sleepy steve Posted January 27, 2005 Share Posted January 27, 2005 Curious what other people think of this idea. Let me know. The first 5 bullets are the main points. The rest are just to make it work. Parenthesis include the side (NHL or PA), and what they had proposed in the December meetings. The Details - $60 million dollar salary cap (NHL, $38.6) - $36 million dollar salary floor (NHL, $34.6) - Luxury tax of $1 to $1 on all payrolls above $45 million (PA, $.20 to $1) - Tax of $1.3 to $1 on all payrolls above $55 (PA, $.60 to $1 on all above $60 mil) - Tax money would obviously not be considered payroll money and wouldn't come into play with the $60 mil cap [this means a team with the highest possible payroll of $60 mil, would pay a tax of $19.5 mil] - To avoid a Dispersal Draft these rules would not be in effect for this shortened lockout season. But for this season no team over the $60 million cap would be allowed to add to their payroll at any point during the season. So the 7 teams over the cap would have until this summer to get under the cap but couldn't add to their payroll in the meantime. And the 11 teams under the floor would have until this summer to raise payrolls to $36 mil. - While there would be no salary rollback, all players making more then $7 mil for more then the next 3 years would require a renegotiation of contract. Otherwise, a player like Yashin (8 years left on his deal) would financially handcuff a team like the Islanders. There are really only half a dozen contracts in the league where this rule would come into effect. - Of the money generated from the luxury tax (and this would be lot). Half would be allocated to a players fund (see below), the other half would go to the teams with the smallest 10 payrolls in the league. - A players fund would be established. This would give medical benefits to players for life. Players eligible for this would have to be veterans of at least 5 seasons in the league and must have never been in the top third in salary during their career. The theory behind the top 1/3 is that those players should have made enough money to be able to afford good insurance. The point of this fund is to help the Proberts and Oliwas of the league who have health problems following retirement but never made big money to deal with these issues. Also, in leagues that have established salary caps of some kind, generally the financial gap between rich and poor players widens. - Lastly to have a season worthwhile there needs to be at least 42 games. Even if there's no inter-conference play this is not feasible considering the amount of travel western conference teams have to go through. So for this season the league would adopt a baseball type schedule. Meaning teams would play each team in its conference 3 times. But those 3 times would occur consecutively and in one teams building. Travel eats up to much time to have a normal schedule, this should compensate. So with this the stars might fly to vancouver, play the canucks 3 times, then fly to edmonton to do the same. There obviously could never be 3 games in 3 days though. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
redruM Posted January 27, 2005 Share Posted January 27, 2005 60 mill is too high, dropit to 50 mil with a minimum of 30 mil and lux tax kicks in at 40 mil, with a jump up at 45 mil you might ... might get the owners to bit. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aylbert Posted January 27, 2005 Share Posted January 27, 2005 But Oliwa isnt retired yet I think the funds should go to teams not paying any luxary taxes, and losing money. When all teams -NOT- paying luxary taxes see black, it should then be distrubuted to teams equally under the luxary tax level. Teams consitantly in the red should have the leaugue try to assist them with marketing... although that means there has to be someone able to do marketing in the NHL umbrella; which i havent seen in a while Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aylbert Posted January 27, 2005 Share Posted January 27, 2005 ...if you make it the bottom 10; you'll have a reverse playoff race... the 10th lowest being say 39.3 million, the 11th being 39.4million. The 10th team would profit a few million more than the 11th team due to $100,000. I can see disasters there... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sleepy steve Posted January 27, 2005 Author Share Posted January 27, 2005 (edited) Redrum, the owners have already proposed a salary floor of 34.6 mil so why would players now settle on one that's 30 mil. And the reason that a 60 mil hard cap isn't too high is because essentially that would mean an 80 mil payroll for a team. To date, no team in the NHL has had that. If 2 or 3 teams are willing to pay that 20 mil tax, it wouldn't create too much disparity because that would still be sending 30 mil to the bottom payroll teams. Hopefully creating cost equality. Edited January 27, 2005 by sleepy steve Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
msweet Posted January 27, 2005 Share Posted January 27, 2005 This proposal, like most of the other ones I've seen could very well formulate the framework of a real proposal. I'm not sure why both sides can not make something work. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sleepy steve Posted January 27, 2005 Author Share Posted January 27, 2005 aylbert, i completely agree that it should go to teams in the red. The only problem is teams reporting of their numbers are suspect. How do you determine if one team is in the red more then another. but you're right, determining how much each team will get of the tax needs to be fine tuned. I know Oliwa's not retired but he's the exact type of player that would benefit the most from this. If a cap is institued it's that type of player that will end up making less money. You don't want to end up having the problem the NFL is having now, where retired veterans who played for 10 years are having serious health problems and can't even afford good coverage because they were never big money makers. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NJD Jester Posted January 27, 2005 Share Posted January 27, 2005 It's not bad, but a $60 million cap + a no-revenue TV contract = Bye-bye, NHL. <JESTER> Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.