There is a debate about whether the NHL salary cap will increase or not.
The debate has been a topic of conversation for a while now, with the commissioner’s office recently declaring it will increase the cap to $71 million, or roughly $6 million per NHL player.
In the NHLPA’s latest collective bargaining agreement, there is an additional $1.9 million per player.
This is the same amount the NHL is seeking to pay the league’s other 30 teams.
The issue has been debated by the league since 2011, when the league was in negotiations with the NHL Players Association to create a new CBA.
The new CAB would have given the NHL a new salary cap for the next two seasons, which would be roughly $72 million.
The NHLPA countered that the new CAA was not necessary and that it was the league and the players that should be responsible for raising the cap.
But this week, commissioner Gary Bettman, who was asked about the topic at the NHL Awards on Wednesday, said that the league would be able to raise the cap by about $1 million per team, and would be “able to do so without affecting our revenue streams.”
“We are prepared to increase the salary cap in the current CBA by $1M for each of the next three seasons.
We will continue to seek additional revenue streams for our teams, which include increases in ticket sales and TV rights,” Bettman said.
“We remain confident that our existing CBA is adequate for our needs.
“I would like to thank the members of the NHL Board of Governors for their willingness to listen to our players and to engage in this important discussion.” “
The NHL Players’ Association also released a statement on Wednesday morning, saying the new cap will not have a “significant impact” on its negotiating position. “
I would like to thank the members of the NHL Board of Governors for their willingness to listen to our players and to engage in this important discussion.”
The NHL Players’ Association also released a statement on Wednesday morning, saying the new cap will not have a “significant impact” on its negotiating position.
The union was “pleased” to hear that the CAB was “not necessary” and that “it will not affect our revenue stream,” according to a release.