$33m Cap

Discussion in 'The Business of Hockey' started by alecfromtherock, Apr 25, 2005.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. alecfromtherock

    alecfromtherock Registered User

    Joined:
    Feb 2, 2004
    Messages:
    507
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Give the players their average salary of $1,800,000 as they had in the previous NHL season.

    The catch would be that NHL roster sizes would be reduced to 18(10 forwards 2 goalies and 6 defence) Guy has my back on roster size reduction.:)

    18 X $1.8M = $32.4M rounded up to $33M

    $33M X 30 teams = a maximum player salaries of $990,000,000(compared to last years $1,332,000,000) for a minium difference of $342,000,000.

    Granted that there would only be 18 X 30 players = 540 to the 700ish NHL players in the 03-04 season.

    Take away the bottom 160+ players(in terms of skating ability and skill = Goon) from last season and the overall quality of the game should dramatically increase.

    Some of you might be saying how cold it is to suggest 160+ players get axed for the betterment of the NHL. Chris Chelios has stated that if teams can not make it move or fold, I am just reinstating his own point by folding the equivalent of 6 teams.

    Older questionable players might be forced into early retirement with the younger players fighting for a spot on an 18 man roster(that is not even including a teams unsigned/draft choices).

    Rookies will not be a fiscal drain on their draft teams if the $850K rookie salary cap is implemented in the next CBA. $33,000,000 - $850,000 = $32,510,000 for 17 players = $1.9M average.

    For each rookie signed that leaves more money to spend on the veteran players.

    Even with the defusion of the Goon type players some little changes should be made to help the game open up. Reducing/streamlining goalie equipment and taking out the centre line would have noticeable results that would not effect the integrity of the game(unlike the goal changes that we have all seen)

    Put a better product on the ice that has some flow and hockey might fully catch on south of the boarder.
     
  2. Drury_Sakic

    Drury_Sakic Registered User

    Joined:
    Jul 25, 2003
    Messages:
    4,056
    Likes Received:
    37
    Trophy Points:
    91
    Home Page:
    Won't work...


    PA would never take that low of a cap...

    PA also would never reduce roster size(unless cap was placed high enough)
     
  3. sunb

    sunb Registered User

    Joined:
    Jun 27, 2004
    Messages:
    3,232
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Yale University
    Not in the near future.
     
  4. no13matssundin

    no13matssundin Registered User

    Joined:
    May 16, 2004
    Messages:
    2,870
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Youre totally right about the PA not taking that low a cap.. the saddest part about this whole situation: the PA may end up taking an even lower cap.
     
  5. This is not about the cap number, its about the system itself. What does your "suggestion" do for the overall system and protection of the game from the out of control salary escalation that has brought us to where we are today? Nothing. As we have seen from other industries where layoffs have been used to attain profitability for the shareholders, removing bodies is not the answer to the long term health of the enterprise. Only a solution that answers the fundamental flaws in the system will bring about an end to this dispute and long term health to the league.
     
  6. Icey

    Icey Registered User

    Joined:
    Jan 23, 2005
    Messages:
    591
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    An 18 man roster? The PA nor the league would go for that. This would mean you could only run 3 lines vs. 4 lines, which that in itself isn't terrible. But 3 lines x 3 forwards = 9 players. You then have a goalie and a back-up and your up to 11. Dress 6 defensemen and your at 17. You have one extra forward on your roster. What happens when a player or two gets hurt, but not bad enough to be put on injuried reserve?

    The PA is not going to approve going from a 23 man roster to 18. Isn't going to happen. And I doubt the league would want this also.
     
  7. Biggest Canuck Fan

    Biggest Canuck Fan BCF

    Joined:
    Feb 28, 2002
    Messages:
    10,922
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Occupation:
    Document solutions expert
    Location:
    Abbotsford, BC
    Home Page:
    I am pro owner, but 33 is just far too low. The NHL's revenues are not so bad that they drop the salary down from 55 million.

    40 is just right, with 33 being the low end. They need to force teams to ice competitive lineups instead of wrestlers in hockey equipment.

    Start at 40 and scale it so it increases 7% per yer for 5 years dependent on revenues both parties agree are. This way the PA and the owners get what they want. Owners still have their secret stash of funds that is theirs, and the players now hove a defined revenue stream to base all thier future contracts and CBA talks against.

    The world's talent pool is starting to catch up to the needs of the NHL.

    just my 2 cents.
     
  8. ALF AmericanLionsFan

    ALF AmericanLionsFan Registered User

    Joined:
    Dec 19, 2002
    Messages:
    7,598
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    141
    Occupation:
    teacher
    Location:
    Cleveland, Ohio USA
    Home Page:
    Like others have said ...too low of a cap number
     
  9. FLYLine27*

    FLYLine27* BUCH

    Joined:
    Nov 9, 2004
    Messages:
    42,410
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Occupation:
    PO
    Location:
    NY
    :biglaugh: The cap wont go below 33, id love to know what facts you used to come to that conclusion cept the fact the revenues will drop because of the lockout
     
  10. What other fact do you need to consider? Both parties have now agreed to tie player compensation to league revenues. If revenues drop, so does the compensation. The NHLPA based their last informal offer on the belief that the league revenues would be based on $2.2 billion, with an aproximate 43-71% spread. So for league revenues to drop to the point where a 71% share would be equivalent to a $33 million cap, it only needs to hit $1.394 billion in revenues. With projections of revenues possibly dropping to $1.5 billion that $1.394 billion value and a $33 million cap isn't that far off.
     
  11. FLYLine27*

    FLYLine27* BUCH

    Joined:
    Nov 9, 2004
    Messages:
    42,410
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Occupation:
    PO
    Location:
    NY
    That is fine...if Cap is linked to revenues and one season the cap needs to be at 33 million then im a-ok with it. I wasnt sure if he thought there should just be a hard cap of 33 that doesnt move or not.
     
  12. alecfromtherock

    alecfromtherock Registered User

    Joined:
    Feb 2, 2004
    Messages:
    507
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    18P X $1.8M = $32.4M is a perfect scale of 23P X $1.8M = $41.4M

    Iconoclast you have a point that $33M for 18P does not reduce average salaries from the 03-04 season. It does however lower total player salary costs by hundreds of millions of dollars.

    $990M(maximum $33M cap total) / $1332M(last years total player salaries) = 0.74 or a 26% total player salary decrease.

    None of you are saying that the bottom 200 players need to get ousted(or at leased replaced) in order to improve the quality of the game?

    You can not compare the NHL to any other professional sport or industry in NA.

    How many industries could survive employees salaries increasing more then 3X in a span of 10 years with a lot of the costs going to their consumers($41.56 average ticket cost for instance)?

    A lower cap, in theory, should translate into lower consumer costs. But as we all know both the owners and players are greedy SOB’s whom don’t give a rats-ass about the fans or the people who make a living off hockey.
     
  13. or 23X$1.3M = $29.9M, which is the direction things are headed.

    Well, that really isn't the problem. The problem is control mechanisms that protect the industry from a repeat. See, that's the problem here. The pro-pa side doesn't comprehend the ideal of protecting the industry from a repeat. They see the decrease in dollars spent and think that the situation is fixed. Unless mechanisms are put into place that prevent the uncontrolled salary escalation that we just went through, nothing will change. If one team wants to over spend, great. But every team should not have to live up to the mistakes that another team makes. That's where control mechanisms come into play and why I don't agree with your suggestion at all. It's only a band-aid and is not a cure for the disease.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page

monitoring_string = "358c248ada348a047a4b9bb27a146148"