HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > General Hockey Discussion > National Hockey League Talk
Mobile Hockey's Future Become a Sponsor Site Rules Support Forum vBookie Page 2
National Hockey League Talk Discuss NHL players, teams, games, and the Stanley Cup Playoffs.

Owners want $31 million hard cap

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
10-14-2003, 01:24 PM
  #1
SedinFan*
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Lethbridge, Alberta
Posts: 10,543
vCash: 500
Send a message via MSN to SedinFan*
Owners want $31 million hard cap

http://www.sportsbusinessnews.com/in...story_id=30314

SedinFan* is offline  
Old
10-14-2003, 01:26 PM
  #2
Oilers Hockey
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Heartland of Hockey
Posts: 1,531
vCash: 500
Good. If they can pull this off it will be the best accomplishment of the NHL EVER!

If not, nice knowing ya, the Oilers won't be around anymore.

Oilers Hockey is offline  
Old
10-14-2003, 01:27 PM
  #3
Enoch
This is my boomstick
 
Enoch's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Cookeville TN
Country: United States
Posts: 12,570
vCash: 500
Wow, good luck pulling that one off. I think a 45 - 35 is the lowest they will get.

Enoch is offline  
Old
10-14-2003, 01:35 PM
  #4
NFITO
hockeyinsanity*****
 
NFITO's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Country: Canada
Posts: 27,868
vCash: 500
of course that's what they're going to want right now...

it'd be stupid of them to go into negotiations saying they want a $50mill soft cap....

betcha the players come back and they want no cap, and a much lower free agency age...

then the owners can say, okay... a $31 mill soft cap... and so it goes back and forth...

in the end, a $40-45 mill soft cap with the free agency age reduced by a couple years might be the comprise it takes.

but for now, especially when it's so early in the whole process, what each side wants is going to be unrealistic, and they know it.

NFITO is offline  
Old
10-14-2003, 01:36 PM
  #5
IkeaMonkey*
HF Hall of Famer
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: derderderderderderde
Country: Sao Tome e Principe
Posts: 12,073
vCash: 500
I think the median of $40 mil is fair.

IkeaMonkey* is offline  
Old
10-14-2003, 01:38 PM
  #6
coolhandluke2410
"BleedBlue44"
 
coolhandluke2410's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: St. Louis
Country: United States
Posts: 2,639
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to coolhandluke2410 Send a message via Yahoo to coolhandluke2410
ok say if they get a 40 mil cap, what about the contracts that go into the post cba? will team have to get rid of them?

coolhandluke2410 is offline  
Old
10-14-2003, 01:41 PM
  #7
NFITO
hockeyinsanity*****
 
NFITO's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Country: Canada
Posts: 27,868
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by BleedBlue44
ok say if they get a 40 mil cap, what about the contracts that go into the post cba? will team have to get rid of them?
that's why I think it's impossible to expect a hard cap...

a 40 mill soft cap will allow for teams to keep their high contracts until they expire...

NFITO is offline  
Old
10-14-2003, 01:46 PM
  #8
Dr Love
Registered User
 
Dr Love's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Location, Location!
Posts: 20,378
vCash: 500
Let's not get too worked up. Owners come to the table with a $31 million hard cap. NHLPA with a $45 million (or whatever the amount is) soft cap, both sides know it'll be something in between.

Dr Love is offline  
Old
10-14-2003, 01:47 PM
  #9
SedinFan*
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Lethbridge, Alberta
Posts: 10,543
vCash: 500
Send a message via MSN to SedinFan*
Quote:
Originally Posted by BleedBlue44
ok say if they get a 40 mil cap, what about the contracts that go into the post cba? will team have to get rid of them?
re-negotiate contracts. That's how it works. They did it in the NFL, they'd do it in the NHL.

40 million is perfect.

SedinFan* is offline  
Old
10-14-2003, 01:48 PM
  #10
Vlad The Impaler
Registered User
 
Vlad The Impaler's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Montreal
Posts: 11,727
vCash: 500
I am pessimistic as a fan. Money has ruined part of this game already and I don't see the end.

I remember VERY well the *apparent* hard stance the NHL took before they signed the last (absolutely horrible) CBA. They said at first they'd never bend. Well, they did. They dropped the soap big time.

I have a lot of sympathy for all the fans who fear for their team and all the problems resulting from this. But I have absolutely ZERO pity for any of these organizations, even the smaller markets, who signed that piece of junk.

You don't agree to something that will make you lose money, it's as simple as that. I bet it will be the same thing all over again. Players will make a few small concessions and so will the league. And players will keep on pocketing money, teams will operate under crappy budget, lose money. Meanwhile, the fans and the game will suffer.

I don't see the light at the end of the tunnel yet.

Vlad The Impaler is offline  
Old
10-14-2003, 01:48 PM
  #11
Goalie Terrorizer
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Québec cty
Posts: 140
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by HokEGoalie
I think the median of $40 mil is fair.
Haha, I wonder how the rangers would handle this, they would have to cut their payroll by a half !! However, I agree it would make sense to have it around 40 mil.

Goalie Terrorizer is offline  
Old
10-14-2003, 01:54 PM
  #12
IGM
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2002
Posts: 1,074
vCash: 500
I think that it would go with the scenario I heard 99 talking about when he was asked about the whole thing. (I think it was on fox sports. I will go and look and post a link when I find it) He said that there will have to be a few years to bring the new CBA into completion. So, there will be some contracts that will go a year or two beyond the old CBA that teams will have to deal with before they can be expected to be 100% complient with the new cba. If a team signed a player to a big money contract this season then they would be stuck with it and having to make it fit in the new CBA but if it was a scenario where the contract was already in existence and had a year or so left on it after the new CBA that there might be ways to work around it.

I think that there will be a hard cap with a luxury tax for teams that go over it. It makes the most sense for everyone involved. It allows for teams that can spend more to do so but it will cost them to do it. If the "tax" is diveded equally among the rest of the teams that are in complience in the league then it also serves to strengthen those teams.

If the cap is in the mid 30's or at 40 then it will be interesting to see exactly how it impacts the small market teams that have been saying that they can't afford to compete with the big market clubs. I think that the facts are obvious here and that the NHLPA won't agree to ANYTHING until they can look at the actual books of each team in the league. I still think that most teams are guilty of creative bookkeeping as evidenced by that Kings fan "Phil" when he took a deep look into the Kings books. I would be willing to bet that every team has a little more wiggle room then they admit to and not as much as the NHLPA probably thinks they have.

It is going to be interesting.

IGM is offline  
Old
10-14-2003, 01:55 PM
  #13
goldenchild
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Howard 100
Country: India
Posts: 535
vCash: 500
On a Radio station here in Vancouver ray Ferraro mentioned this he also said that the players countered with a 5% pay cut accross the board and that this would equal about $50 million. THis is the only time I have heard anything like this mentioned and I have no idea where Ray heard it.

There is 0 chance of a hard cap at $31 million I think in the end it will be a luxary tax type deal.

goldenchild is offline  
Old
10-14-2003, 01:56 PM
  #14
Darth Vitale
Moderator
Transitional Period
 
Darth Vitale's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Victoryville
Country: United States
Posts: 25,628
vCash: 500
I agree with the sentiment that $40M is in the right vicinity, and allowing for existing contracts to expire before making it "hard" for all teams.

Darth Vitale is offline  
Old
10-14-2003, 02:01 PM
  #15
Ruckus007
Said too much
 
Ruckus007's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Huntington, WV
Posts: 7,324
vCash: 500
This may not actually work, but to solve the problem of existing contracts couldn't you implement the salary cap gradually, say something like $50 mil the first year after the new CBA, $42 mil the year after that or then $35 mil or whatever the final number is?

Ruckus007 is offline  
Old
10-14-2003, 02:03 PM
  #16
Trottier
Very Random
 
Trottier's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: San Diego
Posts: 28,125
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by IGM
I think that there will be a hard cap with a luxury tax for teams that go over it.
By definition, that is a soft cap, no? A hard cap allows no exceptions for exceeding the set limit.

Trottier is offline  
Old
10-14-2003, 02:09 PM
  #17
NFITO
hockeyinsanity*****
 
NFITO's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Country: Canada
Posts: 27,868
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Trottier
By definition, that is a soft cap, no? A hard cap allows no exceptions for exceeding the set limit.
that's right.

a hard cap will not work in the NHL... too many high payroll teams, too many long term contracts...

the only league that it works in is the NFL, and you can't compare... there is way more revenue going through the NFL.

a soft cap will force luxury taxes (like it does in both the NBA and MLB)... but it allows teams to work above the cap level, if they're willing to pay the price for it, in both taxes, and loss of flexibility.

NFITO is offline  
Old
10-14-2003, 02:18 PM
  #18
The Tang
I like gooooollllddd
 
The Tang's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Pittsburgh. PA
Country: United States
Posts: 7,245
vCash: 500
they say they want 31M, and the lower the better imo. however, i have a feeling it will end up closer to 40M. saying 31M gives them more bargaiing room. my guess on the final cap figure: 41M.

The Tang is offline  
Old
10-14-2003, 02:24 PM
  #19
zico
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 90
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by IGM
I think that it would go with the scenario I heard 99 talking about when he was asked about the whole thing. (I think it was on fox sports. I will go and look and post a link when I find it) He said that there will have to be a few years to bring the new CBA into completion. So, there will be some contracts that will go a year or two beyond the old CBA that teams will have to deal with before they can be expected to be 100% complient with the new cba. If a team signed a player to a big money contract this season then they would be stuck with it and having to make it fit in the new CBA but if it was a scenario where the contract was already in existence and had a year or so left on it after the new CBA that there might be ways to work around it.

I think that there will be a hard cap with a luxury tax for teams that go over it. It makes the most sense for everyone involved. It allows for teams that can spend more to do so but it will cost them to do it. If the "tax" is diveded equally among the rest of the teams that are in complience in the league then it also serves to strengthen those teams.

If the cap is in the mid 30's or at 40 then it will be interesting to see exactly how it impacts the small market teams that have been saying that they can't afford to compete with the big market clubs. I think that the facts are obvious here and that the NHLPA won't agree to ANYTHING until they can look at the actual books of each team in the league. I still think that most teams are guilty of creative bookkeeping as evidenced by that Kings fan "Phil" when he took a deep look into the Kings books. I would be willing to bet that every team has a little more wiggle room then they admit to and not as much as the NHLPA probably thinks they have.

It is going to be interesting.
Why would a team be stuck with a high contract that goes beyond next year. If a team can afford it, you just send him to the minors and he wont count against the cap. I can bet you that the players union wont allow guys in the minors to count against the cap.

zico is offline  
Old
10-14-2003, 02:39 PM
  #20
Ford Prefect
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Montreal
Posts: 797
vCash: 500
My 6 amendments to the upcoming CBA:

1) 30 million hard cap (nice round figure) (owners advantage)

2) 1 Franchise player exemption (i.e. not counted towards salary cap) (players advantage)

3) Equal revenue sharing on television contracts (equal advantage)

4) All teams must keep a 30 million dollar payroll (players advantage)

5) Get rid of guaranteed contracts OR decrease substantially the buyout rate to something like 15-20% (owners advantage)

6) Reduce UFA age to 27-28 (player advantage)



Basically, just make it more like the NFL!

Ford Prefect is offline  
Old
10-14-2003, 03:09 PM
  #21
Blackshad
Registered User
 
Blackshad's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,133
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Enoch
Wow, good luck pulling that one off. I think a 45 - 35 is the lowest they will get.
thats still good

Blackshad is offline  
Old
10-14-2003, 03:34 PM
  #22
Dr Love
Registered User
 
Dr Love's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Location, Location!
Posts: 20,378
vCash: 500
A sub $40 million payroll is very low IMO. A look at last year's payrolls shows that 19 teams were above 35 million, and 24 were above 30:

1 N.Y Rangers $69.2
2 Detroit $68.0
3 St. Louis $61.8
4 Dallas $61.8
5 Colorado $60.8
6 Philadelphia $55.7
7 Toronto $54.9
8 New Jersey $51.2
9 Washington $50.4
10 Monteal $48.6
11 San Jose $45.1
12 Chicago $44.4
13 Phoenix $43.9
14 Los Angeles $41.8
15 N.Y. Islanders $41.5
16 Anaheim $38.8
17 Carolina $38.4
18 Boston $36.9
19 Vancouver $35.3
20 Calgary $33.6
21 Buffalo $31.5
22 Edmonton $31.5
23 Florida $31.2
24 Pittsburgh $31.2
25 Ottawa $28.5
26 Tampa Bay $28.9
27 Columbus $27.4
28 Atlanta $27.0
29 Nashville $23.3
30 Minnesota $21.1

Source

Dated 2/2/03, there have been some significant changes, but using this (the most up to date I could find) it is clear that a cap, hard or soft < $40M will cause a major change. Of course contracts will be grandfathered, but a $40M cap will force roughly half the league to overhaul their roster.

Dr Love is offline  
Old
10-14-2003, 03:39 PM
  #23
degroat*
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: http://nhl.degroat.n
Posts: 8,108
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by EnergizerScotty
re-negotiate contracts. That's how it works. They did it in the NFL, they'd do it in the NHL.

40 million is perfect.
Won't happen. NHLPA won't agree to any deal that doesn't keep their contracts guaranteed.

degroat* is offline  
Old
10-14-2003, 03:42 PM
  #24
degroat*
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: http://nhl.degroat.n
Posts: 8,108
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by nuckfan in TO
that's right.

a hard cap will not work in the NHL... too many high payroll teams, too many long term contracts...

the only league that it works in is the NFL, and you can't compare... there is way more revenue going through the NFL.

a soft cap will force luxury taxes (like it does in both the NBA and MLB)... but it allows teams to work above the cap level, if they're willing to pay the price for it, in both taxes, and loss of flexibility.
That is not right. What you described is a LUXURY TAX. It is NOT a soft cap. A soft cap is a cap w/ exceptions such as the Larry Bird rule in the NBA which helps teams retain their players by only counting a portion of certain players' salaries towards the cap.

degroat* is offline  
Old
10-14-2003, 04:24 PM
  #25
Dr Love
Registered User
 
Dr Love's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Location, Location!
Posts: 20,378
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by degroat
That is not right. What you described is a LUXURY TAX. It is NOT a soft cap. A soft cap is a cap w/ exceptions such as the Larry Bird rule in the NBA which helps teams retain their players by only counting a portion of certain players' salaries towards the cap.
Even then, the NBA has a soft cap on top of that.

Dr Love is offline  
Closed Thread

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 02:27 AM.

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.