HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > General Hockey Discussion > The Business of Hockey
Mobile Hockey's Future Become a Sponsor Site Rules Support Forum vBookie Page 2
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.

Has this CBA put an end to back-loaded cap circumvention contracts in the future?

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
01-06-2013, 12:02 PM
  #1
Swervin81
Kadri ❤ Komarov
 
Swervin81's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Mississauga, Ontario
Country: Canada
Posts: 19,717
vCash: 500
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.

Swervin81 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-06-2013, 12:08 PM
  #2
Le CH
Registered User
 
Le CH's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 1,247
vCash: 500
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.

Le CH is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-06-2013, 12:13 PM
  #3
leeaf83
Registered User
 
leeaf83's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,886
vCash: 500
Send a message via ICQ to leeaf83 Send a message via Yahoo to leeaf83
- 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

leeaf83 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-06-2013, 12:21 PM
  #4
Mr Atoz*
I hid the Atavachron
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Country: United States
Posts: 2,915
vCash: 500
Just like tax laws and tax loopholes the motivated will find a way with whatever the rules are.

Mr Atoz* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-06-2013, 12:32 PM
  #5
Sydor25
LA Kings
 
Sydor25's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: North Texas
Country: United States
Posts: 21,842
vCash: 500
Send a message via ICQ to Sydor25
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.

Sydor25 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-06-2013, 12:37 PM
  #6
haseoke39
**** Cycle 4 Eichel
 
haseoke39's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 6,323
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sydor25 View Post
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.

haseoke39 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-06-2013, 12:43 PM
  #7
Sydor25
LA Kings
 
Sydor25's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: North Texas
Country: United States
Posts: 21,842
vCash: 500
Send a message via ICQ to Sydor25
Quote:
Originally Posted by haseoke39 View Post
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.


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.


Last edited by Sydor25: 01-06-2013 at 12:49 PM.
Sydor25 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-06-2013, 12:49 PM
  #8
Danglesonice66
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 60
vCash: 500
Now that there is a framework for the number of years/variance of $ I think it will be fair..


Last edited by Danglesonice66: 01-06-2013 at 12:50 PM. Reason: Change wording
Danglesonice66 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-06-2013, 12:51 PM
  #9
Tekneek
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 3,333
vCash: 500
There will always be circumvention. We may not yet know the ways it will be circumvented, but it will be done.

Tekneek is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-06-2013, 12:58 PM
  #10
Sydor25
LA Kings
 
Sydor25's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: North Texas
Country: United States
Posts: 21,842
vCash: 500
Send a message via ICQ to Sydor25
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tekneek View Post
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

Sydor25 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-06-2013, 01:28 PM
  #11
Mandala
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 132
vCash: 500
LTIR could still be the way to circumvent the cap?

Players sent to play in Europe?

Mandala is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-06-2013, 01:31 PM
  #12
boredmale
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 23,904
vCash: 500
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)

boredmale is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-06-2013, 01:32 PM
  #13
BLONG7
Registered User
 
BLONG7's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Nova Scotia
Posts: 12,613
vCash: 500
The loopholes have been somewhat closed, that being said, Alan Walsh is working feverishly to see what he can find...

BLONG7 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-06-2013, 01:58 PM
  #14
Epsilon
#TeamHolland
 
Epsilon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Florence, SC
Posts: 36,604
vCash: 500
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.

Epsilon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-06-2013, 02:09 PM
  #15
Drake1588
UNATCO
 
Drake1588's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Northern Virginia
Posts: 27,864
vCash: 500
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.

Drake1588 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-06-2013, 02:12 PM
  #16
Freudian
No Guenin, No cry
 
Freudian's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Country: Sweden
Posts: 30,990
vCash: 0
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.

Freudian is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
01-06-2013, 03:16 PM
  #17
octopi
Registered User
 
octopi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 30,907
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Freudian View Post
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/

octopi is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-06-2013, 03:39 PM
  #18
Mandala
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 132
vCash: 500
Welcome the new CBA...


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

Mandala is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-06-2013, 03:45 PM
  #19
pepty
Registered User
 
pepty's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 10,483
vCash: 400
It hasn't ended it but has put limits on it.

pepty is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
01-06-2013, 03:47 PM
  #20
Kitten Mittons
Registered User
 
Kitten Mittons's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: San Francisco
Country: Armenia
Posts: 47,632
vCash: 500
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.

Kitten Mittons is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-06-2013, 03:51 PM
  #21
Pepper
Registered User
 
Pepper's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 14,428
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mandala View Post
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.

Pepper is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-06-2013, 03:57 PM
  #22
Beukeboom Fan
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 11,660
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kitten Mittons View Post
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.


Last edited by Beukeboom Fan: 01-06-2013 at 05:05 PM.
Beukeboom Fan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-06-2013, 04:14 PM
  #23
Vujtek
Registered User
 
Vujtek's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 2,242
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mandala View Post
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).

Vujtek is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-06-2013, 04:19 PM
  #24
Hutz
Classless User
 
Hutz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Country: South Korea
Posts: 2,190
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vujtek View Post
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.

Hutz is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-06-2013, 04:25 PM
  #25
Vujtek
Registered User
 
Vujtek's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 2,242
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hutz View Post
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.

Vujtek 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 07:17 PM.

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.