A request for the pro-NHLPA

[degroat*]

Prove that it is completely useless. I quote myself here, "I can't see the accuracy of linking league-wise revenue with league-wide salaries when you don't have equal marketplaces for every franchise." How the hell can you have a level playing field when there is no possible way that every franchise has the same circumstances in every possible way?? Personally, I have never heard of anyone propose what I suggested before. Maybe someone has and that's where I got it from. But I don't think its ever been tried before, so how can you say its completely useless with no proof? Hell I'd like to see all the pro-salary cap people prove to me that any form of a cap (either soft or hard) is GUARANTEED with 0% chance of failure to fix the league's problem (without referencing any other sport's CBA and/or cap plan). No one knows what plan will work, regardless of how the other leagues have done it with their CBA's, for the NHL because there are too many differences to factor in.

The only thing you need to have every team on an even playing field is a cap that all 30 teams can reach. If the owners put a system in place that achieves this, there would be 0% of failure.

 

[CoolburnIsGone]

Go back and re-think your proposal.

See if you can figure out the ramifications in any given year of the Rangers being capped at $60M to the Panthers $20M.

Once you've managed that, try figuring out the long term effect of this disparity.

Here's a hint. Under your proposal, the Rangers would be able to drive up salaries and even if the Panthers owners wanted to lose money to keep a talented team togther, your system wouldn't allow him to.



How the hell could you fail to notice the Green Bay Packers playing on equal footing with the NY Giants and having more success over the past decade?

The circumstances don't need to be the same IN EVERY POSSIBLE WAY, as long as all teams can only spend the same amount.

Really, your idea is beyond useless in that it not only fails to address the problem, it actually makes it far worse.

Under my plan you don't have any teams losing money though. Eventually you could have teams priced right out of the league but several people around here think there are too many teams already. But I think you're trying to confuse 2 different things: economic balance and competitive balance. They are not directly correlated...you can have economic balance across the league but that doesn't guaranteed competitive balance (you could still have poorly built teams). And again, the question asked was would you be willing if an independent group defined revenues to tie it to salaries...well how do they define revenue & the applicable revenue streams. Is playoff money included? Are regional television contracts included? Merchandise included? This definition of revenues would be the key (I would say that its only box office, parking & concessions as that is what is related to actual game) in my suggestion. Its not a full proposal either...just one portion of it. But the owners have had the ability all along to implement this system on their own...they chose not of their own accord and help put the league where it is today. Apparently, they didn't care either about the long term effect of their disparity then...but now its all of a suddent a big concern because of the CBA expiring

I didn't fail to notice Green Bay being successful....attributable to their history of fan support and one superstar player. Anyone wonder why they keep begging Farve to stay around longer and not retire...without him that team doesn't go anywhere IMO. Since Phil Simms retired from the Giants, have they had any decent QBs...I don't know since I don't follow football all that closely. Not to mention that I said not to reference what the other leagues have done since there are differences to factor in so the equation is different for hockey than football.

 

[CoolburnIsGone]

The only thing you need to have every team on an even playing field is a cap that all 30 teams can reach. If the owners put a system in place that achieves this, there would be 0% of failure.

Okay, there's a salary cap of $31 million (rumored amount league wants). We'll use this for 2 different scenarios:

Scenario 1

Under the guise of a "level playing field", every team in the league spends just under the cap $30 million - $31 million believing that some other team will go over the cap and revenue sharing will kick in to offset their difference in spending. With no teams exceeding the cap, the league breaks even and thus the cap can't increase. However, the Panthers organization only brings in revenues of $18 million and thus continues to lose money. Percentage of failure...definitely more than 0%.

Scenario 2

The Panthers organization realizing it doesn't have the kind of revenue in their market that other teams have sets a budget for themselves of $21 million which is well below the cap. As a result, they can't afford to keep the current team in tact and some other teams under the cap offer cheaper players for the star palyers of FL. This creates an uneven playing field. Percentage of failure...definitely more than 0%.

And I asked for proof...without referencing other leagues...for this guarantee. You provide nothing but your opinion (which is fine but respect everyone else's opinion that a plan other than a salary cap can work).

 

[A Good Flying Bird*]

Considering this thread has been here for days and you are the only one that has attacked me for my comment, perhaps we should be asking your age?

Again, I ask: What are you? Nine Years Old?

 

[degroat*]

Again, I ask: What are you? Nine Years Old?

Why are you having such a hard time understanding that your attacks are much, much more childish than what you attacked me for saying?

 

[degroat*]

Okay, there's a salary cap of $31 million (rumored amount league wants). We'll use this for 2 different scenarios:

Scenario 1

Under the guise of a "level playing field", every team in the league spends just under the cap $30 million - $31 million believing that some other team will go over the cap and revenue sharing will kick in to offset their difference in spending. With no teams exceeding the cap, the league breaks even and thus the cap can't increase. However, the Panthers organization only brings in revenues of $18 million and thus continues to lose money. Percentage of failure...definitely more than 0%.

Scenario 2

The Panthers organization realizing it doesn't have the kind of revenue in their market that other teams have sets a budget for themselves of $21 million which is well below the cap. As a result, they can't afford to keep the current team in tact and some other teams under the cap offer cheaper players for the star palyers of FL. This creates an uneven playing field. Percentage of failure...definitely more than 0%.

And I asked for proof...without referencing other leagues...for this guarantee. You provide nothing but your opinion (which is fine but respect everyone else's opinion that a plan other than a salary cap can work).

You didn't read what I said.

The only thing you need to have every team on an even playing field is a cap that all 30 teams can reach. If the owners put a system in place that achieves this, there would be 0% of failure.

 

[CoolburnIsGone]

You didn't read what I said.

The only thing you need to have every team on an even playing field is a cap that all 30 teams can reach. If the owners put a system in place that achieves this, there would be 0% of failure.

So are you suggesting a cap approximately $20 million because there's at least one team out there that has a revenue stream in their market to cover only that amount? Do you think every team owner would agree to this amount?? You might want to re-think your plan through a little more then if that's what you are suggesting. And just because you find an amount that all 30 teams can reach doesn't mean you'll have all 30 teams spending that amount.

 

[degroat*]

So are you suggesting a cap approximately $20 million because there's at least one team out there that has a revenue stream in their market to cover only that amount? Do you think every team owner would agree to this amount?? You might want to re-think your plan through a little more then if that's what you are suggesting. And just because you find an amount that all 30 teams can reach doesn't mean you'll have all 30 teams spending that amount.

No, I'm not suggesting a cap at $20M. I'm suggesting a cap that every team can reach.

 

[Kickabrat]

Here's another scenario. The NHL sets 53% of revenues and gets a $31M salary cap.

The owners decide that they will slash ticket prices by 75% to make the game more affordable to fans. Cities like Detroit, Toronto, etc. continue to sell out. Teams like Florida, Phoenix now sell out. But even with increased tickets sold the reduction in price per ticket means league revenues as a whole decline. So let's say that now, 53% of revenues converts to a $25M salary cap. The owners still make money, less revenue but less costs, but the players get it in the rear.

Let's take it one step further. The concessions in the arenas are owned by company X, that has paid the team $1 for the rights. Company X is a separate entity but owned by the same owners as the team. All the increased concession sales from all those extra fans goes directly to company X. The team now has even lower revenues to share with the players.

Now I realize that there are ways to avoid this (minimum salary cap level, definition of revenues etc.) but let's face it, these and other similar issues require time to sort out and get written down in the required legalese. Considering they aren't even talking yet, how can they ever hope to get an agreement in time to save the season? It's toast.

 

[degroat*]

The owners decide that they will slash ticket prices by 75% to make the game more affordable to fans. Cities like Detroit, Toronto, etc. continue to sell out. Teams like Florida, Phoenix now sell out. But even with increased tickets sold the reduction in price per ticket means league revenues as a whole decline. So let's say that now, 53% of revenues converts to a $25M salary cap. The owners still make money, less revenue but less costs, but the players get it in the rear.

As I've said before, there's a reason why this isn't the case in the NFL. The owners are all going to do what they can to maximize revenues. This means that they're going to set ticket prices at the point where they estimate maximum revenue. They aren't going to purposely lower revenues because it's better for everyone involved that they generate as much money as possible.

Let's take it one step further. The concessions in the arenas are owned by company X, that has paid the team $1 for the rights. Company X is a separate entity but owned by the same owners as the team. All the increased concession sales from all those extra fans goes directly to company X. The team now has even lower revenues to share with the players.

Now I realize that there are ways to avoid this (minimum salary cap level, definition of revenues etc.) but let's face it, these and other similar issues require time to sort out and get written down in the required legalese. Considering they aren't even talking yet, how can they ever hope to get an agreement in time to save the season? It's toast.

You said it right there... revenues will be defined. All of those scenarios will be worked out.

 

[CoolburnIsGone]

No, I'm not suggesting a cap at $20M. I'm suggesting a cap that every team can reach.

Well what amount are you suggesting then?? I can tell you that the yr before last yr the Panthers had a payroll around $24 million and were still losing a lot of money (I believe its in the $8 million region for losses that season). Last yr I believe the Panthers at one point had a $21 million payroll and were reportedly still losing money. I think they've got about $27 million committed for next season or there abouts...but I doubt you'll see revenues (or interest) increase in the market to match that expenditure, especially after a lockout. There were other teams that were losing more than FL as well...so please give me what your cap number is that will guarantee with 0% chance of failure to fix all the teams' problems.

 

[degroat*]

I won't give you that cap number because such a number would depend on the amount of revenue sharing.

Also, what is considered failure hasn't exactly been laid out yet. Personally, I would not consider it a failure if a team that can't even break even on a $21M payroll relocated or even folded.... especially when you consider that team averaged a very respectable 15,904 per game.