His bonuses all count against the cap starting this year, before he attains them, I believe. Or so we've been led to believe with Gagner and Cogliano's bonuses.
You're right that the bonuses do "count" against the cap until they are no longer attainable.
But also remember that teams are allowed to go over the cap including bonuses by 7.5% (performance bonus cushion). Now it's dangerous to do so if you think Ryan will actually earn his bonuses because we'll lose cap space in 09-10 (so we do need to give a little wiggle room), but for "getting under the cap by season's start" and "being under budget" purposes, we can pretend his bonuses don't exist.
In fact, I believe that the performance bonus cushion was a large reason (but not only reason) for why Ryan wasn't on the team full time last season. We were running up against the 7.5% max for bonuses, but wanted to give Selanne a lot of bonuses because we didn't have the cap room to give him guaranteed salary. Hiller and Ryan had a lot of bonuses eating up cap space that they were unlikely to earn. So Ryan was sent down so he couldn't achieve a few bonuses (because they required 41 games placed), that way Teemu could get some more money. It was some in-season juggling to "free up" money that wasn't going to be paid.
As evidence, I'd like to note that Selanne's bonuses paid out right around the time it became impossible for Ryan to achieve any of the 41 games played minimum. I believe it was a day or two after.
Last edited by snarktacular: 07-22-2008 at 11:51 AM.
Where does this 50 million number come from? It sounds like speculation to me. Does anyone have a link of Burke or ownership saying that? I understand why you wouldn't want to dump that much money in the minors but there's no reason you can't.
Funny that you told everyone else to find their own link regarding Tanguay wanting out and yet here you want everyone else to provide you with one here...
Anyways...
From the Ducks blog on June 25th from their very own website;
- Reiterating that despite the fact the salary cap will be higher this year, the Ducks are still sticking to a budget of $50 million and they will still lose money at that figure. He pointed out that the lower bowl of Honda Center (which is where the real money is made) contains significantly less seats than other arenas around the league, making it even tougher to turn a profit.
- Reiterating that despite the fact the salary cap will be higher this year, the Ducks are still sticking to a budget of $50 million and they will still lose money at that figure. He pointed out that the lower bowl of Honda Center (which is where the real money is made) contains significantly less seats than other arenas around the league, making it even tougher to turn a profit.
Yeaaaaaah, that's it, the lower bowl's too small. That's why they're losing money. The 2-for-1 season ticket giveaway doesn't factor in at all. Mmm hmm.
Funny that you told everyone else to find their own link regarding Tanguay wanting out and yet here you want everyone else to provide you with one here...
Anyways...
From the Ducks blog on June 25th from their very own website;
- Reiterating that despite the fact the salary cap will be higher this year, the Ducks are still sticking to a budget of $50 million and they will still lose money at that figure. He pointed out that the lower bowl of Honda Center (which is where the real money is made) contains significantly less seats than other arenas around the league, making it even tougher to turn a profit.
Where does this 50 million number come from? It sounds like speculation to me. Does anyone have a link of Burke or ownership saying that? I understand why you wouldn't want to dump that much money in the minors but there's no reason you can't.
Irish Blue's cap site which is now under the Eklund Hockeybuzz.com umbrella.
Uhhuh, it's YOU who don't know the dynamics of salary cap.
Ducks don't have to worry about the cap as long as they are under it. It's the actual salary paid (you which has nothing to do with cap number) that matters. Ducks can be at 56M cap-wise while paying under 50M in actual salaries.
According To Irish Blue's cap site, the Ducks are over cap.
I have better things to do than try prove you wrong or care about your opinion. Sorry, chief.
Well that is the sound of someone unwilling to admit defeat. So they try to take the easy way out. Clearly you had nothing to come back with. Which is fine but at least admit to it.
You're right that the bonuses do "count" against the cap until they are no longer attainable.
But also remember that teams are allowed to go over the cap including bonuses by 7.5% (performance bonus cushion). Now it's dangerous to do so if you think Ryan will actually earn his bonuses because we'll lose cap space in 09-10 (so we do need to give a little wiggle room), but for "getting under the cap by season's start" and "being under budget" purposes, we can pretend his bonuses don't exist.
In fact, I believe that the performance bonus cushion was a large reason (but not only reason) for why Ryan wasn't on the team full time last season. We were running up against the 7.5% max for bonuses, but wanted to give Selanne a lot of bonuses because we didn't have the cap room to give him guaranteed salary. Hiller and Ryan had a lot of bonuses eating up cap space that they were unlikely to earn. So Ryan was sent down so he couldn't achieve a few bonuses (because they required 41 games placed), that way Teemu could get some more money. It was some in-season juggling to "free up" money that wasn't going to be paid.
As evidence, I'd like to note that Selanne's bonuses paid out right around the time it became impossible for Ryan to achieve any of the 41 games played minimum. I believe it was a day or two after.
I thought the bonus cushion was taken out this year. It was a quote of Bob McKenzies which bubbled into a full on discussion on the local sports radio with the Oilers' capologist.
From what I understood (taking into account that I'm slow so I could very easily be wrong), there is no cushion this year for entry level bonuses.
I thought the bonus cushion was taken out this year. It was a quote of Bob McKenzies which bubbled into a full on discussion on the local sports radio with the Oilers' capologist.
From what I understood (taking into account that I'm slow so I could very easily be wrong), there is no cushion this year for entry level bonuses.
Because there is a clause in the CBA that says in the final year of the contract - this one coming up - there is no provision permitted for the Performance Bonus Cushion.
And what exactly does that mean and why should we care?
Basically, the performance bonus "cushion" allows teams to exceed the salary cap number if it's on earned performance bonuses and defer it against the next year's salary cap. Now, this season, that cannot happen.
Just because Bob says it, doesn't mean it's right. I mean, why would I believe him over some random fan on HFBoards?
I thought the bonus cushion was taken out this year. It was a quote of Bob McKenzies which bubbled into a full on discussion on the local sports radio with the Oilers' capologist.
From what I understood (taking into account that I'm slow so I could very easily be wrong), there is no cushion this year for entry level bonuses.
I also heard that also from McKenzie and TSN. I believe the basis was that they wouldn't allow the cushion because there couldn't be carry over if the CBA is terminated on Sept 09. Which makes perfect logical sense.
But then when I looked into the CBA, and I don't see this. There's provisions for no "carry over" in 09-10, but it seems to indicate that 08-09 is treated the same way. I invite any lawyers to help decode this.
Quote:
(A) For the 2009-10 League Year, all of the above-described
Performance Bonuses that could be earned by the Players
under SPCs with a Club shall be counted against such
Club's Upper Limit for that League Year (with no
opportunity for the Clubs to "carry over" any charges to
their Upper Limit for the following League Year), unless
the NHLPA declines to terminate this Agreement as of
September 15, 2009, consistent with Section 3.1(b) of this
Agreement, in which case accounting for the above described
Performance Bonuses in the 2008-09 League
Year shall be treated as set forth in paragraph (ii) above.
(paragraph ii is where they first describe how things have been the past couple of seasons, with a cushion and carry-over).
Now honestly it seems like a typo to me (the bold part should read 08-09 to match with the 08-09 written at the bottom of the paragraph), because McKenzie's description makes more sense. If the NHLPA declines, then there is no 09-10 league year, so it's 08-09 that should be affected. But the CBA says it's the 09-10 league year that's affected.
Both the CBA in the NHL.com site and the NHLPA site say it this way. Also if there was a typo, then there should be another section saying the same thing for 09-10, but there isn't.
I think someone screwed up, but as it's written now I think there should be a cushion and carryover.
I also heard that also from McKenzie and TSN. I believe the basis was that they wouldn't allow the cushion because there couldn't be carry over if the CBA is terminated on Sept 09. Which makes perfect logical sense.
But then when I looked into the CBA, and I don't see this. There's provisions for no "carry over" in 09-10, but it seems to indicate that 08-09 is treated the same way. I invite any lawyers to help decode this.
(paragraph ii just talks about how things have been the past few seasons).
Now honestly it seems like a typo to me (the bold part should read 08-09 to match with the 08-09 written at the bottom of the paragraph), because McKenzie's description makes more sense. If the NHLPA declines, then there is no 09-10 league year, so it's 08-09 that should be affected. But the CBA says it's the 09-10 league year that's affected.
Both the CBA in the NHL.com site and the NHLPA site say it this way.
The NHLPA also has an opportunity to terminate the CBA one year early with 120 days notice. If they exercise the option, that makes this the final year of the CBA. But they haven't announced if they are excercising it or not yet.
The NHL also has an opportunity to terminate the CBA one year early with 120 days notice. If they exercise the option, that makes this the final year of the CBA. But they haven't announced if they are excercising it or not yet.
The NHLPA also has an opportunity to terminate the CBA one year early with 120 days notice. If they exercise the option, that makes this the final year of the CBA. But they haven't announced if they are excercising it or not yet.
It's actually 2 years early (Sept 09 instead of Sept 11), but yeah, I know. I mentioned it in the post you replied to.
I have better things to do than try prove you wrong or care about your opinion. Sorry, chief.
I think you would do better where everyone has rose colored glasses and gives each other high 5s all day. www.calgarypuck.com There you go, where everyone wins every debate as long as it is pro Flame.
I also heard that also from McKenzie and TSN. I believe the basis was that they wouldn't allow the cushion because there couldn't be carry over if the CBA is terminated on Sept 09. Which makes perfect logical sense.
But then when I looked into the CBA, and I don't see this. There's provisions for no "carry over" in 09-10, but it seems to indicate that 08-09 is treated the same way. I invite any lawyers to help decode this.
(paragraph ii is where they first describe how things have been the past couple of seasons, with a cushion and carry-over).
Now honestly it seems like a typo to me (the bold part should read 08-09 to match with the 08-09 written at the bottom of the paragraph), because McKenzie's description makes more sense. If the NHLPA declines, then there is no 09-10 league year, so it's 08-09 that should be affected. But the CBA says it's the 09-10 league year that's affected.
Both the CBA in the NHL.com site and the NHLPA site say it this way. Also if there was a typo, then there should be another section saying the same thing for 09-10, but there isn't.
I think someone screwed up, but as it's written now I think there should be a cushion and carryover.
Dude, all I know is that the guy who manages this stuff for the Oilers seems to think the bonuses count against the cap and you get no cushion for the upcoming season (meaning Gagner's contract is $900k but you have to hold $1.6 million in cap space throughout the entire year just in case he makes his bonuses,ect).
I think you would do better where everyone has rose colored glasses and gives each other high 5s all day. www.calgarypuck.com There you go, where everyone wins every debate as long as it is pro Oiler
