NHLPA, NHL announce team payroll range for 2012-13
NEW YORK/TORONTO -- The National Hockey League and the National Hockey League Players' Association announced today that the Team Payroll Range established for the 2012-13 League Year, pursuant to the Collective Bargaining Agreement, provides for a Lower Limit of $54.2 million, an Adjusted Midpoint of $62.2 million and an Upper Limit of $70.2 million.
so......why does this seem misleading to me???
why even announce this when a season could be in doubt? are they saying that if a new CBA is reached that this is the cap for the 2012-13 season...or is this what teams will build their rosters off of until a new CBA comes in, and they might have to lower salaries and the cap to adjust???
Because they still have to have a summer cap until new CBA is set
The CBA doesn't expire til mid Sept ,, So going by the system we have in place under this expiring CBA they have to set a upper and lower limit for cap based on league revenue
So, if players revenue get's cut back by say, 5%...do their salaries get cut back by 5% or is it just the cap that will come down?
Doesn't make sense to have a 70.2mil cap, and then have teams spend to it, only to have to dismantle their team to get down 5mil to the new cap.
You would think that the salaries would roll back if their revenues roll back... no?
Teams have been warned not to spend to it as that is only temporary
If a team spends to 70M and new cap is agreed to and they are over they are SOL and will have to eat some contracts in minors or move guys at low prices
So, if players revenue get's cut back by say, 5%...do their salaries get cut back by 5% or is it just the cap that will come down?
Doesn't make sense to have a 70.2mil cap, and then have teams spend to it, only to have to dismantle their team to get down 5mil to the new cap.
You would think that the salaries would roll back if their revenues roll back... no?
thats my point as well, I just dont understand why we even have a set number right now, if there could be a lower cap total for next year....teams that spend to 70 mil are going to be in tight if the rollbacks dont cover what they spent out...
Teams have been warned not to spend to it as that is only temporary
If a team spends to 70M and new cap is agreed to and they are over they are SOL and will have to eat some contracts in minors or move guys at low prices
So it's guarenteeed that there will be no salary roll back?
Maybe this should become our official "CBA Discussion Thread"?
I'd imagine that if the cap does end up being reduced it would be as a result of a change in revenue sharing...which I think would then lead to an across the board proportionate rollback in salaries.
...I can't imagine them reducing the cap while also leaving current salaries as they are.
Maybe this should become our official "CBA Discussion Thread"?
I'd imagine that if the cap does end up being reduced it would be as a result of a change in revenue sharing...which I think would then lead to an across the board proportionate rollback in salaries.
this is just kind of a mess, if I was a gm, not sure how high I would go not knowing what could happen within 2-3 months
this is just kind of a mess, if I was a gm, not sure how high I would go not knowing what could happen within 2-3 months
I think I'd just spend as I normally would relative to the cap (not every single team maxes out every single year). The owners probably won't want to screw their own teams over. Like I said, I think that any shift in revenue sharing would also need a rollback to work out financially, so the teams should be okay.
Nothing is set in stone as nothing has been decided yet, their could be a salary roll back, their could be a grandfather clause for all contracts signed before the new CBA, their could be nothing and a your SOL if you spend more then the cap ends up being.
It just depends on what ends up being negotiated in the new CBA.
Nothing is set in stone as nothing has been decided yet, their could be a salary roll back, their could be a grandfather clause for all contracts signed before the new CBA, their could be nothing and a your SOL if you spend more then the cap ends up being.
It just depends on what ends up being negotiated in the new CBA.
That being said, there are many GM's that would not want to be screwed with a new CBA. If the cap is lowered with no salary rollbacks they will seek some other type of relief. Possible the option of amnesty for one or two contracts.
That being said, there are many GM's that would not want to be screwed with a new CBA. If the cap is lowered with no salary rollbacks they will seek some other type of relief. Possible the option of amnesty for one or two contracts.
I believe there will be something in there to protect teams who are at or above the salary floor seeing as most of the teams that are there are the big market teams who drive the league. However it comes down to the vote of the owners and what they agree on.
I have been hearing about a "franchise tag" that can be put on a player, and that player then doesnt count against your cap...at least that was my understanding of it...though I might have heard it wrong, but it was gaining a lot of steam according to the NHL Network
I really like that idea, but I can see it getting out of hand...Crosby signs for 12 years then gets franchised tagged!!
The league isn't going to lower the cap without putting in mechanics to get down, most likely (if it were to happen) via scaling back all salaries.
But that is very unlikely. I have been an observer of the business side of hockey for a long time and I would put money on the cap's EXPANSION being addressed, not the cap itself directly lowered. Basically, slow the rate at which it is increasing, not try to drop it directly right now. If the cap isn't around 70m next season I will eat my hat.
The league isn't going to lower the cap without putting in mechanics to get down, most likely (if it were to happen) via scaling back all salaries.
But that is very unlikely. I have been an observer of the business side of hockey for a long time and I would put money on the cap's EXPANSION being addressed, not the cap itself directly lowered. Basically, slow the rate at which it is increasing, not try to drop it directly right now. If the cap isn't around 70m next season I will eat my hat.
I agree entirely with this post. Only question is what type of hat?
I have been hearing about a "franchise tag" that can be put on a player, and that player then doesnt count against your cap...at least that was my understanding of it...though I might have heard it wrong, but it was gaining a lot of steam according to the NHL Network
I really like that idea, but I can see it getting out of hand...Crosby signs for 12 years then gets franchised tagged!!
I believe a certain percentage of the salary will be tagged and that goes to only players drafted by the team to encourage good drafting and building from with in. Also more effort will be put by the team to keep their players rather going free agency.
But that is very unlikely. I have been an observer of the business side of hockey for a long time and I would put money on the cap's EXPANSION being addressed, not the cap itself directly lowered.
With that goal in mind, the National Hockey League and National Hockey League Players' Association today announced a mutually-agreed upon 3 month work stoppage in place of the normally scheduled opening of the 2012-13 NHL season.
"The remarkable success of the Winnipeg Jets makes us wish that every city could experience the thrill of hosting an NHL franchise." explained National Hockey League commissioner Gary Bettman. "This, however, will require an unprecedented string of team bankruptcies which we hope this stoppage will help bring about."
NHLPA Executive Director Donald Fehr added: "I just wouldn't feel like I was doing my job if we were playing hockey in October."
With that goal in mind, the National Hockey League and National Hockey League Players' Association today announced a mutually-agreed upon 3 month work stoppage in place of the normally scheduled opening of the 2012-13 NHL season.
"The remarkable success of the Winnipeg Jets makes us wish that every city could experience the thrill of hosting an NHL franchise." explained National Hockey League commissioner Gary Bettman. "This, however, will require an unprecedented string of team bankruptcies which we hope this stoppage will help bring about."
NHLPA Executive Director Donald Fehr added: "I just wouldn't feel like I was doing my job if we were playing hockey in October."
Is this real?
I can't imagine Bettman wants the smaller market teams to go bankrupt and that the league automatically wants to start the season late?
