[NHL] Report: Sides agree to salary cap

[BMac]

Before you read this remember that anything can happen and that this is just one insider's opinion.

McKenzie: Reading between the lines

TSN.ca Staff

6/6/2005

During the NHL lockout, the last place you would normally expect to find any real news would be in the post-meeting news releases from either the NHL or NHL Players Association, which for months said nothing more than "no progress" or "philosophical differences."

No matter what it said, it wasn't good - and it wasn't newsy in the least.

On Friday, after the last meeting, that may have changed.

Here's NHL vice president Bill Daly's quote from that release.

"We continued our discussions on financial and accounting issues, and while we are making progress, we still have a lot of work to do. The parties have agreed to continue the process with a series of meetings next week, at which time we hope to begin discussing a myriad of other CBA issues."

At first glance, it looks like standard fare - lots of work to be done, meetings next week - but it's the final line where he says, "at which time we hope to begin discussing a myriad of other CBA issues" that could actually signal a somewhat momentous breakthrough.

The key phrase here is "other CBA issues," with "other" meaning, not financial or accounting.

Which appears to imply that the really heavy lifting on nailing down the nuts and bolts of a new economic system, from defining what is hockey-related revenue to deciding what percentage the players will get to what is the salary floor, the salary ceiling, the payroll range and all other matters relating to salary cap-ology have been agreed to.

Now, no one is going to come out and say that. The state of negotiations is far too fragile for that kind of bold pronouncement, but all the signs point to that big nut having been cracked, with an eye towards now moving on to other system issues such as qualifying offers, salary arbitration, entry level restrictions and free agency. And these issues, while not necessarily slam dunks, are not expected to be nearly so contentions because it appears the NHLPA's December 9th proposal, with some fine tuning, will be used as the framework.

We are obliged to say for the millionth time that no deal is done until it's all done, and that's it too early to start celebrating anything, but if indeed there's agreement on the macro-economic system, and it certainly looks that way, well, that is a very good thing indeed.

For TSN.ca, I'm Bob McKenzie.

Source: TSN.ca

I heard this last night and although he may be reading into something that just isn't there I think that Bill Daly may have given us all a hint that a deal could be iminent. I remain cautiously optimistic, and can only hope that McKenzie is right.

What do you guys think?

[axis]

I really missed hockey this year, I am a devoted and commited fan of the sport. But if they do not play next season, I will quit all together. I already see the players as selfish and whinners. The sports needs to be advertised better, create more revenue for the sport, put a better product on the ice, make people want to come watch games. Not the die hards, hockey needs to obtain casual watchers and suck them in to the wonderful culture. Then, when that happens, hockey will create more revenue for its teams, then and only then can the players ask for more money. If you don't like your pay, go play in Europe against lesser opponents.

[Fred Derf Veteran]

I remain cautiously optimistic, and can only hope that McKenzie is right. 

What do you guys think?

586030764[/snapback]

It seems like they do have some sort of agreement in principal and that they will tie up the loose ends before June 15th.

Probably a few rule changes to expect:

no red line

smaller goalie pads

touch up offsides

shootouts to prevent a game ending in a tie

[Mad Clown]

Don't stop watching if the owners lockout the players again. Hockey needs all the fans it can get and if you really are devoted you should stick with hockey when it needs fans the most. I'm pretty confident we'll have a new CBA before next season anyways, at least I hope we will.

[BMac]

It seems like they do have some sort of agreement in principal and that they will tie up the loose ends before June 15th.

Probably a few rule changes to expect:

no red line

smaller goalie pads

touch up offsides

shootouts to prevent a game ending in a tie

586035345[/snapback]

Indeed it seems a cap has been agreed to. Read the details here @ TSN.ca

As for the rule changes, I am glad with the changes it seems they will be making. I shuddered when I heard ideas like the goalie can't play the puck and the Bowman blue line that eliminated not just two line passes but offsides and icing.

Lets hope that this all doesn't fall through and that we have hockey in October.

[Matrix XII]

yeah I hope those new rules dont come into play either man

[Steffan]

TORONTO -- The NHL and the NHL Players' Association have agreed on a salary-cap system, eliminating the biggest stumbling block to the resumption of play next season, the Toronto Globe and Mail reported on its Web site Wednesday.

The paper reported that a source close to the owners, and another close to both owners and players, said there would be a team-by-team salary cap, based on a percentage of the revenue of each franchise.

In what is believed to be a six-year agreement, based on revenue projections by both sides, the salary cap will range from $34 million to $36 million, with the floor from $22 million to $24 million.

The league has previously demanded that the cap be 54 percent of a team's revenue.

However, this does not mean that an overall deal on the lockout is imminent. Negotiators for the players and owners are now working on other issues such as salary arbitration and free agency, according to GlobeandMail.com.

"They still have a ways to go," one source told the paper, although with the cap issue settled there is reason to hope a deal can be reached by early July.

NHL vice-president Bill Daly, the league's chief negotiator, declined to confirm or deny reports of a salary-cap deal.

But he did say publicly on Tuesday that negotiators had moved on to other issues, including salary arbitration, free agency, qualifying contract offers and others.

The lockout caused the cancellation of the 2004-05 season.

http://sports.espn.go.com/nhl/news/story?id=2080348

Its good that they are moving forward and not backwards in their talks.

[mitch00]

niice thanks for the heads up

[Billthy]

i agree... i will take any good news over bad with the NHL

[Fred Derf Veteran]

[Threads Merged]

According to The Fan (590AM Toronto).

The basement of the deal is US$22 million.

The soft-cap will kick in about US$29 million with a luxury tax of $1 per dollar spend above this amount.

The absolute maximum payroll is US$36 million.

Salaries are linked to revenues, so if the sport actually recoveres outside of Canada then player salaries will go up with the revenues.

[Toxikk Veteran]

i wonder if any of them are like. DAMN, i shoulda played a diff sport. lol.

i want hockey back though. :cry:

[Gelob]

Gosh i sure hope they work out those "other" issues soon.

[Ayepecks]

Great news for hockey fans!

I didn't get the cap at first, then I re-read it and it's roughly where I thought it'd be.

[Fred Derf Veteran]

According to The Fan (590AM Toronto).

The basement of the deal is US$22 million.

The soft-cap will kick in about US$29 million with a luxury tax of $1 per dollar spend above this amount.

The absolute maximum payroll is US$36 million.

Salaries are linked to revenues, so if the sport actually recoveres outside of Canada then player salaries will go up with the revenues.

586038168[/snapback]

Apparently the caps are linked, not only to league revenues, but also to individual team revenues in a highly complex formula.

Perhaps clubs like the Toronto Maple Leafs would be able to spend closer to the US$36 million hard cap without invoking the luxury tax while other teams, like Nashville, would need to stay near the bottom US$22-$24 million or risk luxury payments. We'll see.

[Fred Derf Veteran]

As for the rule changes, I am glad with the changes it seems they will be making.  I shuddered when I heard ideas like the goalie can't play the puck and the Bowman blue line that eliminated not just two line passes but offsides and icing.

586036109[/snapback]

I am very much against limiting the goalies ability to play the puck. For one thing, if the goalie was not allowed to play the puck there would be even more dump and chase hockey. I'd rather encourage the forwards to actually carry the puck into the zone.

Also goalies like Brodeur can help to add offence too with his long passes. Imagine if there was no red line.

I'd rather consider more radical idea like (slightly) bigger nets or dropping the numbers of dressed forwards from 12 to 9 (from four lines down to three lines).

[Steffan]

If they took out the red lines, Brodeur would have 4-5 assists every game.

[Fred Derf Veteran]

If they took out the red lines, Brodeur would have 4-5 assists every game.

586039946[/snapback]

Woot!

Not that I'm a Devils fan but it would be good for the game.

[Aaron Veteran]

I am very much against limiting the goalies ability to play the puck.  For one thing, if the goalie was not allowed to play the puck there would be even more dump and chase hockey.  I'd rather encourage the forwards to actually carry the puck into the zone.

Also goalies like Brodeur can help to add offence too with his long passes. Imagine if there was no red line.

I'd rather consider more radical idea like (slightly) bigger nets or dropping the numbers of dressed forwards from 12 to 9 (from four lines down to three lines).

586039913[/snapback]

I think they need to reduce the amount of franchises as well.

Overall this si good news, I suppose. There should be hundreds of people happy to hear it. ;) (obviously, I am not much of the hockey fan)

[BMac]

Not to argue with you Fred but I am completely against changing the net size/shape. That is totally changing the core of the game. If someone broke Gretzky's goal record in one season with these new nets, we would have to asterisk it. The net size is fundamental to the game. I think by reducing the size of goalie equipment and actually having a 5hole again will undue what Patrick Roy did by dressing like the Mitchlin man. The need to call obstruction would also help create more goals.

If you reject these ideas then I suggest this: players are bigger now than they ever were. The average height for players 50 years ago was around 5'10 whereas now it more like 6'2. This is a 4 inch difference times ten players, there is more than 3feet of extra player out there. Maybe we need to reduce full strength play to 4on4. I propose this rather than changing the net size because of the effect on grass roots minor league hockey. The nets already are huge when I watch my 12 year old brother play. The goalies are already at a disadvantage. I think that as kids get older and bigger that they could adopt the new 4on4 style. When my little brother first started playing at 4 years old there were 7 skaters a side on the ice at once as little kids can't cover that size a rink. As they got bigger they went down to 5on5. The simple transition would be to go down one more kid to 4on4. It is a more natural progression for the game and would erase the need for radical changes like increasing net size, while still creating more offense.

That's my 2 cents, take it for what it's worth.

[Fred Derf Veteran]

Not to argue with you Fred but I am completely against changing the net size/shape.  That is totally changing the core of the game.  If someone broke Gretzky's goal record in one season with these new nets, we would have to asterisk it.  The net size is fundamental to the game.  I think by reducing the size of goalie equipment and actually having a 5hole again will undue what Patrick Roy did by dressing like the Mitchlin man.  The need to call obstruction would also help create more goals.

If you reject these ideas then I suggest this: players are bigger now than they ever were.  The average height for players 50 years ago was around 5'10 whereas now it more like 6'2.  This is a 4 inch difference times ten players, there is more than 3feet of extra player out there.  Maybe we need to reduce full strength play to 4on4.  I propose this rather than changing the net size because of the effect on grass roots minor league hockey.  The nets already are huge when I watch my 12 year old brother play.  The goalies are already at a disadvantage.  I think that as kids get older and bigger that they could adopt the new 4on4 style.  When my little brother first started playing at 4 years old there were 7 skaters a side on the ice at once as little kids can't cover that size a rink.  As they got bigger they went down to 5on5.  The simple transition would be to go down one more kid to 4on4.  It is a more natural progression for the game and would erase the need for radical changes like increasing net size, while still creating more offense.

That's my 2 cents, take it for what it's worth.

586040636[/snapback]

I am not sure that I would increase the size of the next (even slightly). I merely stated that I would rather that be considered ahead of restricting the goalie from playing the puck outside the crease. I was more an attempt to prove my resistance to the anti-goalie playing the puck concept.

Now, I don't mind if they allow the goalie to be a bit more of a target when he leaves his crease. That would still allow a Brodeur-like goalie to act like a third defenceman on the powerplay.

[BMac]

I agree that goalies must be allowed to touch the puck. Sorry that I misinterpreted you.

As for being able to hit the goalies, I think this would cause a lot more fights and violence, that I think the league wants to avoid. Every time a goalie got smoked a fight would break out. Although I have no problems with hockey fights, I believe the league wants a more family friendly image and this involves less fighting.

[Ayepecks]

Man, I'm getting tired of people wanting more points and scoring in sports. I'm not slamming any of you here, but it seems like every time a collective bargaining agreement is being worked on both sides want more offense, more output... am I the only one who actually cares about defense in sports? Blow-out games bore me to tears. High-scoring games bore me to tears most of the time, too.

I love watching close, defensive-minded games. Everytime you think someone is going to score, the other team makes an amazing defensive play, or the other team comes right back and evens it up, keeping the game tight. Of course this can happen in high-scoring games, too, but then there's no thrill to it, if you ask me. When you get something rarely, you appreciate it more.

I'm sure I am in the extreme minority, though.

[bigbluepride35]

Man, I'm getting tired of people wanting more points and scoring in sports. I'm not slamming any of you here, but it seems like every time a collective bargaining agreement is being worked on both sides want more offense, more output... am I the only one who actually cares about defense in sports? Blow-out games bore me to tears. High-scoring games bore me to tears most of the time, too.

I love watching close, defensive-minded games. Everytime you think someone is going to score, the other team makes an amazing defensive play, or the other team comes right back and evens it up, keeping the game tight. Of course this can happen in high-scoring games, too, but then there's no thrill to it, if you ask me. When you get something rarely, you appreciate it more.

I'm sure I am in the extreme minority, though.

586041754[/snapback]

Offense if fun and all but defense is quality. I like defense too. When i coach the little kids b-ball team with bangbang we instill defense above all things. Defense wins championships. And THAT'S supposed to be why they play the games.

As for the agreement on the salary cap. About time. The players finally realized that people don't need hockey here in the States. They can't expect salaries comparable to the other sports. I'm glad it will also decimate my Rangers and hopefully force them to try and build a quality TEAM again instead of buying up over-priced, overrated, over-the-hill players.

[Andrew Lyle Global Moderator]

Don't stop watching if the owners lockout the players again.  Hockey needs all the fans it can get and if you really are devoted you should stick with hockey when it needs fans the most.  I'm pretty confident we'll have a new CBA before next season anyways, at least I hope we will.

586035382[/snapback]

you are right, but you are also wrong.

we can only take so much of this... it's a professional sport, and without it, we lose interest. things will change once it comes back on...

but we, the fans, cant take being bent over the table anymore... it's already been a full season come and gone, and not a second of NHL was played :angry: :angry:

they need to stop thinking about the payroll, and set that aside... and think about the fans!

[Ji@nBing]

I'll be moving back to Canada in a few weeks, and I had BETTER have my NHL next season. It's been bearable this year because I've been in China and couldn't watch it anyway (though I would have loved to at least be able to follow the scores). If I can't have the games with my buds and beer next year, I won't be watching the NHL if it ever comes back. Hopefully this is true and we'll have an announcement soon.