So then I guess I'm wondering why a team would use a compliance buyout at all. Wouldn't that also be considered not good for the owners?
- mcefalu

It was not good for the Owners. But they threw the players a bone there, as part of the transistion rules to give a team a mechanism, for teams to be able to get compliant to the artificially lowered cap number coming out of the lockout.

How would you do that? How would you account for the money outside of the system paid to a player that you made an exception for? If it still puts the player "on the books", then it is the same thing.

Let's say HRR for the season is 100M. With the 50/50 split, each side gets 100M. Is there a limit to how many players are able to get this exemption? The players are already unhappy with the escrow situation to guarantee the correct split.

Here's the bottom line, the cap is about limiting players salaries for the owners. And they do not want any money paid to players off the books, or under the table.
- MJL

Isn't that what the CBOs did? I think a bunch of high level financial and accounting professionals could figure it out. I don't think the system is quite as rigid as you think.

Compliance buyouts counted against the the players' share of HRR
- Jsaquella

Oh ok, not too familiar with how that works.

Giroux starts the season strong tonight with a goal and 2 assists.
Book it

Cap talk on opening day

Compliance buyouts counted against the the players' share of HRR
- Jsaquella

We're essentially talking about an exception that is another CBO but for the likes of Pronger and Savard, if I'm understanding correctly.

Isn't that what the CBOs did? I think a bunch of high level financial and accounting professionals could figure it out. I don't think the system is quite as rigid as you think.
- NickTheKid87

So then article 50 of the CBA where all the rules for Cap Accounting can be found is just a suggestion, and not rigid guidlines? Wonder why they wasted so much time negotiating all that between the owners and the players?

So then article 50 of the CBA where all the rules for Cap Accounting can be found is just a suggestion, and not rigid guidlines? Wonder why they wasted so much time negotiating all that between the owners and the players?
- MJL

That's why it's an "exception"

If the NHL and NHLPA agreed to a CBO-like exception for Pronger, Savard, etc. it would be legal, if it's contract law you're worried about.

We're essentially talking about an exception that is another CBO but for the likes of Pronger and Savard, if I'm understanding correctly.
- NickTheKid87

In terms of how they would count against HRR yes it would be like a compliance buyout

the rule was designed to prevent clubs from using long term deals to circumvent the cap # used every year.....I prefer the NFL way of using injury settlements....but those contracts are not guaranteed. I had hoped that there would have been changes in the last lock out to address guys like Savard and Pronger, but in end its all about protecting the system.....
- landros 2

No, that is not why LTIR was designed. Those rules specifically are the 35+ contract rules, and now in the new CBA the Cap advantage recapture, contract variablility, and Wade Redden rules.

That's why it's an "exception"
- NickTheKid87

Yes it would be an exception, just like the one the NHL did for Alexander Mogilny. A change can be made to the CBA as long as it's negotiated and agreed upon by both the owners and players.

That's why it's an "exception"
- NickTheKid87

So an exception to the cap rules. Why even have a cap then? Totally defeats the purpose.

Yes it would be an exception, just like the one the NHL did for Alexander Mogilny. A change can be made to the CBA as long as it's negotiated and agreed upon by both the owners and players.
- Jsaquella

Alexander Mogilny didn't have anything to do with cap accounting.

Cap talk on opening day
- JonnyHammerstix

I admit I don't know much about the cap rules, and basically have zero interest in reading, or getting familiar with it. It's completely monotonous.

Regarding injured players. It's simple. Like every other job in the world, if a doctor deems a player unable to play, insurance should kick in and be responsible for paying the player. All this red tape, and hoops teams have to jump through to carry players who can't play anymore is incredibly stupid.

Yeah, go Flyers!

That's why it's an "exception"

If the NHL and NHLPA agreed to a CBO-like exception for Pronger, Savard, etc. it would be legal, if it's contract law you're worried about.
- NickTheKid87

If, but it's not being negotiated. And the reason why it won't is because the LTIR rule works perfectly as designed, and is really not an issue for all parties involved. Some fans have an issue with because in some cases they feel it is complicated. But it's really not. In fact it's preety simple and effective.

So an exception to the cap rules. Why even have a cap then? Totally defeats the purpose.
- MJL

It doesn't defeat the purpose though. The cap isn't in place to keep players from retiring and from hampering teams from moving on. Pronger and Savard are suffering from concussion issues that will plague them for the remainder of their lives. I don't see how letting them retire while still paying them and everyone getting their share of the money defeats the purpose of the cap. We're not talking about excepting all players that get hurt, like Lecavalier breaks his foot and we can get rid of him.

cap don't mean poop there's a game tonight meaning we're under!

If, but it's not being negotiated. And the reason why it won't is because the LTIR rule works perfectly as designed, and is really not an issue for all parties involved. Some fans have an issue with because in some cases they feel it is complicated. But it's really not. In fact it's preety simple and effective.
- MJL

This has nothing to do with it being complicated. It's mostly so Pronger can live his life and the Flyers can move on. If it makes you feel good that you understand it and others don't, that's fine, but I don't see that as being the main issue being raised by those who would like an exception.

It doesn't defeat the purpose though. The cap isn't in place to keep players from retiring and from hampering teams from moving on. Pronger and Savard are suffering from concussion issues that will plague them for the remainder of their lives. I don't see how letting them retire while still paying them and everyone getting their share of the money defeats the purpose of the cap. We're not talking about excepting all players that get hurt, like Lecavalier breaks his foot and we can get rid of him.
- NickTheKid87

To be honest, if the NHL really wanted to clean up its black eye from concussion issues, and set a precedence for other leagues to look up to, they would make the EXCEPTION in those cases. They could have a negotiating committee that would oversee and vote on certain cases like Savard and Prongers.

If the committee votes that the injury is career ending and came as a result of a tramatic/acute nature (as opposed to something chronic like bad knees) the exception would be granted. Makes sense.

Flyers 4-2 tonight. Goals by Giroux, Schenn10, Streit (pp), and Bellemare.

Alexander Mogilny didn't have anything to do with cap accounting.
- MJL

Mogilny was on an over 35 deal and retired due to injury. He came off the cap as a result of the exception made to the 2005 CBA.

It's been explained numerous times that the HRR impact could be handled by using the CBO formula.

For someone that doesn't deal with hypotheticals , you have a lot to say about one.

I hope so too. I hope he becomes a great player for this team. I'll be happy to admit I was wrong.
- PhillySportsGuy

I'll be happy with 15 goals and say about 35-45 pts with solid 2-way play with him getting some PP and PK minutes every now and then. I think its possible.

Flyers 4-2 tonight. Goals by Giroux, Schenn10, Streit (pp), and Bellemare.
- JonnyHammerstix

To be honest, if the NHL really wanted to clean up its black eye from concussion issues, and set a precedence for other leagues to look up to, they would make the EXCEPTION in those cases. They could have a negotiating committee that would over see and vote on certain cases like Savard and Prongers.

If the committee votes that the injury is career ending and came as a result of a tramatic/acute nature (as opposed to something chronic like bad knees) the exception would be granted. Makes sense.
- jak521

I agree, especially your point about the concussion issue. I think excepting career ending concussions or PCS in cases like Pronger would go a long way in making the NHL look good as well as setting a precedent.