Toggle sidebar

OT: 2012-13 Lockout Discussion Part XI: The "Please make it stop" edition.

  • Xenforo Cloud will be upgrading us to version 2.3.5 on March 3rd at 12 AM GMT. This version has increased stability and fixes several bugs. We expect downtime for the duration of the update. The admin team will continue to work on existing issues, templates and upgrade all necessary available addons to minimize impact of this new version. Click Here for Updates
Status
Not open for further replies.
Let Gaby have a bad year coming off shoulder surgery. His name will be thrown into the compliance buyout discussion. :)
 
RangerBoy said:
Nick Kypreos is reporting the big market teams are battling the small market teams over the 2013-14 cap. Kyper said the 13-14 cap is the factor standing in the way of getting a deal done today.
Click to expand...

as they should, the big markets shouldn't be penalized for fans actually caring about teams.
 
The NHL proposal from October. It was also in the proposal last week.

In the context of Player Trades, participating Clubs will be permitted to allocate Cap charges and related salary payment obligations between them, subject to specified parameters. Specifically, Clubs may agree to retain, for each of the remaining years of the Player's SPC, no more than the lesser of: (i) $3 million of a particular SPC's Cap charge or (ii) 50 percent of the SPC's AAV ("Retained Salary Transaction"). In any Retained Salary Transaction, salary obligations as between Clubs would be allocated on the same percentage basis as Cap charges are being allocated. So, for instance, if an assigning Club agrees to retain 30% of an SPC's Cap charge over the balance of its term, it will also retain an obligation to reimburse the acquiring Club 30% of the Player's contractual compensation in each of the remaining years of the contract. A Club may not have more than two (2) contracts as to which Cap charges have been allocated between Clubs in a Player Trade, and no more than $5 million in allocated Cap charges in the aggregate in any one season.
Click to expand...

http://www.nhl.com/ice/news.htm?id=643570

Brian Burke proposed this in 2007. Teams can retain money in trades.
 
Gaborik would have to completely fall apart and spend most of the 48 games (assuming that's what happens) remaining in the season on the IR for the Rangers to even consider buying him out. Either that or he falls on his NTC like Heatley did when it comes time to trade him and our only option is to buy him out.
 
truebluegoalie said:
I think it shows just how ****ed this whole process as been, and how only a handful of owners have been driving it.
Click to expand...
Yeah, I mentioned this the other day after having a discussion with upper management for a big market team. Original 6. He said the big guns were really frustrated with this David vs Goliath scenario and wanted to play ASAP - especially as they are the ones losing (BIG) money right now and will soon be behind the revenue fueling the entire league (once the puck gets dropped again).
People here scoffed at this, but this IS the reality of the different directions the league and the different segments of teams want to go.
I would be surprised if there is not relocation of 2-3 teams and an expansion (collecting $200M per new city in non-HRR revenue for the owners ) of 2 NEW teams within 3-5 years. This might - not saying it will - make the league more profitable and sustainable in the future, although adding teams (not my idea, but that seems to be the buzz & direction) is a crap shoot IMO.
As we know what side Bettman has taken, well, I for one would not be surprised to see him get canned in a year or so if there is not a big positive general rebound of the leagues total revenue after this "small budget owner" imposed lockout.
 
broadwayblue said:
they can't have their cake and eat it too.
Click to expand...

One season of an 18 or 19m spread isn't going to hurt anyone. Let them leave the floor at 44 and set the Cap at 62-63. Or hell, lower the floor to $42. It's not like they're setting it based on linkage for that season anyway. You can go back to $16m in 14-15.
 
BBKers said:
Yeah, I mentioned this the other day after having a discussion with upper management for a big market team. Original 6. He said the big guns were really frustrated with this David vs Goliath scenario and wanted to play ASAP - especially as they are the ones losing (BIG) money right now and will soon be behind the revenue fueling the entire league (once the puck gets dropped again).
People here scoffed at this, but this IS the reality of the different directions the league and the different segments of teams want to go.
I would be surprised if there is not relocation of 2-3 teams and an expansion (collecting $200M per new city in non-HRR revenue for the owners ) of 2 NEW teams within 3-5 years. This might - not saying it will - make the league more profitable and sustainable in the future, although adding teams (not my idea, but that seems to be the buzz & direction) is a crap shoot IMO.
As we know what side Bettman has taken, well, I for one would not be surprised to see him get canned in a year or so if there is not a big positive general rebound of the leagues total revenue after this "small budget owner" imposed lockout.
Click to expand...

So the question is, are there at least 4 new markets that can support an NHL team? That could be a stretch.
 
Tawnos said:
One season of an 18 or 19m spread isn't going to hurt anyone. Let them leave the floor at 44 and set the Cap at 62-63. Or hell, lower the floor to $42. It's not like they're setting it based on linkage for that season anyway. You can go back to $16m in 14-15.
Click to expand...

I agree with you. What I was referring to was their desire to have the floor at 44 or lower and the cap no higher than 60. Seems unfair that these mickey mouse franchises should have their way on both.
 
nevesis said:
“@Real_ESPNLeBrun: Another detail emerging: NHL has upped its compliance buyout offer to 2 per team, up from 1 prior to 2013-14 season.â€
Click to expand...

lol.

Basically a 'get out of jail' card.

Does this mean we can buyout players in the offseason?
 
broadwayblue said:
So the question is, are there at least 4 new markets that can support an NHL team? That could be a stretch.
Click to expand...

I agree it is a doubtful decision. Or even sane. But think/have also heard that the league wants to go this way. For better or worse. Time will tell.

Lets see - 4 new teams - 2 of them relocations - Brooklyn, Portland/Seattle, Quebec City, Toronto area. This MAYBE is OK. Then it gets pretty iffy. Kansas City? Las Vegas?? Hartford ??? Halifax???? Anchorage????? :amazed::amazed::amazed:
Yeah, I think we are close to the limit already with the 1st 4.
 
Man I need to stop arguing on the main board, because people are stupid as hell about every detail and tweet that comes out
 
BBKers said:
I agree it is a doubtful decision. Or even sane. But think/have also heard that the league wants to go this way. For better or worse. Time will tell.

Lets see - 4 new teams - 2 of them relocations - Brooklyn, Portland/Seattle, Quebec City, Toronto area. This MAYBE is OK. Then it gets pretty iffy. Kansas City? Las Vegas?? Hartford ??? Halifax???? Anchorage????? :amazed::amazed::amazed:
Yeah, I think we are close to the limit already with the 1st 4.
Click to expand...

so you're including brooklyn among the 4? that seems like cheating. lol regardless, i agree it will be difficult.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Latest posts

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Top Bottom