Quote:
Originally Posted by Jacks
Again, it would be nice if the NHL clarified the issue however Capgeek states.
In your example the teams do receive credit for the negative cap hit years so clearly that is something that goes against what they are claiming to have confirmed with the league.
|
This is part of what I was getting at earlier. Teams don't get credit for Negative cap hit years OVERALL. Or else, it would be possible to bank salary cap space for future years.
Frankly, I'll believe The Summary of Terms on the NHLPA's official website over some alleged statement from Capgeek (which I actually can't see anywhere on their website). On their website, the only thing that they have confirmed with the NHL is that over 35 contracts do not qualify for this new rule - i.e. The cap hit will be counted in full no matter what.
EDIT: found that quote on the Cap geek website. However, that page is older then the NHLPA Summary of terms. Personally, I would think that there was a misunderstanding on someone's part, when Capgeek asked their NHL contact, especially since the Cap Geek page was put up very shortly after the CBA was signed, and the contact certainly could have had some confusion.