart trade for Sydor and, at least according to some players and the GM, that was the move that finally put us over the top. We've been held up, along with some other "small market" or "low budget" teams, as being the model of the way to do things. But in your eyes we should have passed on St. Louis and not traded for Khabby and Sydor? Surely you can't mean that.

Building a team is just that -- building. Drafting, hanging onto your core and building around them. When the time is right, apprpriate trades and smart UFA acquisitions. Why prevent a team from making that final move to take them to a higher level? That's once again punishing the teams who have tried to do it the right way all along.

I was speaking generically. I understand how you may have had a misconception, Again generically speaking, however, and not to you, it never fails to slay me how everyone on this board converts every discussion to a discussion about "their" team.

THe only reason for preventing moves is to maintain fiscal sanity.

Incidentally, one of the key reasons why the NHL wanted revenue sharing to come from playoff revenues is to prevent teams from getting all amped up and blowing their financial brains out in an effort to get to the playoff revenue pot of gold. with playoff revenues shared, that blows away the old rationale that getting far into the playoffs allows teams to pay for players more than they can otherwise afford.

Regarding the 54%, again my contention is that it will be a mixed system - both team by team and based on league revenues. At the end of the day, however, it is governed by the league-wide 54%, as that sets the cap bands (and which governs the adjustments if revenues are higher or lower than projected).
 

Boltsfan2029

Registered User
Jul 8, 2002
6,264
0
In deleted threads
gscarpenter2002 said:
Again generically speaking, however, and not to you, it never fails to slay me how everyone on this board converts every discussion to a discussion about "their" team.

I knew you weren't. I only used the Lightning because (a) they fit the mold of what you said; and, (b) it's the team I know best.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad

-->