HFBoards

HFBoards (http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/index.php)
-   The Business of Hockey (http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/forumdisplay.php?f=124)
-   -   Transition rules in 2013 CBA - speculation (http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/showthread.php?t=1313465)

LadyStanley 12-30-2012 12:27 AM

Transition rules in 2013 CBA - speculation
 
What will they contain?

Well, it's been rumored that there may be an "early retirement" penalty to team that signed long deal.

Rumored $60mm cap.

Rumored "single player" exclusion from cap.

Rumored compliance buy out option (not counting against team cap, but counting against player share).



(Some of the highlights from 2005 CBA transition rules included setting of initial cap, compliance buyout -- not counting against cap, 24% roll back, plus additional limitation on Jagr's contract to get it below 20% max, grandfathering in options. Also included how draft order was determined, "snake draft" for 2005.)

DL44 12-30-2012 05:12 AM

..In terms of transition rules...

I like the 1 time compliance buyout to get under the 60 mil cap next season... that should solve any team's issues... and the talent will be spread among the teams that have room...

it will be a great boost to parity...

people complaining how a 60 mil cap willl devaste their team lack the big picture perspective of how all the top10-12 payroll teams will be affected the same way...

CREW99AW 12-30-2012 05:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyStanley (Post 56913229)
What will they contain?



Rumored "single player" exclusion from cap.

.)

Wouldn't a "single player" exclusion from the cap, defeat the purpose of a salary cap(parity, a level playing field)?

Big market teams, will be able to sign star players to the highest salary and use this "single player" exclusion on that highest paid player.

I'd rather see the season wiped out, then see more cap circumvention like this.
:shakehead

RangerBoy 12-30-2012 06:06 AM

The NBA CBA has 1 amnesty buyout per team for a player already on contract when the previous CBA expired. Counts against the players share but not against the cap or tax.

Same structure in the NBA.

MOD

Freudian 12-30-2012 07:16 AM

I can't imagine there will be any players that doesn't count against the cap. That would undermine the whole system. Same with cap on escrow.

I suspect there might be some more compromise in the transition from 12/13 to 13/14. Perhaps the cap only drops from $70M to $62M-63M and part of the one time buyout count against the owners share. It should be a one time cost that's insignificant when looking at the big picture but something the players would see as a move in their direction.

ottawah 12-30-2012 07:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyStanley (Post 56913229)
Rumored $60mm cap.

I think that is the most flexible and most likely to move. I'd argue to the owners why not 70M to keep compliance.

With the percentage revenue cap and escrow (assuming players get off this idiocy of limited escrow) the cap could easily be a billion dollars, its just not a real number anymore.

pepty 12-30-2012 10:20 AM

Grange thinks the $60 mil cap could be challenged by the PA and Kyproes in this clip is going on about it as well.

http://www.sportsnet.ca/hockey/nhl-l...ertain_future/

If and when the NHLPA makes its counter-offer to the league after digesting the NHL's 300-page proposal that arrived in the union's inbox on Thursday night don't be surprised if they look for a higher cap in 2013-14 than the $60 million the league wants.
But that might just be delaying the pain.

However Eric Duhatschuk says that only once has the cap been above $60 mil,which was last year, so its not as though it would take them back decades.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/sport...rticle6796981/

Right now, the NHL is prepared to play out the 2013-14 season at the level it was set last summer – $70.2-million – but then wants it rolled back to $60-million for 2014-15, at which point the two sides will divide overall revenue at 50-50. It may sound draconian on the surface, until one realizes that the NHL has only ever played one season with a salary cap above $60-million anyway – and that was last year, when it was set at $64.3-million.

Regarding term length:
Effectively, term lengths for eight years or beyond is a negotiating point that affects about 2 per cent of the NHLPA membership.

NJDevs26 12-30-2012 11:03 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ottawah (Post 56924195)
I think that is the most flexible and most likely to move. I'd argue to the owners why not 70M to keep compliance.

With the percentage revenue cap and escrow (assuming players get off this idiocy of limited escrow) the cap could easily be a billion dollars, its just not a real number anymore.

They're not going to have 100% of the $3.1 billion that the cap was based on this year, so having the same cap next year is in essence giving the players closer to a 75-80% share of HRR. The owners aren't going to hear of that, even for one season. As it is the players are already getting more HRR with a $60 million cap since the total HRR is going to be down at least a third of what it was last year. Chopping the cap up a third would really make it $46 million which is totally unachievable.

That's why the cap number has to go down, but it's counterproductive to go all the way down to $60 million cause you're more or less hamstringing most teams AND next season's FA crop.

NJDevs26 12-30-2012 11:09 AM

Quote:

Right now, the NHL is prepared to play out the 2013-14 season at the level it was set last summer – $70.2-million – but then wants it rolled back to $60-million for 2014-15
I didn't realize this, that makes a lot more sense for next year and gives a realistic timetable to scale back. I thought the $60 million cap was for 'next' year, not two years down the road.

Freudian 12-30-2012 12:02 PM

Wouldn't NHL have actual revenue figures to calculate a proper 2014/15 cap?

LadyStanley 12-30-2012 12:07 PM

MOD NOTE: A couple of clarifications, this thread is to discuss the CBA transition rules, not the "this is the way things will be forever under the new CBA." So, for instance, where the cap would be set for 2013 partial season is covered under the transition rules. But the max length of (new) contracts is not part of the transition rules (nor the $$ amount of minor league salaries going against cap/player share).

LadyStanley 12-30-2012 12:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Freudian (Post 56927571)
Wouldn't NHL have actual revenue figures to calculate a proper 2014/15 cap?

Nominally, yes. The transition rules may include how to use 2013 estimated revenues to determine "pro-rated" full season amounts to base 2014-15 cap on.

thinkwild 12-30-2012 01:20 PM

I like how they call them transition rules instead of another method for clawing back hundred of millions from the players. This cap transition and compliance buy-out is going to play havoc on team building and contracts. It will probably look a lot like the housing bubble crash in terms of the salary and contract dumping market? And it might cost the players more money than any other part of the cba?

A $70mil cap next year but all the compliance buy-outs come out of the player share that year. And then a drop to $60 mil? What, no linkage?

Maybe this couple years of chaos is what Bettman is thinking he can do to stir up excitement this time in lieu of all the big changes and a thank you fans painted on the ice like last time?

They locked out the players last time and forced 57% on them at gun point, and now even though the players accept getting to 50%, the league is going to force all those "transition" costs on the players? They take 0 responsibility for their actions? Not only is that counter to what any reasonable person would conclude for any other industry with record revenues and profits as the fairest compromise going forward, but it needlessly plays havoc with team building and contracts for 2 years. Had we also added in the ridiculously foolish re-alignment they half-heartedly proposed before, the league could've been a real circus for 2 years. GB Barnum's greatest show on earth, step right up and get yer tickets.

For the players, id give in on cba length. The cap space advantage recapture makes so much sense i cant believe they didnt already have it, and having it should make the whole point of needing to put limits on contract length moot. Accept the term and variance compromises given, and then die on the transition rules hill. As a fan, i'd think we'd all want to avoid that precipitous, havoc creating cap drop.

ottawah 12-30-2012 02:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by NJDevs26 (Post 56926517)
They're not going to have 100% of the $3.1 billion that the cap was based on this year, so having the same cap next year is in essence giving the players closer to a 75-80% share of HRR. The owners aren't going to hear of that, even for one season. As it is the players are already getting more HRR with a $60 million cap since the total HRR is going to be down at least a third of what it was last year. Chopping the cap up a third would really make it $46 million which is totally unachievable.

That's why the cap number has to go down, but it's counterproductive to go all the way down to $60 million cause you're more or less hamstringing most teams AND next season's FA crop.

Actually, they can set the cap at anything they want. 1 billion dollars. It does not matter. Its not real money anyways. Just like the players contract, the "monetary" value has little to do with money.

Whats important is the percentage of revenue. If the players are entitled to say 2B, then they get 2B regardless. The cap could see the player paid "10B", but they would lose 8B in escrow. The cap could be 10 bucks, and they would still get 2B.

The cap number is simply an arbitrary number dreamed up by the league and players that is supposed to have a basis in reality, but the simple fact it does not have to be. The escrow evens everything out.

LadyStanley 12-30-2012 02:37 PM

@thinkwild -- there is $300mm set aside for "make whole"

MapleLeafsFan4Ever 01-01-2013 03:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyStanley (Post 56913229)
Rumored compliance buy out option (not counting against team cap, but counting against player share).

Since the General Managers would be making the decision to buy out players, I can't see how the NHLPA would agree for it counting against the player share.

dennilfloss 01-02-2013 05:19 PM

How are existing contracts made to comply with a new CBA?
 
For example, a star contract that would already have 10 years duration, a major signing bonus and a yearly variance higher than whats now acceptable... Does this part have to be re-written and re-agreed upon by the player and the team, then the yearly salary and cap re-calculated?

DL44 01-02-2013 05:35 PM

T.b.d.

LadyStanley 01-02-2013 06:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dennilfloss (Post 57025873)
For example, a star contract that would already have 10 years duration, a major signing bonus and a yearly variance higher than whats now acceptable... Does this part have to be re-written and re-agreed upon by the player and the team, then the yearly salary and cap re-calculated?

All part of the transition rules.

2005 transition rules kept lengths (and options), cut 24% across the board and reduced Jagr's deal to the 20% cap max (of cap in 2005-06).

And until those rules are made public, it's all speculation.

lush 01-02-2013 06:19 PM

Very much looking forward to learning what the transition "rules" will be and there are some which are speculated in this thread I hadn't caught wind of before. Seeing as how, presumably, these rules could be agreed to only 7 days before a season begins we'll witness a large volume of these rules being exercised in a manner of days. That is assuming that things fall into place by the 11th and start on the 19th.

Flukeshot 01-02-2013 08:35 PM

I don't think we will see a lot of transition rules this time around. The PA has fought so hard for existing contracts to be honoured in the way of make whole dollars that I cannot see them agreeing to too many aside from grandfathering in all contracts.

LadyStanley 01-02-2013 08:52 PM

Guessing the "transition" rules may impact 2013-2014 season (especially WRT calculating the cap). One of the points the union is pushing for is ~$67mm cap for 13-14.


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 05:52 PM.

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2016, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com, A property of CraveOnline, a division of AtomicOnline LLC ©2009 CraveOnline Media, LLC. All Rights Reserved.