The Business of HockeyDiscuss the financial and business aspects of the NHL. Franchise sales, valuations, TV contracts, ratings, expansion, relocation, the CBA and work stoppage discussion goes here.
Players and Owners reach an agreement (MOD: circa 5am ET 1/6/13)
Since Shanahan remains the sole judge except in cases of 6+ game suspensions, I expect we won't see anything longer than 5 games unless it's truly gratuitous.
He shouldn't be the only one to review plays and then make suspensions. It should have been a transparent panel.
The max contract length in the new CBA is 7 years, with the possibility of 8 if you are resigning a player.
Will we start to see NBA-style sign-and-trades in the NHL? If so, what will the market pay for that extra year? Will this end "negotiating rights" trades?
If the two compliance buyouts are as reported by TSN (Ie. counting against the player's share but not against a team's cap number), that's really tossing a bone to the GMs (or just their team if the GM was consequently fired) who messed up.
Sign an NHLer turned AHLer to a multi-year contract? Fix it with the new CBA!
Oh well, just glad to get that everybody came to their senses.
And this has to be considered a nice quasi-victory / pseudo-victory by the NHL players as a whole. 50% of 48-50 games >>>> 0% of 0 games.
For those wondering about why there's a 60M cap for this season, I believe it's because the floor is calculated from the cap. It gives them a base for the 44M floor for this and next season.
I'm concerned about sharing, too. It seems obvious to me that the harder they push the southern expansion, the more important revenue sharing becomes. The two go hand in hand and without significant sharing, nothing is going to stop the same problem from cropping up in future.
The max contract length in the new CBA is 7 years, with the possibility of 8 if you are resigning a player.
Will we start to see NBA-style sign-and-trades in the NHL? If so, what will the market pay for that extra year? Will this end "negotiating rights" trades?
This is one of my favorite clauses, no more teams trying to tank for the last spot.
It's still heavily weighted towards those at the bottom.
__________________ "It’s not as if Donald Fehr was lying to us, several players said. Rather, it’s as if he has been economical with information, these players believe, not sharing facts these players consider to be vital."
So if Phoenix is such a money drain on the NHL,Why are they using revenue sharing [Which helps small market teams] to keep it running.....Almost like having an ATM spewing bills into a paper shredder....
Thanks for the clarification, doubt Luongo will be bought out.
No chance of it. That would cost the Canucks over 40m to buy him out. They would waive him, or trade him to Florida/Toronto/Edmonton for next to nothing before buying him out.
It's still heavily weighted towards those at the bottom.
My guess is the process wont change, just that if a team outside of the top 5 wins, they get first, instead of being limited to moving only 5 spots (ie when Jersey won from 6th and went to 2nd).
This is one of my favorite clauses, no more teams trying to tank for the last spot.
I like it too-means that a team making a playoff run and finishing "9th" at least has a chance at getting first overall, so the balance is a bit better now: you either make the playoffs or you get a chance at a first overall pick. Now there will be weighted teams still obviously, but it's a little better than the "if you don't make playoffs or finish bottom 5 you're out of luck" type of deal.
I like it too-means that a team making a playoff run and finishing "9th" at least has a chance at getting first overall, so the balance is a bit better now: you either make the playoffs or you get a chance at a first overall pick. Now there will be weighted teams still obviously, but it's a little better than the "if you don't make playoffs or finish bottom 5 you're out of luck" type of deal.
Sure there's a chance, but honestly I don't think it'll make much of a difference at all.
Why is the cap floor still $16M below the cap ceiling (after transition years)? The cap floor should be the same percentage of the cap ceiling as (eg) Phoneix's post-revenue-sharing revenue is of (eg) Toronto's revenue.
That would be sustainable.
This is just setting up for an opt-out in 7.5 seasons.
Why is the cap floor still $16M below the cap ceiling (after transition years)? The cap floor should be the same percentage of the cap ceiling as (eg) Phoneix's post-revenue-sharing revenue is of (eg) Toronto's revenue.
That would be sustainable.
This is just setting up for an opt-out in 7.5 seasons.
Its 16m in year 1, and 20.2m under the cap ceiling in year 2. I haven't seen anything that confirms that it's still a 16m spread going forward.
