Skip to content

Report: NHL comes off $60 million cap for 2013-14

Jan 5, 2013, 3:41 PM EDT

Gary Bettman AP

Progress is apparently being made in New York City between the NHL and NHLPA.

Larry Brooks of the New York Post reports the NHL has come off their demand to have a $60 million salary cap for the 2013-14 season. The $60 million cap for next season had been one of the NHL’s big sticking points in the latest round of negotiations as the players would like to see it a bit higher, around $65 million.

One of the catches for the players’ association should the cap jump up is, as James Mirtle of The Globe And Mail details, an increase in escrow payments. You could consider this development all a part of doing actual bargaining.

  1. antkowiak666 - Jan 5, 2013 at 3:42 PM

    the NHL is the only one making concessions it seems like.

    • somekat - Jan 5, 2013 at 3:45 PM

      Been that way for a while now. Yet when it is done, we’ll still hear all the normal people whining about how the owners screwed the players over

      • trick9 - Jan 5, 2013 at 3:48 PM

        NHL making huge concessions indeed. Do you not realise that compared to last CBA players are not going to gain anything positive in the new one that will be signed soon? They are losing huge amount in revenues, and are losing in players rights aswell.

      • hockeylovefan - Jan 5, 2013 at 3:55 PM

        The owners locked the players out in order to take things the players were receiving per the terms of the last CBA. A CBA we lost a year of hockey for which the owners said had to be done in order to have a system that made the league financially stable. Now the owners are saying the system isn’t flawed they just a bigger piece of revenue and the league will be fine. Anything that is agreed to is a concession by the players. Perhaps the players should have gone into negotiations asking for 75% of revenue to provide a bunch of room for concessions. Would that have made the pro owner group happy?

      • esracerx46 - Jan 5, 2013 at 5:03 PM

        Im very anti-union as a rule. Always have been. Im on the owners side, however, the players had 72 mil for this year regardless of how good the last cba was for them. Theyre asking for 65 mil. 7 million between what 22 guys….that sounds like a pretty big concession. Open your eyes a we bit

    • killerpgh - Jan 5, 2013 at 3:53 PM

      Yeah because the NHLPA hasn’t give up 7% of it’s HHR or have talked about lessening their contractual rights or anything like that. Since you think the owners are the only ones make concession please tell me what the Owners have given the players that is better than the Players had in the last CBA.

      • bhawksrule - Jan 5, 2013 at 5:02 PM

        I still don’t see how anything on the previous CBA is relevant.
        It’s EXPIRED.
        We’re not playing hockey because there’s NO CBA.
        There isn’t a “current” CBA that they will be getting less from, there IS NO CBA.

        Nothing from the previous CBA is relevant. They aren’t losing 7% of anything.
        They are gaining 50% HRR from 0% HRR.

      • shotzongoal - Jan 5, 2013 at 5:42 PM

        Up until recently the players have had to giveback or hold. On the the remaining issues the PA will not be happy with a give and take situation.

      • kitshky - Jan 5, 2013 at 9:32 PM

        @bhawksrule ..

        Of course the previous CBA is relevant, its the only true starting point where this negotiation should have started, anything else is just arbitrary.

    • chuchie414 - Jan 5, 2013 at 5:03 PM

      True but all of the concessions are being made from the ridiculous first offer the pissed the PA off so much.

    • kegmen7 - Jan 5, 2013 at 5:18 PM

      thats because their starting position was so extreme as they assumed the players would break before they would….

    • kitshky - Jan 5, 2013 at 6:04 PM

      That is the most flawed “logic” yet …

      The owners have only made concessions off of their artificial, self imposed, and totally arbitrary starting point. They started with a ludicrous offer that nobody was ever going to accept and have simply moved off it to give the impression they’ve given something to the players.

      Once again, that’s like saying “I demand you give me $1,000. Ok, just give me $800 ….why not I just gave you $200!?”

      • sunderlanding - Jan 5, 2013 at 7:25 PM

        That argument doesn’t work because we aren’t in business together. It would be more like “business is bad in order for us to make this worthwhile we’re cutting your share” “ok we’ll split it 50/50” “still not good enough?”.

      • kitshky - Jan 5, 2013 at 9:30 PM


        It’s as if we’re partners in business and we both agree you get 57%, and then I come back and pretend that now anything more than 47% is a massive concession on my part…

        Good enough?

  2. somekat - Jan 5, 2013 at 3:44 PM


  3. ron05342 - Jan 5, 2013 at 3:45 PM

    You report that they came off the $60 million cap, but you aren’t saying how much. It would be nice to know this little tidbit of information.

    • stangz11 - Jan 5, 2013 at 4:19 PM

      Larry Brooks indicated it was to $63-$64 million. That’s a good jump but he also said it’s unclear what the league wants in return. It’s also reported that the pension issue was settled, so we’ll see

      • bigbadbruins77 - Jan 5, 2013 at 6:26 PM

        That would be huuugeee. Fingers crossed.

  4. Stiller43 - Jan 5, 2013 at 3:49 PM

    It may not be the most fan-friendly way to go about it (okay, it definitely wasnt…), but it looks like the nhlpa has actually done the right thing during the lockout. The owners thought theyd bluff the entire time and try to screw them with the deals they proposed…the nhlpa kept calling their bluff and theyve been right so far.

    I only hope this leads to a deal and we get back on the ice asap.

  5. Stiller43 - Jan 5, 2013 at 3:52 PM

    Antkowiak (and anyone else who feels the same),

    I dont care about taking sides here, but generally if one side is making a lot of concessions, it means they put a BS proposal for the other side to begin with…thats why they can make all those concessions…cause their first deal was so one sided for themselves. Then it helps with the pr battle…”oh look we’ve given them soooo much!! And its still not good enough!!!!” when in reality they put out a bs deal in the first place

    • crosberries - Jan 5, 2013 at 4:35 PM

      Antkowiak apparently just joined the cba negotiations and his mommy told him the players are being bad. He’s from Philly what can you expect.

      • antkowiak666 - Jan 5, 2013 at 4:40 PM

        your mommy would have told you the same,but she had my d@#$ in her mouth,so she couldn’t.

      • crosberries - Jan 5, 2013 at 6:17 PM

        Your from philthy I get it any other response then that I would of been shocked hahaha

      • jtrain1966 - Jan 5, 2013 at 8:13 PM

        Go antkowiak666 Go, I love the comment, NEWS FLASH : crosberries, those kind of comments aren’t a fixture to one local, if that’s the case then we need to rename St. Louis, Missouri ; Philadelphia, Missouri . Because, that kind of comment flys around here like flies on a turd !

    • antkowiak666 - Jan 5, 2013 at 4:38 PM

      the economy has changed for the worse over the last few years,so why shouldn’t everyone feel the pinch.
      i make a measly $25,000 a year and am grateful for everything i have.i know others out there have it worse then me,so i consider myself lucky.

      • mp1131211 - Jan 5, 2013 at 6:26 PM

        This argument makes NO SENSE as revenues in the NHL have never been higher. Should the baker take a hit because the florist’s numbers are down? If the NHL was struggling because of the economy, then it didn’t show.

      • bdawkins2 - Jan 5, 2013 at 9:39 PM

        Dude, $25,000? You should spend the time you make dumb comments on the internet learning some skills so you can get a job with a real paycheck.

  6. bcsteele - Jan 5, 2013 at 3:54 PM

    I’ve been on their side…but the players better take this F****** deal…like now.

  7. shaqattaqer - Jan 5, 2013 at 3:55 PM

    omfg just agree to a deal already. and as a goodwill gesture, make center ice free for everyone for the shortened season.

  8. capesouth - Jan 5, 2013 at 3:55 PM

    I just moved within a few blocks of the headquarters in NYC. I’ll go down there and smack some people around to get this done.

    • jtrain1966 - Jan 5, 2013 at 8:15 PM

      If you would, that would be GREAT !

  9. hetrick33 - Jan 5, 2013 at 4:12 PM

    been following on twitter like I am sure all of you are doing as well, saw a tweet regarding a text message from a players “things are close, but you never know”……basically sums up this whole nightmare of a lockout

  10. getadealdonealready - Jan 5, 2013 at 4:24 PM

    I’m not sure why I even care anymore…………..I just want this nightmare to end!

  11. ravenscaps48 - Jan 5, 2013 at 4:33 PM

    Have the players made any concessions? We only hear about the League giving in.

  12. isithockeyseasonyet - Jan 5, 2013 at 4:35 PM

    Just get it done so we can start talking trash about each others teams again

  13. ravenscaps48 - Jan 5, 2013 at 5:00 PM

    Get. It. Done

  14. russianrangers - Jan 5, 2013 at 5:18 PM

    Screw the union! What kind of union can be among players making millions anyway? Taking sides in this fight for greed is like rooting for Donald Trump to win a lottery. The only side that lost is us fans, but who gives a s..t?

  15. bcflyfishing - Jan 5, 2013 at 5:35 PM

    wow a concession…must be a season coming oh thats sarcasm…just it done!!!

  16. ndscott50 - Jan 5, 2013 at 5:43 PM

    I wonder if the top pro players in North America will eventually come to the conclusion that the union does not help them. If they get rid of the union you could be a true free agent. No draft, no limit on contract lengths, no salary cap. When you are good enough to play in the league you go to the highest bidder. This would not be good for the small market teams but the big market teams could buy a winner. For all the complaining the owners do about the union I suspect most fear the alternative more.

    • sportsinhd - Jan 5, 2013 at 7:12 PM

      Really? You think the owners would agree to no limit on contract lengths and no salary cap? Do unicorns poop ice-cream in your world too?

    • hockeyflow33 - Jan 5, 2013 at 7:47 PM

      Yes because the track record of pro leagues without union representation was great. I recommend reading some literature on the subject instead of sounding like an idiot.

  17. jimw81 - Jan 5, 2013 at 5:54 PM

    looks like we are in for a very long night

  18. jpat2424 - Jan 5, 2013 at 6:02 PM

    NHL players not coming off looking well. Stick to your guns Owners.

    • sportsinhd - Jan 5, 2013 at 7:15 PM

      I’d love to see how you’d react if your boss came up to you and said “hey, you know that amount of money I agreed to pay you, well I’d like to lower that significantly. Actually it’s not even that I’d like to lower it, I’m just going to lower it. I know I said we made record amounts of money last year, but I still need to throw out the contract the two of us agreed to.”

      Yeah, the owners are the good guys. I’m completely baffled by attitudes on this board sometimes.

    • hockeyflow33 - Jan 5, 2013 at 7:48 PM

      Where do you morons keep coming from?

  19. csilojohnson - Jan 5, 2013 at 7:57 PM

    There are no details in this article because it is just a rerun of someone elses reporting. Just post a link so you have more time to actually do your job.

  20. csilojohnson - Jan 5, 2013 at 8:06 PM

    Antikowak, I can guarantee the owners felt very little setback because of this economy. Nor the players. It’s the people that work for a living that take the hit. Not the morons at the top twiddling thier thumbs fing everything up.

Top 10 NHL Player Searches
  1. P. Kane (1905)
  2. P. Kessel (1453)
  3. M. Richards (1248)
  4. N. Backstrom (1157)
  5. M. Giordano (1113)