Lockout IV: One likes to believe in the freedom of hockey (Moderated: see post #2)
View Single Post
12-14-2012, 12:18 PM
Join Date: Nov 2010
Originally Posted by
Since the revenue share for the players is actual (real) dollars paid to a player in a given year, and that escrow is taken from those real dollars...
Why does the NHL insist on capping contract variance at 5%? Why does yearly variance matter at all, in fact? The NHL gets their 50% regardless of how the contract is structured - front loaded contracts just increase the probability that the owners get to keep the escrow payments.
Obviously I'm missing something here - if anyone can shed some light on it I'd appreciate it.
They want to address cap circumvention. I've come to learn that people define that differently. I define it as manipulating the structure of a contract in a way to cheat the presence of a cap. Back diving deals manipulate the purpose of the system in place.
I think the solution is increasing contract length to 7 years and provide different variances for UFA and teams resigning their own players. However, if the league wanted to get the PA to be more flexible with variance (which they currently set to a max of 75%), then they could eliminate the variance and keep the 5 or 7 years. The PA says that the variance along with contract term will make caphits for star players rise which leaves less room for the middle class. If you eliminate the variance, would Crosby want to take a 5/7 year deal with unlimited variance? Does he really want to get paid 1-2 million in years 5-7 (while he's still in his prime) just to lower the cap hit? Probably not.
View Public Profile
Find More Posts by Ari91