Way to manipulate the cap

[Guest EZBAKETHAGANGSTA]

Hey all, so i can't sleep at all right now so I was just doing some thinking about our cap situation next year. We all know we have Hudler, Hossa, Z, and Franzen to potetoally resign and in all likilihood were not gonna be able to keep em all. Well what if they all signed leauge min. contracts, and than also got hired on as Mike Illitch's gardner or some stupid meangingless job like that and got paid over 7 million a cut? I know it'd be hard to explain to the IRS, but if there is nothing in the Cba, why wouldnt we do it? The moneys gettting paid the same, just our cap situation would be peachy.

TAKE THAT BRIAN BURKE WERE MORE CREATIVE IN THINKING UP WAYS TO MANIPULATE THE CAP!!!!

I know there is most probably some rule in place that dosent allow Hudler to sign with the team and than as Kenny's personal driver for 3.5 million a year, but could someone please outline it for me, cause as long as i dont have difinitive proof that this can't happen ima keep praying that Illitch and Holland will follow my advice and annoy the hell outta other teams.

EDIT: So its etablished that there is in fact rules to prevent this. How about paying Hudlers dad like somebody mentioned and getting the money Via Proxy?

Lol i feel like SirDrake

Edited July 25, 2008 by EZBAKETHAGANGSTA

[Happy Pancake 6]

I don't have documentation but it would have to be against the rules otherwise EVERY team would do that.

[Cicada 4]

lol...

that would be funny as hell, but i imagine it would stir up one hell of a hornets nest

[Booster313 138]

The NHL doesn't allow hockey players to hold other jobs, they say it's because of potential off ice injuries. However you could hire Hudlers dad as your driver and pay home 3.5 million.

[omnipotent_hudler 0]

The NHL doesn't allow hockey players to hold other jobs, they say it's because of potential off ice injuries. However you could hire Hudlers dad as your driver and pay home 3.5 million.

what about spokesperson/ad gigs?

[Booster313 138]

what about spokesperson/ad gigs?

Good point....there must be some exceptions.

[Booster313 138]

what about spokesperson/ad gigs?

Good point....there must be some exceptions.

[egroen 384]

And hockey players will be in movies, as well... are you trying to tell me acting and being a spokesperson are not real jobs??? Forsooth?

[NeverForgetMac25 483]

My advice when you're tired.....go to sleep.

While I haven't had a chance to check out the CBA yet today, I am 100% positive there is a stipulation for any/all player wages to come off the team salary cap. I don't mean this to be rude, but it's absurd to think something as simple as paying on the side would be an option when the league spends as much time as the they do on all the rules and regulations of the CBA.

[hillbillywingsfan 794]

My advice when you're tired.....go to sleep.

While I haven't had a chance to check out the CBA yet today, I am 100% positive there is a stipulation for any/all player wages to come off the team salary cap. I don't mean this to be rude, but it's absurd to think something as simple as paying on the side would be an option when the league spends as much time as the they do on all the rules and regulations of the CBA.

sounds like someone didn't get ENOUGH sleep=) j/k

[NeverForgetMac25 483]

sounds like someone didn't get ENOUGH sleep=) j/k

I never do....another day of the grind.

TBH though, I would like to think most people would realize that stuff like this is not allowed. I totally understand people looking for loopholes, (and kudos if you can find them) especially after what Burke accomplished last season, but this one is too easy.

[Guest EZBAKETHAGANGSTA]

I never do....another day of the grind.

TBH though, I would like to think most people would realize that stuff like this is not allowed. I totally understand people looking for loopholes, (and kudos if you can find them) especially after what Burke accomplished last season, but this one is too easy.

Oh of course I knew it probably wasent allowed, but I have just never seen documented proof or the offical rule

[Louisville 112]

I never do....another day of the grind.

TBH though, I would like to think most people would realize that stuff like this is not allowed. I totally understand people looking for loopholes, (and kudos if you can find them) especially after what Burke accomplished last season, but this one is too easy.

Perhaps you took his post a little too seriously, I think it was more a stab at Brian Burke than anything, or not well thought out creative thinking.

Either way, you need to relax man, it's the offseason and this is a discussion board. It doesn't have to be so serious all the time, Jesus.

[SnipeShow 0]

your salary cant drop more than a certain percentage i think. like i remember leaf fans were grumbling about how sundin needed to wave his clause to help the team, then when he didnt wave it, they said he should resign for league minimum in the summer to help the team with its cap problems, but he cant drop from whatever it is he is making (6 or 7 million) to .5 mil or whatever, because it breaks some rule

[NeverForgetMac25 483]

Perhaps you took his post a little too seriously, I think it was more a stab at Brian Burke than anything, or not well thought out creative thinking.

Either way, you need to relax man, it's the offseason and this is a discussion board. It doesn't have to be so serious all the time, Jesus.

Indeed, but the OP wasn't taking a stab at Burke. He was wondering if there was actual documentation of this potential loophole.

It's funny how some members on this board think people are being too serious and then some wonder if you're kidding. I guess there's no middle ground when it comes to tone over the internet. Some of us need to grow thicker skin while some of us need to learn how to take a joke. I wasn't being malicious.

[NeverForgetMac25 483]

your salary cant drop more than a certain percentage i think. like i remember leaf fans were grumbling about how sundin needed to wave his clause to help the team, then when he didnt wave it, they said he should resign for league minimum in the summer to help the team with its cap problems, but he cant drop from whatever it is he is making (6 or 7 million) to .5 mil or whatever, because it breaks some rule

I believe the percentage drop rule only applies to new multi-year contracts. If a player is set to become an UFA their salary can drop below 50% of what they were making the year before, but if they sign a new multi-year contract each subsequent year cannot drop by more than 50%.

[Louisville 112]

Indeed, but the OP wasn't taking a stab at Burke. He was wondering if there was actual documentation of this potential loophole.

It's funny how some members on this board think people are being too serious and then some wonder if you're kidding. I guess there's no middle ground when it comes to tone over the internet. Some of us need to grow thicker skin while some of us need to learn how to take a joke. I wasn't being malicious.

The way you responded to his question made it look like it was ridiculous he was even asking it, s***, we didn't realize you were captain common sense.

my apologies.

[grsbmd 0]

See article 26 in the CBA.

http://www.nhlfa.com/CBA/cba_agreement26.asp

[SnipeShow 0]

The way you responded to his question made it look like it was ridiculous he was even asking it, s***, we didn't realize you were captain common sense.

my apologies.

ok well obviously paying a player on the side is against the rules, it seems pretty common sense to me and im sure the majority of people who follow hockey/sports think so too. i thought this thread was a joke/epic lulz but it turned out to be a legit question which is fine. we all want to keep hossa. zetterberg, franzen around longterm so its cool.

[NeverForgetMac25 483]

The way you responded to his question made it look like it was ridiculous he was even asking it, s***, we didn't realize you were captain common sense.

my apologies.

I would agree with Snipeshow, I would've thought it was common sense that paying someone on the side is against the rules when there is a salary cap in place to keep teams on a level playing field.

The way you responded to his question made it look like it was ridiculous he was even asking it, s***, we didn't realize you were captain common sense.

my apologies.

Wow, and you think I'm taking things too serious?

[Louisville 112]

I would agree with Snipeshow, I would've thought it was common sense that paying someone on the side is against the rules when there is a salary cap in place to keep teams on a level playing field.

Wow, and you think I'm taking things too serious?

I'm not taking anything seriously besides you being an ass and justifying it by saying "I don't mean to be rude."

Anyway, back on topic, my question is has the NHL done anything regarding the Burke loophole? Or the playoff rental/sign back with your team that traded you (Doug Weight, etc.)

[NeverForgetMac25 483]

I'm not taking anything seriously besides you being an ass and justifying it by saying "I don't mean to be rude."

Anyway, back on topic, my question is has the NHL done anything regarding the Burke loophole? Or the playoff rental/sign back with your team that traded you (Doug Weight, etc.)

Alright dude, were done. I was hoping to have a conversation with you but obviously that won't work. It's funny how you insinuate things about me yet I'm not the one throwing personal insults. Gofigure.

I'm not taking anything seriously besides you being an ass and justifying it by saying "I don't mean to be rude."

Anyway, back on topic, my question is has the NHL done anything regarding the Burke loophole? Or the playoff rental/sign back with your team that traded you (Doug Weight, etc.)

No the league hasn't done anything about the "loophole" because technically he did nothing wrong and it didn't break any rules of the current CBA. While plenty of fans of the opposition didn't like what he did, I don't believe the NHL is going to make any revisions at least this summer to the current CBA.

The same currently applies to the rental/sign back situation. TBH, if this one is addressed at all I'd be willing to bet it won't be until the first one you mentioned is remedied. However, I would like to see a one year minimum instituted if a rental player is moved.

[Guest EZBAKETHAGANGSTA]

ok well obviously paying a player on the side is against the rules, it seems pretty common sense to me and im sure the majority of people who follow hockey/sports think so too. i thought this thread was a joke/epic lulz but it turned out to be a legit question which is fine. we all want to keep hossa. zetterberg, franzen around longterm so its cool.

Oh I wasent really being too serious, as I know even if they could there would be a gentlemens agreement not to pull that bulls***, i was just wondering if there was anything really in print that forbit s*** like this. As Article 26 states, there is.

[Yemack 1]

only way we fit all of them together is for someone to take less. I didn't read CBA but I'm 200% sure the penalty will be extremely severe (could results in COUPLE 1st round pick, damaged reputation, labeled as cheater etc) if someone is caught doing that.

How about a more realistic approach? someone takes a 1 year contract with less money and a compensated long term contract a year after that?

edit: i only read first 2 sentence of OP's post. never mind

Edited July 24, 2008 by Yemack

[octopusonice 0]

See article 26 in the CBA.

http://www.nhlfa.com/CBA/cba_agreement26.asp

Game over on that issue.

As far as getting paid for speaking, endorsements and doing other things, those would not be compensation from a team and wouldn't apply to the CBA.

I think that you can have other jobs if you are a player; you just can't do it in a way that circumvents the CBA. If you are paid $7M to be Mike Ilitch's gardner, the league will call bulls*** on that quicker than a Pavel Datsyuk deke on a shootout.

If a player were to get paid $50K to do some accounting on the side (don't know why anyone would do that if they were making a living as a player, but it's just a hypothetical example) that would not be a problem, because it makes sense for the kind of work being done.