Yeah, for the first time they'll fine them and give them 2 weeks to part ways with some of the players to fit the cap, for the second violation they'll exclude the team.
If this is correct, the closest any team got to the $36.5M cap was Omsk at $30.8M, and they spent $7.1M more than the next closest team.
The whole point of a salary cap is to restrict the richest teams from fully leveraging that advantage. If you set the cap $5M or more above what your wealthiest clubs are spending, then you're missing the point. Unless the KHL is expecting club payrolls to skyrocket over the next 4-5 years, this isn't really going to accomplish anything toward generating parity.
A better salary cap would be along the lines of $20-25M USD. Force teams to shed payroll or at least be concerned about rising salaries going forward.
I guess that depends on who you ask. If you went to Yekaterinburg and said, "hey, guys, we want to see Avtomobilist win a Gagarin Cup at the expense of Ak Bars Kazan," I doubt they would say, "No, no, no, give the Cup to Ak Bars."
My numbers are old (very old, in fact), and for that I apologize, but if every team, as ult said, would have been compliant with this new cap last season, then my point is still valid. Setting a cap above what everyone is willing and/or able to spend anyway defeats the whole purpose of a salary cap. The big clubs will go on more or less unfettered, and the small clubs will still lose their best players to the big clubs. If that's what the league wants, there's nothing wrong with that, but, really, why put a cap on salaries if that's the case?
Why is the solution for smaller market teams always to change the rules to hurt the big market teams, rather than to spend and be more competitive on their own?
Why is the solution for smaller market teams always to change the rules to hurt the big market teams, rather than to spend and be more competitive on their own?
Because usually the realities of those smaller markets make just conjuring up more money out of thin air an impossibility.
If this is correct, the closest any team got to the $36.5M cap was Omsk at $30.8M, and they spent $7.1M more than the next closest team.
The whole point of a salary cap is to restrict the richest teams from fully leveraging that advantage. If you set the cap $5M or more above what your wealthiest clubs are spending, then you're missing the point. Unless the KHL is expecting club payrolls to skyrocket over the next 4-5 years, this isn't really going to accomplish anything toward generating parity.
A better salary cap would be along the lines of $20-25M USD. Force teams to shed payroll or at least be concerned about rising salaries going forward.
Even in promotion/relegation leagues, parity is a major issue. Surely it will help attract players and/or fans if the KHL became, 4-5 years down the road, a league with an NHL-level of parity.
And will the cap remain frozen for 4-5 years? If so, real parity will likely appear only in the final two years of the freeze.
Why is the solution for smaller market teams always to change the rules to hurt the big market teams, rather than to spend and be more competitive on their own?
I know where you're coming from as we are both Leafs fans and are constantly screwed out of a guaranteed playoff spot due to cap restrictions, but these rules will help teams outside of Russia to be competitive and develop hockey within their countries. Barys, Donetsk, Riga, Minsk, Bratislava and Prague will all benefit from this and it will help to grow the KHL in these countries by offering a competitive product that has a chance at winning every night.
However, in order to create real parity they need to implement a cap floor as well.
I hope KHL is not heading to become a copy of NHL with it's cap rules and therefore generic clubs
I kinda agree. There was a thread on a main board which I agreed wholeheartedly, which basically said that there's to much parity in NHL. Some degree of parity is a good thing, but when we see that NHL games basically are only decided by lucky bounces, referee mistakes or shootouts, it kinda takes the fun out of it. It sometimes is more fun to watch powerhouse team dismantle a worse opponent than a closely fought games between two equal teams.
I kinda agree. There was a thread on a main board which I agreed wholeheartedly, which basically said that there's to much parity in NHL. Some degree of parity is a good thing, but when we see that NHL games basically are only decided by lucky bounces, referee mistakes or shootouts, it kinda takes the fun out of it. It sometimes is more fun to watch powerhouse team dismantle a worse opponent than a closely fought games between two equal teams.
I know, I was in that thread too. I don't mind if they like it in NA, but it's not and shouldn't be the way of doing the sports in Europe. The best example are the biggest soccer leagues - Premier League, Bundesliga etc. They are successful without parity and fans of all teams are having fun.
Sometimes its fun to be the underdog, ya know? On the flip side, its good to have high expectations for your team going into the season, knowing you're the boss
Because usually the realities of those smaller markets make just conjuring up more money out of thin air an impossibility.
These small market teams shouldn't even have teams, realistically. They don't have the fan support to the point where - like in the NHL - they could be profitable or break even on their own
They exist because owners want to burn cash, not to compete in parity
I see what you did there.
