HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > NHL Eastern Conference > Metropolitan Division > New York Rangers
Mobile Hockey's Future Become a Sponsor Site Rules Support Forum vBookie Page 2
Notices

Rangers Catch Cap Break

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
05-22-2007, 05:51 AM
  #1
RangerBoy
#freejtmiller
 
RangerBoy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: New York
Country: United States
Posts: 31,867
vCash: 500
Rangers Catch Cap Break

Quote:
The NHL legal department informed the Rangers yesterday that any payments they might owe Bobby Holik under his signing-bonus grievance will not be applied against their 2007-08 cap, The Post has learned.

The league has ruled that the disputed 2006 signing bonus of $2 million - $1.52M after the 24 percent rollback - would have been part of the Rangers' July 29, 2005 Compliance Buyout of Holik and thus would not have originally counted against the cap
.
http://www.nypost.com/seven/05222007...rry_brooks.htm

Apparently the NHL informed the Rangers this clause on disputed money(look below)doesn't cover the compliance buyout of Holik

Quote:
(vi) With respect to any new Player Salary or Bonus dispute between a
Player and a Club arising after the execution of this Agreement
(i.e., relating to Player Salary and Bonuses payable on account of
the 2005-06 League Year or any subsequent League Year), any
amount paid (excluding interest) in satisfaction of any award or
judgment relating to, or settlement of, any such dispute, but only to
the extent that such amounts have not otherwise been included in
the Player's Player Salary or Bonuses
.

RangerBoy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-22-2007, 07:04 AM
  #2
HAPPY HOUR
Registered User
 
HAPPY HOUR's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: New York
Country: United States
Posts: 5,253
vCash: 500
Nice.

HAPPY HOUR is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-22-2007, 09:26 AM
  #3
WhipNash27
Quattro!!
 
WhipNash27's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Westchester, NY
Country: United States
Posts: 15,564
vCash: 500
It's fixed! The league wants the Rangers to win the cup!

WhipNash27 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-22-2007, 10:39 AM
  #4
TheZherdev
Registered User
 
TheZherdev's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 2,351
vCash: 500
exactly what i thought would happen. Money that was originally not supposed to be part of the cap hit shouldnt be later on despite the circumstances.

TheZherdev is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-22-2007, 12:02 PM
  #5
pld459666
Registered User
 
pld459666's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Danbury, CT
Country: United States
Posts: 16,577
vCash: 500
.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Blackburn2727 View Post
exactly what i thought would happen. Money that was originally not supposed to be part of the cap hit shouldnt be later on despite the circumstances.
Somewhat disagree.

The buyout was a ont time offering to teams that were looking to cut payroll. Pay the player off and go your seperate ways, if you are looking to save an additional coin or 2 and you chance it that a arbiter/judge is going to agree with you, then you should also be prepared for the risk that the judge will not agree with you and nt only pay the player, but if you are paying him now, then you should also be held accountable cap wise as well.

The Rangers lucked out. because even though they may lose, they will still win in terms of cap issues.

pld459666 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-22-2007, 12:56 PM
  #6
rickyrod
Registered User
 
rickyrod's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: nyc
Country: United States
Posts: 1,294
vCash: 500
Aren't there other players suing the club over bonuses as well?

rickyrod is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-22-2007, 01:06 PM
  #7
TomLaidlaw
Registered User
 
TomLaidlaw's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Transylvania
Country: Romania
Posts: 3,177
vCash: 500
I have a quick cap question pertaining to Jagr.

If we pick up Jagrs 08-09 option are the capitals still on the hook for half his cap hit? Thanks in advance for to whoever knows the answer to that.

TomLaidlaw is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-22-2007, 01:25 PM
  #8
Inferno
HFB Partner
 
Inferno's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Atlanta, GA
Country: United States
Posts: 20,176
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by TomLaidlaw View Post
I have a quick cap question pertaining to Jagr.

If we pick up Jagrs 08-09 option are the capitals still on the hook for half his cap hit? Thanks in advance for to whoever knows the answer to that.
good question, and im fairly sure nobody knows lol. ive heard this discussed ad-nauseum without any conclusive written proof to either side of the debate.

Inferno is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-22-2007, 01:34 PM
  #9
Block More Shots
Registered User
 
Block More Shots's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: NJ
Country: United States
Posts: 1,355
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by inferno272 View Post
good question, and im fairly sure nobody knows lol. ive heard this discussed ad-nauseum without any conclusive written proof to either side of the debate.
Wow, if the Caps aren't on the hook for that option year and its picked up, it looks like we'd have to pay him 11 million!

Although I'm not sure, it'd make sense if the Caps weren't responsible for it because it's an option year and nothing is guaranteed.

I remember the terms of the trade being Carter for Jagr and the Caps pick up $20 million of Jagr's remaining $49 million. That was during a 5-year contract (usually its $55 million, but it was right at the deadline, so $6 million was already paid to Jagr). IDK, it sounds like the option year was not considered so the Rangers would be completely responsible for whatever Jagr is paid in 2008-2009.

Block More Shots is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-22-2007, 01:46 PM
  #10
RangerBoy
#freejtmiller
 
RangerBoy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: New York
Country: United States
Posts: 31,867
vCash: 500
I don't mean to sound rude and arrogant but the topic concerning the terms of Jagr's option year has been discussed numerous times on this forum

Quote:
The Washington Capitals still would be on the hook for approximately $4 million for extra years that Jagr might trigger by meeting spelled-out performance thresholds. So if he were to win an MVP or a scoring title or a playoffs MVP and trigger an extension through 2008-09 of the seven-year deal he signed with the Caps in 2001, Jagr indeed would be owed another $8.36 million, but only about half of that would be paid by the Rangers and only that much would count against their team cap.

In other words, Jagr wouldn't be saddling the Rangers in 2008-09 with a cap-killing contract by triggering that clause, he'd be giving the Rangers another year of his services at a bargain rate
.
http://www.nydailynews.com/blogs/ran...nhl_debut.html

Quote:
What makes it able from the Rangers' perspective is that the Washington Capitals will remain on the hook for roughly 30 per cent through 2009
http://www.sportsnet.ca/hockey/artic...31_172257_5704

For the 11th million time,it's not $11 million.Do not forget about the 24% rollback

$8.36 million
$4.94 million-Rangers
$3.42 million-Capitals

If Jagr doesn't guarantee the option and the Rangers do not pick it up,the Rangers would owe a Jagr $760,000 buyout

Quote:
Should Jagr, winner of the last four NHL scoring titles, not meet those totals and Washington not opt to pick up a club option, Jagr will receive a $1 million payment.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp...&notFound=true

$1 million-24%=$760,000

RangerBoy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-22-2007, 01:55 PM
  #11
RangerBoy
#freejtmiller
 
RangerBoy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: New York
Country: United States
Posts: 31,867
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by pld459666 View Post
Somewhat disagree.

The buyout was a ont time offering to teams that were looking to cut payroll. Pay the player off and go your seperate ways, if you are looking to save an additional coin or 2 and you chance it that a arbiter/judge is going to agree with you, then you should also be prepared for the risk that the judge will not agree with you and nt only pay the player, but if you are paying him now, then you should also be held accountable cap wise as well.

The Rangers lucked out. because even though they may lose, they will still win in terms of cap issues.
The Rangers did not luck out.The compliance buyout allowed teams to buyout players and not have it count against the cap.If there is a dispute over the value of the buyout,then why should the money count against the cap.That wasn't the purpose of the idea of compliance buyouts

RangerBoy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-22-2007, 02:43 PM
  #12
TomLaidlaw
Registered User
 
TomLaidlaw's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Transylvania
Country: Romania
Posts: 3,177
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by RangerBoy View Post
I don't mean to sound rude and arrogant but the topic concerning the terms of Jagr's option year has been discussed numerous times on this forum



http://www.nydailynews.com/blogs/ran...nhl_debut.html



http://www.sportsnet.ca/hockey/artic...31_172257_5704

For the 11th million time,it's not $11 million.Do not forget about the 24% rollback

$8.36 million
$4.94 million-Rangers
$3.42 million-Capitals

If Jagr doesn't guarantee the option and the Rangers do not pick it up,the Rangers would owe a Jagr $760,000 buyout



http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp...&notFound=true

$1 million-24%=$760,000
Thank You

TomLaidlaw is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-22-2007, 02:45 PM
  #13
pld459666
Registered User
 
pld459666's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Danbury, CT
Country: United States
Posts: 16,577
vCash: 500
.

Quote:
Originally Posted by RangerBoy View Post
The Rangers did not luck out.The compliance buyout allowed teams to buyout players and not have it count against the cap.If there is a dispute over the value of the buyout,then why should the money count against the cap.That wasn't the purpose of the idea of compliance buyouts
The allowance was a one time offering, not a one time offering, but could be 2-3 years because you claim (in fact you are the only GM to make this claim) that three different GM's all indicated to you verbally not to pay the bonus money?

That excuse is thinner than a spider's web

The reason it should count against the cap is because it wasn't paid out when the allowance was granted. The allowance had a time frame to it, that summer before teams had to report to camp, the Rangers (Sather rather) Gambled that someone would actually believe that a players agent would forego his clients rights to 1.5 million dollars. He gambled and lost and should be held accountable for it both by paying the amount due plus interest and have the principle amount assessed against the cap. Paying Interest is not a penalty because it's not their money so it's not an out of pocket expense item.

pld459666 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-22-2007, 02:47 PM
  #14
pld459666
Registered User
 
pld459666's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Danbury, CT
Country: United States
Posts: 16,577
vCash: 500
.

Quote:
Originally Posted by RangerBoy View Post
The Rangers did not luck out.The compliance buyout allowed teams to buyout players and not have it count against the cap.If there is a dispute over the value of the buyout,then why should the money count against the cap.That wasn't the purpose of the idea of compliance buyouts
also, it's not over the value of the buyout, it's a dispute over a bonus payment that Sather negotiated into the contract when he was kissing Holik's assto come to NY

pld459666 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-22-2007, 03:57 PM
  #15
CM Lundqvist
Best In The World
 
CM Lundqvist's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Long Island
Country: United States
Posts: 8,751
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by RangerBoy View Post
I don't mean to sound rude and arrogant but the topic concerning the terms of Jagr's option year has been discussed numerous times on this forum



http://www.nydailynews.com/blogs/ran...nhl_debut.html



http://www.sportsnet.ca/hockey/artic...31_172257_5704

For the 11th million time,it's not $11 million.Do not forget about the 24% rollback

$8.36 million
$4.94 million-Rangers
$3.42 million-Capitals

If Jagr doesn't guarantee the option and the Rangers do not pick it up,the Rangers would owe a Jagr $760,000 buyout



http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp...&notFound=true

$1 million-24%=$760,000
The voice of reason speaks, thank you.

In all honesty, all I remember is that the Capitals were on the hook for half of Jagr's salary through the remainder of the contract. With that being said, I figured that an extension would have to be covered by Washington.

CM Lundqvist is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-22-2007, 04:14 PM
  #16
RangerBoy
#freejtmiller
 
RangerBoy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: New York
Country: United States
Posts: 31,867
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by pld459666 View Post
The allowance was a one time offering, not a one time offering, but could be 2-3 years because you claim (in fact you are the only GM to make this claim) that three different GM's all indicated to you verbally not to pay the bonus money?

That excuse is thinner than a spider's web

The reason it should count against the cap is because it wasn't paid out when the allowance was granted. The allowance had a time frame to it, that summer before teams had to report to camp, the Rangers (Sather rather) Gambled that someone would actually believe that a players agent would forego his clients rights to 1.5 million dollars. He gambled and lost and should be held accountable for it both by paying the amount due plus interest and have the principle amount assessed against the cap. Paying Interest is not a penalty because it's not their money so it's not an out of pocket expense item.
What are you talking about?The compliance buyout was completed by the July 29,2005 deadline.The paperwork was filed with the NHL,NHLPA and Central registry.It wasn't rejected.By the very definition of the definition of "compliance buyout" it does not count

Quote:
If a Player's 1995 SPC has been terminated and bought out by a
Club pursuant to the "Compliance Buyout" provisions set forth in
Exhibit 16 to this Agreement, which "Compliance Buyout"
provisions apply only to the period preceding the 2005-06 regular
season as agreed upon by the parties (and in accordance with the
terms of the 1995 SPC, except as modified herein), then the money
due and owing to the Player pursuant to the buyout shall be paid
over the course of the remaining length of the terminated and
bought out 1995 SPC, shall not be made in a lump sum, and the
amounts paid under such buyout agreement shall not be included in
the Actual Club Salary and Averaged Club Salary of the Club that
bought out the Player during any League Year in which the buyout
is paid. Any moneys paid pursuant to a Compliance Buyout
Agreement are excluded from the definition of League-wide Player
Compensation. Amounts paid under such buyout agreement shall
not be counted against the Players' Share for any League Year in
which they are paid.
Moreover, a Player that has been bought out
under the Compliance Buyout provisions of this Agreement shall
be prohibited from rejoining the Prior Club that bought him out
(via re-signing, trade Assignment or otherwise) for the 2005-06
League Year
.
While in an Ordinary Course Buyout,all of the buyout money counts

The Darius Kasparaitis and Jed Ortmeyer money was pre-lockout and pre-NEW NHL CBA.It has no business counting against the cap

Did the Eric Lindros bonus money from the 2003-04 season count against the 2006-07 salary cap?No.The arbitrator ruled for Lindros in the summer of 2006

You are letting your hatred for Sather cloud your judgement

RangerBoy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-22-2007, 05:02 PM
  #17
pld459666
Registered User
 
pld459666's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Danbury, CT
Country: United States
Posts: 16,577
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by RangerBoy View Post
What are you talking about?The compliance buyout was completed by the July 29,2005 deadline.The paperwork was filed with the NHL,NHLPA and Central registry.It wasn't rejected.By the very definition of the definition of "compliance buyout" it does not count



While in an Ordinary Course Buyout,all of the buyout money counts

The Darius Kasparaitis and Jed Ortmeyer money was pre-lockout and pre-NEW NHL CBA.It has no business counting against the cap

Did the Eric Lindros bonus money from the 2003-04 season count against the 2006-07 salary cap?No.The arbitrator ruled for Lindros in the summer of 2006

You are letting your hatred for Sather cloud your judgement

What I am talking about is this. The Rangers (as well as every other team in the NHL) were given the opportunity to buy out contracts and not have those monies assessed against the cap. The opportunity to take advantage of this was during the summer preceeding the 05-06 season.

the clip that you posted states that the buy out will not be in a lump sum, but rather that amount is to be paid over the remaing term of the original contract length. Those payments are not going to be assessed against the cap. The fact that the Rangers disputed a portion of the (Sather agreed upon lockout bonus payment) contract means that he chose not to enjoy the benefit of paying that amount out over the life of the remaining term of Holiks contract. Because he chose to gamble he should be held accounatble.

As for Lindros, that's a totally seperate issue in that the buyout occured before the lockout and under the terms of a vastly different CBA. Bobby Holik's buy out took place during the summer (after the new CBA had been agreed to) in which the league allowed the team to do this without cap penalty

pld459666 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-22-2007, 05:15 PM
  #18
EvilCorporateLawyer
Very slippery slope
 
EvilCorporateLawyer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Country Roads
Country: United States
Posts: 74,604
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to EvilCorporateLawyer
Wait, Lou isn't our GM. How did we get out of a cap problem? Did we trade a first round pick?

__________________
"Of course giving Sather cap space is like giving teenagers whiskey and car keys." - SBOB
"Watching Sather build a team is like watching a blind man with no fingers trying to put together an elaborate puzzle." - Shadowtron
"Used to be only Twinkies and cockroaches could survive a nuke. I'd add Habs to that. I'm convinced the CH stands for Club du Hypocrisy." - Gee Wally
EvilCorporateLawyer is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
05-22-2007, 05:49 PM
  #19
CM Lundqvist
Best In The World
 
CM Lundqvist's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Long Island
Country: United States
Posts: 8,751
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jon Rx View Post
Wait, Lou isn't our GM. How did we get out of a cap problem? Did we trade a first round pick?
Darius Kasparaitis and 1st round pick for a Bag of Pucks and Some Cuban Cigars for Slats.

CM Lundqvist is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-23-2007, 07:50 AM
  #20
RangerBoy
#freejtmiller
 
RangerBoy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: New York
Country: United States
Posts: 31,867
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by pld459666 View Post
What I am talking about is this. The Rangers (as well as every other team in the NHL) were given the opportunity to buy out contracts and not have those monies assessed against the cap. The opportunity to take advantage of this was during the summer preceeding the 05-06 season.

the clip that you posted states that the buy out will not be in a lump sum, but rather that amount is to be paid over the remaing term of the original contract length. Those payments are not going to be assessed against the cap. The fact that the Rangers disputed a portion of the (Sather agreed upon lockout bonus payment) contract means that he chose not to enjoy the benefit of paying that amount out over the life of the remaining term of Holiks contract. Because he chose to gamble he should be held accounatble.

As for Lindros, that's a totally seperate issue in that the buyout occured before the lockout and under the terms of a vastly different CBA. Bobby Holik's buy out took place during the summer (after the new CBA had been agreed to) in which the league allowed the team to do this without cap penalty
There was no buyout of Lindros.The dispute was over bonuses for games played in regards to Lindros missing games over a shoulder injury VS a concussion.His contract expired after 2003-04 and filed a grievance over the bonus money.The case was heard until January 2006 and a ruling wasn't issued until last summer

The Ortmeyer and Kasparaitis disputed money was under the old CBA but you still continue to bring it up in connection with the Holik situation.Remember Holik is challenging the 2005 and 2006 disputed bonuses.The 2006 bonus is the issue

Getting to Holik,the compliance buyout passage specifically states the cost of the buyout with will not count against the cap.Why didn't the NHL toss out the compliance buyout if was not done properly as you claim?According to the NHL,that clause in section 50 under actual club salary doesn't cover compliance buyouts.

Quote:
(vi) With respect to any new Player Salary or Bonus dispute between a
Player and a Club arising after the execution of this Agreement
(i.e., relating to Player Salary and Bonuses payable on account of
the 2005-06 League Year or any subsequent League Year), any
amount paid (excluding interest) in satisfaction of any award or
judgment relating to, or settlement of, any such dispute, but only to
the extent that such amounts have not otherwise been included in
the Player's Player Salary or Bonuses.
By having the disputed money count,it goes against the purpose of the compliance buyouts

RangerBoy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-23-2007, 05:08 PM
  #21
The Thomas J.*
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Staten Island, NY
Posts: 18,847
vCash: 500
Sweet! Finally one goes our way

The Thomas J.* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-24-2007, 09:02 AM
  #22
pld459666
Registered User
 
pld459666's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Danbury, CT
Country: United States
Posts: 16,577
vCash: 500
.

Quote:
Originally Posted by RangerBoy View Post
By having the disputed money count,it goes against the purpose of the compliance buyouts
I would agree with you if the buyout was full and complete THEN, not now.

At the end of the day what he have is a chincy GM that tried to get cute with three bonus payments (Orts, Kaspar, and Holik) and will have to make payments to those players. In my opinion, when you get cute and get caught you should pay the price and that is that those monies should be assessed against the Rangers Cap.

"The Agent's told me I didn't have to pay the Bonus Payments"



that's funny

pld459666 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 07:38 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.