The Biggest Hurdle has been cleared, so sayeth the Globe and Mail.
That’s right folks - a cap system is now in place on the foundation of a new Collective Bargaining Agreement… The devil now moves to the details - free agency, arbitration, and a plethora of other issues (I wonder if they’ll get the face-shield issue ironed out? It’s long been forgotten because of the war over the cap)….
They say the CBA is no where near completion just because they have this issue solved… But it’s hard to believe that so much knowing the widest valley between the NHL and the PA has been bridged.
There’s no saying how receptive the players — the actual PA members - will be to this, but if they don’t wnat to further look like spoiled and greedy, they should think of the fall out if they do not give their blessing to the system…
I’m looking at the details and if this is factual - the PA is really getting shelled in the cap constraints. From TSN.ca:
According to the Globe’s league and player sources, a team-by-team salary floor and cap will based on a percentage of each NHL team’s revenue. The paper adds that in the first year - based on revenue projections by both sides - the salary cap will range from $34 million to $36 million US, with the floor from $22 million to $24 million US.
The Globe also reports that the formula calls for a dollar-for-dollar luxury tax to kick in at the halfway mark between the floor and the cap. If the floor of the lowest team is $22 million US and the cap on the highest team is $36 million US, then the ‘tax level’ will be $29 million US.
The formula would allow wealthier teams to spend a bit more money, but would also bridge the large gaps in spending between higher payroll teams and lower payroll teams.
I have never been an NHLPA apologist through the labor war - there has never been an ounce of remorse for the PA in me when they’ve outright rejected offers from ownership… I’ve usually wholely agreed with the likes of John Romano and realist fans like my colleague Keith who talked about how the NHLPA was going to get a worse and worse deal as they continued to drag their feet… This Cap agreement is the proof of that if it’s real. I almost feel a tinge of sorrow for what the NHLPA gave up - and what the players, by turning a blind eye, chose to give up as well.
Loading ...
3 Comments until now
John: I fail to see where this is a worse deal for the PA. The Feb offer from the league contained no cap floor and allowed no provisions for that cap to rise with revenues, plus made only vague allusions to increased revenue sharing.
Under this, the players get a cap floor as well as a ceiling, which will be tied to increased revenues, meaning that in two or three seasons that $42.5 million cap the league claimed the players would never see again becomes a distinct possibility. And the luxury tax ensures small market clubs will have the money to spend well above the minimum amount.
This deal means the impact upon the rank and file salaries won’t be as severe as it would’ve been under the league’s February proposal.
Well, The question is, will the players make as much with this floating cap as it would under that $42.5 million hard cap?
There are a lot of questions surrounding this rumored deal. The biggest is: “What if revenues arent what the NHL and NHLPA project?” If that is the case, year two could see an even lower cap.
Second is whether revenues will increase at enough of a rate to make up the difference between the Feb deal and this one.
Of course, while you only compare this vs the fixed cap proposal, the NHL also had a linked cap proposal at 54% at that time as well. The question is, would the players have made more at a 54% linked cap with hockey returning last February, or at a 54% linked cap starting in September? Chances are that February would have been better in this regard.
IMO, the lack of a salary floor, and clarification about revenue sharing is not a meaningful argument that this deal is better for the players than February would have been. If the union had bothered to negotiate at some point before the cancellation of the season, these points could have been hashed out and agreed upon. It’s not like the NHL took positions against these two aspects of the deal but “caved” in to player pressure.
Keith: remember in the earlier deal, the league agreed to remove linkage…but! They were still trying to eliminate salary arbitration, bonus clauses in entry level salaries, slash QOs by 25 percent, and made only vague allusions to revenue sharing. What’s more, the league was insisting in their previous demands for linkage that it be based on the Levitt Report, which the PA was against since it was merely a review of UROs and not a “super-audit” as Bettman claimed.
Those revenues will increase. After all, the league is seeking to improve their product, which if successful translates into more revenue, not less.
The union HAD been trying to negotiate, but the league kept stubbornly insisting on linkage and a hard cap. So the PA has changed tactics, but to get the linkage and salary cap, the league had to agree to a better system of determination and reportage of revenue, plus agree to increase the cap should revenues increase, two things they never would’ve agreed to prior to the cancellation of the season.