HFBoards

HFBoards (http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/index.php)
-   The Business of Hockey (http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/forumdisplay.php?f=124)
-   -   Has this CBA put an end to back-loaded cap circumvention contracts in the future? (http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/showthread.php?t=1317005)

Swervin81 01-06-2013 12:02 PM

Has this CBA put an end to back-loaded cap circumvention contracts in the future?
 
I'd have to think so, but I don't know all the framework details of the CBA, so I'm just asking for clarification.

Le CH 01-06-2013 12:08 PM

You must mean front-loaded... anyhow, I think there is some cap circumvention possible within the new CBA but its certainly won't be as bad as we've seen in the past.

leeaf83 01-06-2013 12:13 PM

- The salary variance on contracts from year to year cannot vary more than 35 per cent and the final year cannot vary more than 50 per cent of the highest year.


according to TSN

Mr Atoz* 01-06-2013 12:21 PM

Just like tax laws and tax loopholes the motivated will find a way with whatever the rules are.

Sydor25 01-06-2013 12:32 PM

If I've read the reports correctly, 35% variance per year with that last year at least 50% of the highest year, this would still be possible:

$10.41 million cap hit:

$14
$14
$14
$14
$9.1
$5.915
$5.25
$7

I'm okay with this contract, cap hit is close enough to the highest salary years to allow some cap manipulation for a stronger team. Not a huge incentive for the player to retire early with so much money still owed at the end.

haseoke39 01-06-2013 12:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sydor25 (Post 57185605)
If I've read the reports correctly, 35% variance per year with that last year at least 50% of the highest year, this would still be possible:

$10.41 million cap hit:

$14
$14
$14
$14
$9.1
$5.915
$5.25
$7

I'm okay with this contract, cap hit is close enough to the highest salary years to allow some cap manipulation for a stronger team. Not a huge incentive for the player to retire early with so much money still owed at the end.

I'm not reading what you're reading about the 50% rule only applying to the last year.

Sydor25 01-06-2013 12:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by haseoke39 (Post 57185933)
I'm not reading what you're reading about the 50% rule only applying to the last year.

From TSN:

- The salary variance on contracts from year to year cannot vary more than 35 per cent and the final year cannot vary more than 50 per cent of the highest year.

http://www.tsn.ca/nhl/story/?id=412844


This allows some cap manipulation if the player, agent and GM want, but you can't have anymore throw away years at the end. This allows some "diving", but not big enough to be a huge advantage because the 2nd to last year must be within 35% of the last year's salary, which has to be within 50% of the highest year.

With these new rules, I'm sure we will have some new contracts being rejected for non-compliance as they learn the nuances of the rules. I mean some GMs couldn't figure out the simple rules from the last CBA. :laugh:


I haven't read anything about 35+ contracts yet or what the rules are for 1-way contracts counting against the cap and player's share. I believe the NHLPA wanted contracts over $1 million to count against the cap and the owners wanted a lower minimum amount. This would be the "Redden" rule.

Danglesonice66 01-06-2013 12:49 PM

Now that there is a framework for the number of years/variance of $ I think it will be fair..

Tekneek 01-06-2013 12:51 PM

There will always be circumvention. We may not yet know the ways it will be circumvented, but it will be done.

Sydor25 01-06-2013 12:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tekneek (Post 57186813)
There will always be circumvention. We may not yet know the ways it will be circumvented, but it will be done.

It's not circumvention unless the players retire early. With the new rules where the last season has to be at least 50% of the highest season, you won't have "retirement" contracts and no circumvention.

Salaries have always been allowed to vary from season to seaon. It was only when older players were given contracts that approached 40 years of age that people started to cry foul.

If a 30 year old player signed this 8 year contact, would you call it "circumvention"?

$11 million cap hit.

Year-to-year Salaries:

$14
$14
$14
$14
$9
$8
$8
$7

Mandala 01-06-2013 01:28 PM

LTIR could still be the way to circumvent the cap?

Players sent to play in Europe?

boredmale 01-06-2013 01:31 PM

They should make it that no 1 year can vary more then 50% from any other year(and i would argue that number should be less)

BLONG7 01-06-2013 01:32 PM

The loopholes have been somewhat closed, that being said, Alan Walsh is working feverishly to see what he can find...;)

Epsilon 01-06-2013 01:58 PM

People need to stop using the word "circumvent" to mean "paying a higher dollar amount in some given years than the cap hit". If the NHL and NHLPA wanted yearly salary to coincide exactly with cap hit, they would just set things up that way.

Drake1588 01-06-2013 02:09 PM

This provision attacks a specific tactic that teams and agents employed to circumvent the cap under the last CBA: The attempt to tag on extremely low years at the end of a deal, which extend into a player's 40s (when he's likely to be retired). The implication is that the player will never suit up for those last year(s).

There was never anything wrong with starting high and ending at a lower rate, but there was a violation to the spirit of the CBA (if not the letter of the law) in the attempt to get a better cap hit by including very low salaries when a player was 42, 43, 44, etc. No one believes the player will play in those years.

This particular cap circumvention approach is no longer possible. Now I'm sure there will be new loopholes to emerge in the next eight years. This specific loophole is effectively closed.

Freudian 01-06-2013 02:12 PM

The cap hit still stays even if the player retires, if I understand correctly. That's the big hit to cap circumvention.

Teams may try to get around it by claiming players are injured in the latter years so the cap hit doesn't count, but the league won't take a teams word for it and anyone trying to trick the system can be sure to be punished severely.

octopi 01-06-2013 03:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Freudian (Post 57191901)
The cap hit still stays even if the player retires, if I understand correctly. That's the big hit to cap circumvention.

Teams may try to get around it by claiming players are injured in the latter years so the cap hit doesn't count, but the league won't take a teams word for it and anyone trying to trick the system can be sure to be punished severely.

if they've set term limits of 7 years that will help as well/

Mandala 01-06-2013 03:39 PM

Welcome the new CBA...


Welcome to the LTIR loophole era! i.e. " The long-term concussion but no retirement clause"

pepty 01-06-2013 03:45 PM

It hasn't ended it but has put limits on it.

Kitten Mittons 01-06-2013 03:47 PM

Is there a clause that prevents sign and trades? I think it's moronic that they setup a 7/8 combo. Kind of makes it useless. But I guess that's an example of cap circumvention.

Pepper 01-06-2013 03:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mandala (Post 57197681)
Welcome the new CBA...


Welcome to the LTIR loophole era! i.e. " The long-term concussion but no retirement clause"

League can ask 3rd party opinion when it comes to injured players, AFAIK this has already been done in the last CBA.

So if league suspects foul play, they can send their own doctors to check up the injury.

It's not really a loophole unless players go and intentionally break their bones or take hits to the head to allow them LTIR status.

Beukeboom Fan 01-06-2013 03:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kitten Mittons (Post 57198271)
Is there a clause that prevents sign and trades? I think it's moronic that they setup a 7/8 combo. Kind of makes it useless. But I guess that's an example of cap circumvention.

I see the 7/8 as an attempt to give small market teams a leg up to retain their core players. The "incumbent" team now has an advantage that they can offer more $'s than another bidder while keeping the same $/yr.

Also, should increase the value of rental players at the trade deadline, as the team that has his rights can offer more term than anyone else.

Vujtek 01-06-2013 04:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mandala (Post 57189023)
Players sent to play in Europe?

We'll to wait for the final info of the CBA but that loophole should be closed as well. There was talk of NHL and NHLPA agreeing on a clause that players in other leagues (AHL, Europe...) will count against the cap if their contract is worth more than X amount of $$$ (that X is probably around $500k).

Hutz 01-06-2013 04:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vujtek (Post 57199921)
We'll to wait for the final info of the CBA but that loophole should be closed as well. There was talk of NHL and NHLPA agreeing on a clause that players in other leagues (AHL, Europe...) will count against the cap if their contract is worth more than X amount of $$$ (that X is probably around $500k).

Last I heard, rumour was they'd be going with a million.

Vujtek 01-06-2013 04:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hutz (Post 57200245)
Last I heard, rumour was they'd be going with a million.

That's what NHLPA wanted. If that's the final number it's another 'win' for the PA.


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 11:33 AM.

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com, A property of CraveOnline, a division of AtomicOnline LLC ©2009 CraveOnline Media, LLC. All Rights Reserved.