HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > General Hockey Discussion > The Business of Hockey
The Business of Hockey Discuss the financial and business aspects of the NHL. Topics may include the CBA, work stoppages, broadcast contracts, franchise sales, and NHL revenues.

Transition rules in 2013 CBA - speculation

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
12-30-2012, 12:27 AM
  #1
LadyStanley
Elasmobranchology-go
 
LadyStanley's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: North of the Tank
Country: United States
Posts: 55,506
vCash: 500
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.)

LadyStanley is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-30-2012, 05:12 AM
  #2
DL44
Registered User
 
DL44's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Left Coast
Posts: 5,391
vCash: 133
..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...

DL44 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-30-2012, 05:41 AM
  #3
CREW99AW
Registered User
 
CREW99AW's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 28,699
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyStanley View Post
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.

CREW99AW is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
12-30-2012, 06:06 AM
  #4
RangerBoy
#freejtmiller
 
RangerBoy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: New York
Country: United States
Posts: 31,751
vCash: 500
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


Last edited by LadyStanley: 12-30-2012 at 12:09 PM. Reason: OT
RangerBoy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-30-2012, 07:16 AM
  #5
Freudian
Patty likes beef
 
Freudian's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Country: Sweden
Posts: 28,916
vCash: 50
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.

Freudian is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-30-2012, 07:54 AM
  #6
ottawah
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 1,568
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyStanley View Post
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.

ottawah is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-30-2012, 10:20 AM
  #7
pepty
Registered User
 
pepty's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 10,079
vCash: 492
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.

pepty is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-30-2012, 11:03 AM
  #8
NJDevs26
Moderator
Status quo
 
NJDevs26's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 22,719
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by ottawah View Post
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 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-30-2012, 11:09 AM
  #9
NJDevs26
Moderator
Status quo
 
NJDevs26's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 22,719
vCash: 500
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.

NJDevs26 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-30-2012, 12:02 PM
  #10
Freudian
Patty likes beef
 
Freudian's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Country: Sweden
Posts: 28,916
vCash: 50
Wouldn't NHL have actual revenue figures to calculate a proper 2014/15 cap?

Freudian is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-30-2012, 12:07 PM
  #11
LadyStanley
Elasmobranchology-go
 
LadyStanley's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: North of the Tank
Country: United States
Posts: 55,506
vCash: 500
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 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-30-2012, 12:11 PM
  #12
LadyStanley
Elasmobranchology-go
 
LadyStanley's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: North of the Tank
Country: United States
Posts: 55,506
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Freudian View Post
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.

LadyStanley is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-30-2012, 01:20 PM
  #13
thinkwild
Veni Vidi Toga
 
thinkwild's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Ottawa
Country: Canada
Posts: 8,270
vCash: 500
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.

thinkwild is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-30-2012, 02:05 PM
  #14
ottawah
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 1,568
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by NJDevs26 View Post
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.

ottawah is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-30-2012, 02:37 PM
  #15
LadyStanley
Elasmobranchology-go
 
LadyStanley's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: North of the Tank
Country: United States
Posts: 55,506
vCash: 500
@thinkwild -- there is $300mm set aside for "make whole"

LadyStanley is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-01-2013, 03:49 PM
  #16
LEAFS FAN 4 EVER
GO LEAFS GO
 
LEAFS FAN 4 EVER's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Toronto, Ontario
Country: Canada
Posts: 5,775
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyStanley View Post
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.

LEAFS FAN 4 EVER is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-02-2013, 05:19 PM
  #17
dennilfloss
Yes I love disco!
 
dennilfloss's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Ottawa
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,946
vCash: 500
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?

dennilfloss is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-02-2013, 05:35 PM
  #18
DL44
Registered User
 
DL44's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Left Coast
Posts: 5,391
vCash: 133
T.b.d.

DL44 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-02-2013, 06:09 PM
  #19
LadyStanley
Elasmobranchology-go
 
LadyStanley's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: North of the Tank
Country: United States
Posts: 55,506
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by dennilfloss View Post
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.

LadyStanley is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-02-2013, 06:19 PM
  #20
lush
@jasonlush
 
lush's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Vancouver
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,314
vCash: 500
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.

lush is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-02-2013, 08:35 PM
  #21
Flukeshot
Holmgren activate!
 
Flukeshot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Milton, Ont
Country: Antarctica
Posts: 1,760
vCash: 50
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.

Flukeshot is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-02-2013, 08:52 PM
  #22
LadyStanley
Elasmobranchology-go
 
LadyStanley's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: North of the Tank
Country: United States
Posts: 55,506
vCash: 500
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.

LadyStanley is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Forum Jump


Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



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

monitoring_string = "e4251c93e2ba248d29da988d93bf5144"
Contact Us - HFBoards - Archive - Privacy Statement - Terms of Use - Advertise - Top - AdChoices

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. 2014 All Rights Reserved.