Lockout City

sounds like they got closer on HRR, but a little more hiccups with pensions...

no news out of either side, which is a good things...

I also think we will see hockey by the 19th. Think the owners are starting to realize they cant go another year without as the deadline looms
 
Michael Grange ‏<s style="text-decoration: initial; color: rgb(187, 187, 187);">@</s>michaelgrange
A couple of encouraging details: <s style="text-decoration: initial; color: rgb(102, 181, 210);">#</s>NHL has agreed to two compliance buyouts/team in 2013-14; and variance on contracts in 20% range now

Elliotte Friedman ‏<s style="text-decoration: initial; color: rgb(187, 187, 187);">@</s>FriedgeHNIC
Further to <s style="text-decoration: initial; color: rgb(102, 181, 210);">@</s>michaelgrange report about NHL/NHLPA agreeing to 2 compliance buyouts per team, word is they will count against HRR but not cap.
 
weird back and forth from the NHL camp, one day its one thing, then next its another...

vote to disclaim staqrting tonight ending saturday
 
Bruce Garrioch‏<S>@</S>SunGarrioch As I said this morning, the tone of talks changed with disclaimer off the table as an option. Thus it is being brought back.
 
Larry Brooks ‏<S>@</S>NYP_Brooksie Belief within PA that Bettman/Batterman pulled bait and switch after initial disclaimer deadline passed.

Expand Collapse



</EM><SMALL class=time>41m</SMALL>Larry Brooks ‏<S>@</S>NYP_Brooksie
Thought that as of Tuesday players were pretty much resigned to taking what they could get. May still work out but no longer have that sense

Expand Collapse






</EM><SMALL class=time>43m</SMALL>Larry Brooks ‏<S>@</S>NYP_Brooksie
Other day NHL would allow 7 yr contract to start at 10 and end at 4 per. Now would end at 6. Don't quite get what game theyre trying to play

Expand Collapse






</EM><SMALL class=time>4h</SMALL>Larry Brooks ‏<S>@</S>NYP_Brooksie
Did the league honestly think it would be able to sneak the change in language re HRR penalties past the PA?



 
James Mirtle

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/spor...-for-a-variance-limit-matters/article6928533/

Oh the many tricky plot points still to run in the NHL lockout.
Once again, this is going to be a very nitty-gritty, in-depth look at a small but integral issue in CBA negotiations, so if that’s not your cup of tea, sit this one out.
But you’ve no doubt heard the word variance thrown around a lot lately, and it’s a given it will become part of the NHL fan’s lexicon after this is all over.
<ASIDE class="entry-related lt1484 ">[h=4]More Related to this Story[/h]
</ASIDE><ASIDE class="entry-sidebar s2of12"><FIGURE><FIGCAPTION> </FIGCAPTION></FIGURE>[h=4]Commentary[/h]Video: So there's no NHL, so what? Roy MacGregor on why hockey thrives in Canada

<FIGURE><FIGCAPTION> </FIGCAPTION></FIGURE>[h=4]NHL[/h]Video: Breaking down the latest in NHL talks

</ASIDE>What variance is, in essence, is a limitation on the amount a contract can vary from year to year.
That sounds simple, but it’s not given the way the league and NHLPA have come to define it.
Here’s the very basics of what’s believed to be on the table right now: A 20 per cent variance limit based on 20 per cent of the first year of a multiyear contract.
That means that, if the first year of a deal is $5-million, the max it would be able to vary each season for the life of the deal is $1-million.
So a contract could go for seven years and look like so: 5-5-5-4-3-2-1, meaning the player would receive $25-million with a cap hit of just $3.57-million.
The NHL’s last CBA had a variance limit, but it was very loosely defined and players were getting all kinds of back-diving deals.
The Ilya Kovalchuk one is one of the most egregious, as it fluctuates as high as $11.8-million in some years and as low as $1-million in three others. Kovalchuk will receive $10-million or more in six years of the 15-year deal despite carrying a cap hit of only $6.67-million.
Hence why Gary Bettman and the league are waging war on those deals.
Kovalchuk’s contract will not be possible in the new agreement. There’s going to be a term limit of seven or eight years, for one, and the 20-per-cent variance rule would cut down on the kind of extreme varying that’s going on.
How much could you vary, if the rule stays as has theoretically been proposed? Well here’s a long look at what various deals would look like with a 10 and a 20 per cent variance and no other stipulations:
[TABLE="width: 440"]
<TBODY>[TR]
[TD]10%
[/TD]
[TD]Y1
[/TD]
[TD]Y2
[/TD]
[TD]Y3
[/TD]
[TD]Y4
[/TD]
[TD]Y5
[/TD]
[TD]Y6
[/TD]
[TD]Y7
[/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[TD]Cap hit
[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD][/TD]
[TD]12.00
[/TD]
[TD]10.80
[/TD]
[TD]9.60
[/TD]
[TD]8.40
[/TD]
[TD]7.20
[/TD]
[TD]6.00
[/TD]
[TD]4.80
[/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[TD]8.40
[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD][/TD]
[TD]11.00
[/TD]
[TD]9.90
[/TD]
[TD]8.80
[/TD]
[TD]7.70
[/TD]
[TD]6.60
[/TD]
[TD]5.50
[/TD]
[TD]4.40
[/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[TD]7.70
[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD][/TD]
[TD]10.00
[/TD]
[TD]9.00
[/TD]
[TD]8.00
[/TD]
[TD]7.00
[/TD]
[TD]6.00
[/TD]
[TD]5.00
[/TD]
[TD]4.00
[/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[TD]7.00
[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD][/TD]
[TD]9.00
[/TD]
[TD]8.10
[/TD]
[TD]7.20
[/TD]
[TD]6.30
[/TD]
[TD]5.40
[/TD]
[TD]4.50
[/TD]
[TD]3.60
[/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[TD]6.30
[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD][/TD]
[TD]8.00
[/TD]
[TD]7.20
[/TD]
[TD]6.40
[/TD]
[TD]5.60
[/TD]
[TD]4.80
[/TD]
[TD]4.00
[/TD]
[TD]3.20
[/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[TD]5.60
[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD][/TD]
[TD]7.00
[/TD]
[TD]6.30
[/TD]
[TD]5.60
[/TD]
[TD]4.90
[/TD]
[TD]4.20
[/TD]
[TD]3.50
[/TD]
[TD]2.80
[/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[TD]4.90
[/TD]
[/TR]
</TBODY>[/TABLE]
[TABLE="width: 444"]
<TBODY>[TR]
[TD]20%
[/TD]
[TD]Y1
[/TD]
[TD]Y2
[/TD]
[TD]Y3
[/TD]
[TD]Y4
[/TD]
[TD]Y5
[/TD]
[TD]Y6
[/TD]
[TD]Y7
[/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[TD]Cap hit
[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD][/TD]
[TD]12.00
[/TD]
[TD]9.60
[/TD]
[TD]7.20
[/TD]
[TD]4.80
[/TD]
[TD]2.40
[/TD]
[TD]0.60
[/TD]
[TD]0.60
[/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[TD]5.31
[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD][/TD]
[TD]11.00
[/TD]
[TD]8.80
[/TD]
[TD]6.60
[/TD]
[TD]4.40
[/TD]
[TD]2.20
[/TD]
[TD]0.60
[/TD]
[TD]0.60
[/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[TD]4.89
[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD][/TD]
[TD]10.00
[/TD]
[TD]8.00
[/TD]
[TD]6.00
[/TD]
[TD]4.00
[/TD]
[TD]2.00
[/TD]
[TD]0.60
[/TD]
[TD]0.60
[/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[TD]4.46
[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD][/TD]
[TD]9.00
[/TD]
[TD]7.20
[/TD]
[TD]5.40
[/TD]
[TD]3.60
[/TD]
[TD]1.80
[/TD]
[TD]0.60
[/TD]
[TD]0.60
[/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[TD]4.03
[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD][/TD]
[TD]8.00
[/TD]
[TD]6.40
[/TD]
[TD]4.80
[/TD]
[TD]3.20
[/TD]
[TD]1.60
[/TD]
[TD]0.60
[/TD]
[TD]0.60
[/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[TD]3.60
[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD][/TD]
[TD]7.00
[/TD]
[TD]5.60
[/TD]
[TD]4.20
[/TD]
[TD]2.80
[/TD]
[TD]1.40
[/TD]
[TD]0.60
[/TD]
[TD]0.60
[/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[TD]3.17
[/TD]
[/TR]
</TBODY>[/TABLE]
As you can see, it’s a pretty remarkable difference between the two. While a 10-per-cent variance presents some strict limitations, with a 20-per-cent one, it’s easy to drop down to the new minimum salary (roughly $600,000) in short order, even from a near maximum salary (roughly $12-million).
That kind of variance would allow not necessarily for a Kovalchuk deal, as his is varying at more than 80 per cent at one point, but you could do something like 10-10-8-6-4-2-0.600 and give a player nearly $30-million in the first three years ($9.3-million a year) with only a $5.8-million cap hit.
That’s along the lines of the deal that Chris Pronger signed, as it was a seven-year deal, signed at age 35 that looks very much like it was intended for him to never play on the last two or three years of it in order to bring down the cap hit.
So the possibility for back-diving and circumvention to some extent potentially still exists, if the only rule put in is a 20-per-cent variance.
<IFRAME style="BORDER-BOTTOM: rgb(0,0,0) 1px dotted; MARGIN: 20px 0px 10px" height=300 src="http://www.theglobeandmail.com/static/test/charts/google/google_iframe_06.html?id=001&type=line&ssid=0Ar3M_smeSBJsdExJd20zSk45YjdVcC1xQXNsU196MHc&bm=40&lm=70&w=460&h=300" frameBorder=0 width=460 scrolling=no></IFRAME>There are two big caveats to all this, however.
One is that the new CBA is likely to include a cap benefit recapture formula, as outlined here.
Two, more importantly, is that there is likely to be a minimum salary shift level set as part of the agreement. The NHLPA previously proposed a minimum level that was 25 per cent of the highest year in a contract, meaning no single year could go below that figure.
That would mean that, in the charts above, on a deal that started at $10-million, it couldn’t drop below $2.5-million in any year of the contract.
That would push the cap hit up like so:
[TABLE="width: 100%"]
<TBODY>[TR]
[TD]20%
[/TD]
[TD]Y1
[/TD]
[TD]Y2
[/TD]
[TD]Y3
[/TD]
[TD]Y4
[/TD]
[TD]Y5
[/TD]
[TD]Y6
[/TD]
[TD]Y7
[/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[TD]Cap hit
[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD][/TD]
[TD]10.00
[/TD]
[TD]8.00
[/TD]
[TD]6.00
[/TD]
[TD]4.00
[/TD]
[TD]2.50
[/TD]
[TD]2.50
[/TD]
[TD]2.50
[/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[TD]5.07
[/TD]
[/TR]
</TBODY>[/TABLE]
Is that enough of a safeguard against back-diving deals? Probably not. So it’s certainly possible that that minimum comes up significantly.
(*- Elliotte Friedman has reported the league is willing to go to 30 per cent variance if the minimum is as high as 60 per cent, which I've included as an option in the line graph above. Needless to say, that wouldn't allow much circumvention at all.)
One of the tricky things for the PA in negotiating over the variance is that the extreme deals like Kovalchuk’s obviously affect so few players in the league positively and the massive frontloading can negatively impact other players via escrow payments.
There’s a balance there between (a) allowing contracts to be creatively constructed in order for teams to keep their talent and stars to get paid and (b) the lower and middle class of the NHLPA not being squeezed by these deals to a select few.
How the players work that out remains to be seen.
But whether the ultimate solution allows the Pronger-type contracts will be the most interesting thing to keep an eye on. As we’ve seen in the past, if there are loopholes, they’ll be exploited to their fullest extent, and variance is tricky enough that they could leave a few options open.
Click to expand...
 
Darren Dreger ‏<s style="text-decoration: initial; color: rgb(187, 187, 187);">@</s>DarrenDreger
PA hotel is buzzing in anticipation. Down to minimal issues...but, still not done. And definition of "minimal" may differ.

Expand
​


<small class="time" style="font-size: 12px; color: rgb(187, 187, 187); position: relative; float: right; margin-top: 1px;">6m</small>Darren Dreger ‏<s style="text-decoration: initial; color: rgb(187, 187, 187);">@</s>DarrenDreger
Well, if its a close as we're sensing it could be a very "good day" according to source.
​

 
Quick synopsis please...

As far as what is left...been outta reading this for several weeks...

If it is scheduled right and whatnot it could turn into a fun season IMHO...as a novice at this point...
 
schedule likely to be 50 games, it's the easiest breakdown

5 games vs division
3 vs conference

so no East/West this year
 
- The players' share of hockey-related revenue will drop from 57 percent to a 50-50 split for all 10 years.

- The league coming off their demand for a $60 million cap in Year 2, meeting the NHLPA's request to have it at $64.3 million - which was the upper limit from last year's cap. The salary floor in Year 2 will be $44 million.

- The upper limit on the salary cap in the first year is $60 million, but teams can spend up to $70.2 million (all pro-rated). The cap floor will be $44 million.

- The 10-year deal also has an opt-out clause that kicks in after eight years.

- Each team will be allowed two amnesty buyouts that can be used to terminate contracts after this season and next season. The buyouts will count against the players' overall share in revenues, but not the team's salary cap.

- The salary variance on contracts from year to year cannot vary more than 35 per cent and the final year cannot vary more than 50 per cent of the highest year.

- A player contract term limit for free agents will be seven years and eight years for a team signing its own player.

- The draft lottery selection process will change with all 14 teams fully eligible for the first overall pick. The weighting system for each team may remain, but four-spot move restriction will be eliminated.

- Supplemental discipline for players in on-ice incidents will go through NHL disciplinarian Brendan Shanahan first, followed by an appeal process that would go through Bettman. For suspensions of six or more games, a neutral third party will decide if necessary.

- Revenue sharing among teams will spread to $200 million. Additionally, an NHLPA-initiated growth fund of $60 million is included.

- Teams can only walk away from a player in salary arbitration if the award is at least $3.5 million.

- The NHL had hoped to change opening of free agency to July 10, but the players stood firm and it remains July 1 in the new agreement. But with a later ending to the season, free agency for this summer will start at a later date.
 
datsyuk did this last night

<iframe width="640" height="360" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/5h55X3uJU84" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
 
48 games if season starts on 19th... 50 if start on the 50th

voting expected from NHLPA today, BOG on Tuesday
 
guaranteeed said:
probably only a few days until the Leafs have a new goalie
Click to expand...

actually

the buyouts open a whole bunch of new options too

I think it could be a bit of a bidding war now

Florida/Toronto still in front

Philly when they buy out Bryz could be

and a few other teams
 
copied from a Canucks forum on what the TSN Game on thing had on him

- Duthie cites TOR's need is immediate.
- Johnson, and LeBrun earlier, says the Canucks can wait a bit.
- Mckenzie mentions Weiss is unlikely to re-sign?
- Bozak + Prospect (sticking point) + pick alluded to as framework.
- EDM showed definite interest prior to Lockout.
- Pang thinks FLA will likely increase offer, McKenzie adds that players Luongo is currently practicing with thinks he's all world.
- Mckenzie also thinks that shortened season might increase interest from FLA in effort to do some damage in playoffs.
- Also, NO official deal in place right now between VAN and TOR.
 
teed or brar can either update me on Kessler's status? I tried sifting through the canucks forum but didn't get too far.
 
matteson83 said:
teed or brar can either update me on Kessler's status? I tried sifting through the canucks forum but didn't get too far.
Click to expand...

mid-february at the earliest is what was mentioned yesterday but no official timeline

he was injured last year and it showed, my guess is he sits until 100%, even if it's march
 
Think the Canucks need to keep luongo compressed schedule is going to benefit teams with tandem starters

Daly said most likely a 19th start
 
Bryz will cost about 23 mill to buy out his 7 yrs

Just read this doozy @camcharron: So to be clear, an amnesty buyout for Roberto Luongo would see him get paid $2,253,888.89 a season through 2039.
 
I think it would be crazy for Brodeur/Kipprusoff to do it

but young guys like Schnieder/Quick/Price etc. should be no problem to do 40-44
 
Ya I mean if you have a guy like gustavsson as your back up you don't have much choice but having a tandem will be beneficial to long term success for the season
 
Luongo always likes to play the most as well, I will think he will want at least 44

especially if he's on a team needing him to play big to make the playoffs
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Teapot9
NHL All Star In Game
Replies
2
Views
215
KJ
KJ
B.A.R.
*** Oklahoma City vs Dallas Discussion ***
Replies
28
Views
615
KJ
KJ
Eric Antrobus
Super Bowl
Replies
4
Views
432
B.A.R.
B.A.R.
pb278817
Bowles’ blunder
Replies
18
Views
415
twinkie13
twinkie13
Kapthat
Teaser Time
Replies
3
Views
194
B.A.R.
B.A.R.
Back
Top