|
Post by blny on May 22, 2015 5:35:32 GMT -5
Bettman saying that cap is to be set at $71.5 million, BUT that includes the 5% escalator. If the players hold to form and vote not to use the escalator that means the cap will be $67.925 million. That's essentially $1 million less than this season.
There's gonna be a few teams tightening their belts. Maybe more than expected. Teams will be calling Arizona because they're well well below the cap floor atm.
|
|
|
Post by BadCompany on May 22, 2015 7:23:51 GMT -5
I read an article a little while back that the OWNERS could vote to use the escalator. Apparently they have just as much right to use it as the players do. The thought was that there are enough teams that would be in serious cap trouble if the escalator wasn't invoked that the owners themselves would have no choice but to increase the cap over the wishes of the players.
Wouldn't that be something? Owners voting to increase the cap while the players try to slow it down. All about the fans, all about the fans...
|
|
|
Post by blny on May 22, 2015 7:39:49 GMT -5
I read an article a little while back that the OWNERS could vote to use the escalator. Apparently they have just as much right to use it as the players do. The thought was that there are enough teams that would be in serious cap trouble if the escalator wasn't invoked that the owners themselves would have no choice but to increase the cap over the wishes of the players. Wouldn't that be something? Owners voting to increase the cap while the players try to slow it down. All about the fans, all about the fans... I'm not sure BC. You, and that article, could very well be right. Presently, the Canadiens have $58.775 million in committed salaries for next year. That does not include negotiating contracts for RFAs Galchenyuk, Beaulieu, or Flynn. Nor does it include offers to UFAs Petry or Mitchell. That means, if the cap is set at $68 million, they've got $9.225 million with which to sign all those players. I don't think Flynn is offered a contract. Maybe a two-way deal, but he likely walks. Beaulieu and Galchenyuk are both coming off their ELCs. The Gallagher contract will put pressure on Bergevin to give them similar raises and term. Arguments could be made to qualify both players and postpone long term deals for a year. Given the cap situation, the desire to sign Petry, the term left on Markov's deal, and the need to address scoring in some way, it's the way I lean for both. It means you likely pay more down the road, but I think it's prudent to buy some time. Signing Petry, or adding a scorer with a contract of similar value eats up at least half of that buffer.
|
|
|
Post by Skilly on May 22, 2015 8:18:27 GMT -5
The deal with Rogers , ironically, is hurting the league.
The $5.2 billion - 12 year, ($433 million annual) dollar deal, which is paid in Canadian dollars, did not have a currency fluctation clause. So when the deal was signed, the Canadian dollar was around 94 cents US, and it is now at around 82 cents US. It has been as low as 78 cents US last month. So the NHL has lost about 17% in expected revenue on that TV deal alone. This doesn't count how much each individual Canadian team has been hit due to the Canadian dollar. All the Canadian teams account for 35% of the NHL revenue stream (which was 3.66 billion last year) ... if the loss was a consistent 17%, that would be another 218 million dollars lost.
So that would be 73.6 million (Roger's deal) and 217.8 million taken out of the cap calculation revenue pie for next year ... 290 million;
The player's are against using the escalator clause, because it increases the amount of money they have to play into escrow. For that reason, I don't think the owners can invoke the escalator clause. But there is a stipulation in the CBA, where the the cap can be calculated on a new factor (one other than the one based on actual revenue projections) if both sides agree.
|
|
|
Post by BadCompany on May 22, 2015 8:52:29 GMT -5
For that reason, I don't think the owners can invoke the escalator clause. Elliotte Friedman says the owners can. Found it!
|
|
|
Post by blny on May 22, 2015 9:02:01 GMT -5
Might be a lot of pressure to do so this year, given the number of teams that would be in rough shape for space at $68 million. If it were set at the full $71.5 million it allows you to more easily sign one of Galchenyuk or Beaulieu to the long term extension.
|
|
|
Post by Skilly on May 22, 2015 10:00:39 GMT -5
For that reason, I don't think the owners can invoke the escalator clause. Elliotte Friedman says the owners can. Found it!That article says the same thing I said ... If the players dont want 5 per cent they can agree to a new factor. I read that article to be that the 5% esclator clause kicks in every year unless the NHL or NHLPA comes to terms on a new factor. The NHL just can't say "we are raising the cap by 5%", the players have to agree to it. It's already happened. The players did not want the 5% increase last year, the owners agreed. . The players didn't want to have TV money included, and initially won, until Fehr pressed for a second vote. The likely scenario is the players say they do not want the 5% increase over escrow fears, the NHL approach the NHLPA and say they want an increase to help the teams close to the cap. Both sides agree to a 2% increase instead.
|
|
|
Post by BadCompany on May 22, 2015 10:24:28 GMT -5
Elliotte Friedman says the owners can. Found it!That article says the same thing I said ... If the players dont want 5 per cent they can agree to a new factor. I read that article to be that the 5% esclator clause kicks in every year unless the NHL or NHLPA comes to terms on a new factor. The NHL just can't say "we are raising the cap by 5%", the players have to agree to it. It's already happened. The players did not want the 5% increase last year, the owners agreed. The likely scenario is the players say they do not want the 5% increase over escrow fears, the NHL approach the NHLPA and say they want an increase to help the teams close to the cap. Both sides agree to a 2% increase instead. I guess it depends on your interpretation, how hard they want to negotiate, and how much they need that 5%, as opposed to say 2%. But, what that reads to me (and other actual lawyers consulted for this blog) is that it will go up unless either the league or the players propose a different number. And, even in that case, anything less than five per cent must be agreed to by both parties.So the STARTING point is 5%. The salary cap MUST go up by 5% UNLESS somebody proposes something different. But if somebody proposes something different then both sides must agree to that new number, otherwise it goes up by 5%. So let's pretend that the owners absolutely need it to go up by 5%. Not 4, not 3, not 4.9. It must be 5%. So if the NHLPA says no to the 5% then all the owners have to do to get that 5% is refuse to negotiate any other number. Which is essentially what the NHLPA has done all these years. "It's 5% c'est tous, dats all." Now of course I don't think it will get to that, but I think the point of the article was that theoretically the owners (or the players) could impose a 5% increase simply by refusing to do anything else. As for last year, I think that was a different situation, and it involved the new money from the TV deal. The owners wanted it added to the pool right away, when technically it wasn't supposed to be added until 2015-16. The cap is based on the revenues from the previous year (in this case 2013-14) and since the TV deal hadn't yet been signed (or paid for) then by letter of the CBA it should not have been used to calculate last year's cap. But it was. That aspect was proposed by the owners and negotiated by the players. I could be wrong about this of course, and like I said I don't expect it to be armageddon, but it is strange given how poor we were told all the owners were.
|
|
|
Post by Skilly on May 22, 2015 15:08:45 GMT -5
Last year the owners wanted to increase the cap by 2 million from the TV deal, the players said no, in a 16-14 vote. They had a second vote and eventually they agreed to include half the money, and increased the cap by 1 million. (I believe those were the numbers).
I still think the players have more leverage on the 5% clause. The escalator clause was enacted last year by a slim 16-14 vote as well. If the escalation clause goes up to 5 per cent. The players lose 15% in escrow ; I believe I read that somewhere.
In any event, we will find out soon enough.
|
|