Your numbers isn´t in anyway attatched to reality. One player could make 52 million dollar a year under the new NHLPA offer, we can´t have that can we?...
I am gooing to tell you what the one big diffrence between the "NHL's 40" and the "NHLPA's 52" is. Under the NHLPA´s offer there will still be a extended room for special players to make allot of money. Or in other words, "if any idiot GM´s want to spend money let them, but with this offer they won´t be able to hurt the league and small market teams".
NHL's 40 would keep the majority(10-15 teams atleast) close to a 40 million payroll, there won't be much room in a that cap when special players becomes UFA ect. The PA is giving up everything except that. However there is no way that all teams suddenly are gooing to start spending big money over 40 million if it will cost them a dollar for dollar in luxary tax. This will keep the salarys down dramatically without a doubt. And in the end that will accomplish what the NHL have asked for, or atleast what its reasonible for them to ask for. It will lower the avg. salary by a mile. It will further make it possible to be competetive with a much lower salary budget. It will make it impossible for teams to constantly take players away from the smaller markets like the Oilers.
For example teams like Colorado who had a chance to build something special with loads of star players(Blake, Sakic & Forsberg) would spend over the lower tax level. NY would probably do it anyways. But there is no way a team would sign a 3-4th defensemen, a 2nd line winger or as we have seen 3rd line players to a amount that takes them past the tax level. No way. If you sign a player like Martin Lapoint to a 2.5 million deal its gooing to cost you 5 million. That won´t happend. And this would put a huge restrain on the market. If Bettman doesn´t get something done with what the PA has put on the table its r ap e....
I understand what you are saying for goodness sakes. I'm saying that the reason that the league will still bulk at it is because of the potential difference in money! It is a huge chunk of the pie still up for grabs. I fully understand that this year most teams will not be up to that cap....perhaps even the next few years. But therein lies the MAJOR problem of the old system...bad contracts can still affect the market significantly if the payroll disparity is too large. It is too large still with the minimum details we have seen.
As well does it change the average payroll? I don't think it really significantly alter the average payroll and you know the PA has calculated the same thing. If the average payroll bounces back to the same levels the money in the salary system is not coming out. They aren't taking much of a hit overall by agreeing to such a cap. It's a step and a big one but it is not the final step.
I never once said the NHL shouldn't be negotiating from this in fact quite the opposite. What I'm saying is that the players have offered a cap at a level they KNOW will be refused and that they KNOW will be negotiated downwards. By the same token the NHL will probably negotiate the cap UPWARDS from what they have offered. It's about number now which was point...the other part of the point was that the numbers are still far apart. A potentially VERY large part of the pie is still being negotiated not just for this year but for every year the CBA runs. It isn't about pride or making a point on system at this point...the PA is over that hurdle. It is about money. It is about how big the piece of the pie that the sides can get. Indeed it is about GREED on BOTH sides part at this point. I still think that with that offer the PA is still being more greedy and they will still have to bend a bit more than the owners. Again that's why the offer is to be negotiated off (as the NHL's offers were meant to be). If the PA truly believed anything lower tha $52 mil was r ape they never would have offered a $52 mil cap...it would have been $55-60 mil! And quite frankly I believe the owners deserve a bigger slice of pie...not as large as they want but larger than the what the players are offering.
Hey Everyone, Im new to the boards..I've been trying to sign up for quite sometime now but couldn't due to the no free email thing..lol but now im set. Ummm the name is Riley (well thats my middle name) but I like it better than my first..but anyways..Im a HUGE Detroit Red Wings/Chris Osgood fan..and I love hockey more than life..lol ummm..im an 18 year old. Yep, thats bout it..just thought I'd introduce myself.
I must say that since day 1 I've been optimistic that the season would be saved and we'd have some sort of season and well todays news even made it better! Im not gonna get TOO excited but the PA offering a cap is a freaking SHOCK. I pulled an all nighter just to read updates as to whats going on and then I read the headline of a PA and the cap and Im just stone cold..but hey, it's awesome and hopefully this can get done today! I need hockey back! I've been so bitter towards the players in the lockout and probably won't feel the same bout them anymore..but I miss them..I miss the WINGSSS! lol Im hoping, praying, and being positive that this will get tonight! any type of season is better than none at all..we should save the game not kill it.
As pointed out above, this is a multi-year contract. The cap number can increase over time to give the players some of what they want. There is also the possibility to lower the cap with some form of revenue sharing. They could come up with something as simple as "work together over the next 5 months to develop a revenue sharing system that includes ___ % of revenues or $___. Without revenue sharing, the big market teams, the ones with the least financial problems, become more profitable. The small market teams, the ones with the major financial issues, are only slightly assisted. With revenue sharing, the small teams receive some of those increased big market profits that they can spend on players (assuming a minimum salary cap is included.)
While the players have crumpled like a cheap suit, the sides are still far apart. It isn't so easy as cut the baby in two. (2 clichés in 2 sentences). There are still significant issues that need to be resolved; at least they are now on the same page. (That’s 3).