hubofhockey
Registered User
- Aug 14, 2003
- 4,938
- 0
Wanted some thoughts here on this possible cap solution (similar posted in Bruins section).
Let's start with a a $40M cap. However, EVERY club is allowed to franchise ONE player, up to a value equal to 25 percent of the cap. Ergo, EVERY club potentially can spend $50M each year (or, $1M more than the PA's last formal request).
This system would allow room for 30 PA members each to make $10 million a year -- far MORE than those who made $10M in 2003-'04 (the end of the NHL as we knew it).
As for each club's $10M man, he comes with a couple of stipulations. To wit:
-- His deal, unlike those under the $40M cap, it not guaranteed in full. If he turns into a dog--as if often the case with top-paid players--he can be terminated at a fixed percentage (maybe bought out at 10 cents or 20 cents on the dollar). He has to perform to make the money. If the club is under a financial squeeze, then bye, bye.
-- Clubs must pay a hefty luxury tax (33 percent, 50 percent?), for their franchise guy.
Now, not every club will go over $40M. Some might never go over $40M. The Leafs and Flyers willgo there tomorrow. Detroit and Avs and Dallas, too. But, at least they are capped at $50M.
Not only does it freeze things at $50M, but it provides every club, potentially, with a true face of the franchise in that $10M (or less) guy.
Obviously, the numbers and percentages here can be massaged, but I think, overall, it is a creative way to get the two sides talking again about addressing the cap issue. Such a system would have positives for BOTH sides, and some limitations for BOTH sides. Maybe as gross revenues grow (if they do), all numbers can be dialed northward.
Might there also be a need for a salary floor as well as a ceiling? Or would the potential of 30 guys making $10M each remove that need?.
Thoughts? Modificiations? Love to hear 'em.
Thanks.
kpd/hoh
Let's start with a a $40M cap. However, EVERY club is allowed to franchise ONE player, up to a value equal to 25 percent of the cap. Ergo, EVERY club potentially can spend $50M each year (or, $1M more than the PA's last formal request).
This system would allow room for 30 PA members each to make $10 million a year -- far MORE than those who made $10M in 2003-'04 (the end of the NHL as we knew it).
As for each club's $10M man, he comes with a couple of stipulations. To wit:
-- His deal, unlike those under the $40M cap, it not guaranteed in full. If he turns into a dog--as if often the case with top-paid players--he can be terminated at a fixed percentage (maybe bought out at 10 cents or 20 cents on the dollar). He has to perform to make the money. If the club is under a financial squeeze, then bye, bye.
-- Clubs must pay a hefty luxury tax (33 percent, 50 percent?), for their franchise guy.
Now, not every club will go over $40M. Some might never go over $40M. The Leafs and Flyers willgo there tomorrow. Detroit and Avs and Dallas, too. But, at least they are capped at $50M.
Not only does it freeze things at $50M, but it provides every club, potentially, with a true face of the franchise in that $10M (or less) guy.
Obviously, the numbers and percentages here can be massaged, but I think, overall, it is a creative way to get the two sides talking again about addressing the cap issue. Such a system would have positives for BOTH sides, and some limitations for BOTH sides. Maybe as gross revenues grow (if they do), all numbers can be dialed northward.
Might there also be a need for a salary floor as well as a ceiling? Or would the potential of 30 guys making $10M each remove that need?.
Thoughts? Modificiations? Love to hear 'em.
Thanks.
kpd/hoh