Brooks: League willing to negotiate hard cap up to $45 MM

Status
Not open for further replies.

GKJ

Global Moderator
Feb 27, 2002
185,643
37,439
nomorekids said:
Not Roenick. Roenick would laugh and say, "yeah, and?"

Roenick said things at the beginning of the lockout that went along with the union, but I think he could really care less about the union. He's going to be 36, he doesn't have a lot of time ledt, and he is outspoken enough and ballsy enough that he feels he can do what he has to do and if someone in the union has something to say about it, he'll call him out in the media. Maybe Roenick can be the Charles Oakley (only a bit late here) that the other columnist was looking for in the NHL players. If Roenick thinks he has something to offer to the process, he'll do it.
 

The Maltais Falcon

Registered User
Jan 9, 2005
1,156
1
Atlanta, GA
ChiHawks468 said:
He had access to an NHL media website revoked. He still has his media pass, which I beleive the NHL can't do anything about.
That's not true. The NHL has complete control over who can and cannot have media credentials to their events. They can't control who writes about them but they can control who has access to their events.

Like someone joked on the thread about Brooks not being able to get into the NHL media website, the moron probably left his CAPS LOCK key on when typing in his username and password.
 

Poochie_D

Registered User
Oct 31, 2004
2,805
4
Montreal, Quebec
if the nhlpa was smart they would make a 45m dollar cap offer NOW. otherwise they will be wishing they took the 40 m dollar cap offer from the league when gary says he won't go over 35m
 

Flyers Hockey

Registered User
Feb 17, 2005
26
0
pei fan said:
The moderators should lock all these threads spewing this garbage .THE SEASON
IS OVER.
they should lock posts like this. Ones that are just stupid. The season PROBABLY is still over, but obviously there is still a little hope and for true hockey fans to hold out hope is normal and expected.
 

CGG

Registered User
Jan 6, 2005
4,136
55
416
pei fan said:
The moderators should lock all these threads spewing this garbage .THE SEASON
IS OVER.

Seriously, you need to stop reading this whole board if that is going to be your attitude. If you truly think it's over, why read a thread about this? Legitimate sources are being cited for this whole topic of conversation -- newspapers, radio, etc. If people want to discuss it, we will. If you actually know something that no one else knows, that the SEASON IS OVER, then go away until September.
 

barnburner

Registered User
Apr 23, 2004
567
0
nomorekids said:
I don't care what people say about Roenick, but I have ALWAYS loved his forthrightness. Something tells me that while Pronger might have been involved, while Iginla might have been involved...both of those guys would backpedal to save face. Not Roenick. Roenick would laugh and say, "yeah, and?"

I'm a Blues fan, so Roenick has always been an enemy in my world, BUT - I have always been a huge fan of the way he plays the game, and stands up and takes his punishment when it's his turn, without whining. J.R. is one of todays players that would have fit right in during the 60s and 70s.
It's a shame we don't have more players that are not willing to be led meekly and blindly down the path, without speaking their mind.
 

Jester

Registered User
Jul 9, 2004
34,076
11
St. Andrews
MmmBacon said:
I'm paraphrasing, but he basically said the revenue sharing plan would vary, depending on the structure of the future CBA. Because the league didn't know what type of CBA would ultimately be signed, he didn't want to delve into the revenue sharing details.

Kind of a weak answer, IMO, since many other elements of these "rough draft" plans have been laid out in minute detail. But that's another thread, I guess.

here's the problem with the nhlpa's attack on the nhl's lack of revenue sharing plan. how do you work out how much money you need to funnel if you don't know what the numbers you are trying to reach is? what you DON'T want to happen is teams that need money getting money and pocketing it. so all you really want to do is give teams enough money that they can get to the 32 million minimum or whatever it is, no more, no less.

thus you need to know what those numbers are in order to institute it. goodenow can go on WFAN and complain about revenue sharing all he wants, but the simple truth is the framework to build the revenue sharing on top of isn't in place because he refuses to accept anything... hell, in his "free market" world, why would any of the owners want to have any revenue sharing? if you are going to have revenue sharing a minimum salary level is necessary, and they shouldn't get more than they need to reach that... basically, owners shouldn't make money off of revenue sharing.

sidenote: the big problem in baseball is that teams simply pocket the revenue sharing money that they get. what does this accomplish? KC definitely does this, among others.
 

Jester

Registered User
Jul 9, 2004
34,076
11
St. Andrews
Flyers Hockey said:
they should lock posts like this. Ones that are just stupid. The season PROBABLY is still over, but obviously there is still a little hope and for true hockey fans to hold out hope is normal and expected.

exactly. i don't think anything is coming from this in terms of this season. my one hope is that these morons work out a deal prior to the start of next season so we don't need to go through this crap all over again.

it would be mildly amazing if a group of players can work under the radar and get everyone on the same page in time to save the season. that being said, it wouldn't shock me at all if the, "holy shyte, they actually cancelled the season" reaction got them to a reality check at long last.

we shall see.
 

Bauer83

Registered User
Aug 27, 2004
577
0
Jester said:
here's the problem with the nhlpa's attack on the nhl's lack of revenue sharing plan. how do you work out how much money you need to funnel if you don't know what the numbers you are trying to reach is? what you DON'T want to happen is teams that need money getting money and pocketing it. so all you really want to do is give teams enough money that they can get to the 32 million minimum or whatever it is, no more, no less.

thus you need to know what those numbers are in order to institute it. goodenow can go on WFAN and complain about revenue sharing all he wants, but the simple truth is the framework to build the revenue sharing on top of isn't in place because he refuses to accept anything... hell, in his "free market" world, why would any of the owners want to have any revenue sharing? if you are going to have revenue sharing a minimum salary level is necessary, and they shouldn't get more than they need to reach that... basically, owners shouldn't make money off of revenue sharing.

sidenote: the big problem in baseball is that teams simply pocket the revenue sharing money that they get. what does this accomplish? KC definitely does this, among others.

Very good and informed post, and I have never thought of it in that light. I have to agree I am not pleased with the lack of NHL revenue sharing plan, but I do know when they were originally offering a floor, that this must be meant by law and its their own business to do. The only thing I don't like is it might help just the teams that are below the floor, and not teams that are just below average, but still above the floor. But heck all these details are for lawyers and accountants to work out.
 

Jester

Registered User
Jul 9, 2004
34,076
11
St. Andrews
Bauer83 said:
Very good and informed post, and I have never thought of it in that light. I have to agree I am not pleased with the lack of NHL revenue sharing plan, but I do know when they were originally offering a floor, that this must be meant by law and its their own business to do. The only thing I don't like is it might help just the teams that are below the floor, and not teams that are just below average, but still above the floor. But heck all these details are for lawyers and accountants to work out.

you get them to the floor and that is as far as you should need to take. think about it this way, the owners proposal was a 10 million dollar gap between minimum to max. compared to before, that is nothing. UFA's are going to get distributed much more easily across the league, teams will keep talent, etc... that will have a massive effect on the way business used to operate.

i also have a thesis.

winning breeds fans. people are front-runners, this is a fact. if some of these teams that have been stuck with small market fan bases, thus can't generate consistent good revenue and keep their good players can get consistently good and start to do those things they will slowly start to get to the point where they don't need to be propped up in revenue sharing and be able to work towards getting at the top of the cap level.

revenue sharing should be a crutch... not a permanently established thing. long term you want all your markets to be viable on their own, without help from the others... and at the same time you want EVERYONE to be competitive. the nhlpa does not address competitive balance at all in any of their thought processes because what do they care? they've proven that when they hit UFA status they will go to the consistent winners and thus have their chance at winning... that leaves the fans out in the cold.

a change to that dynamic needs to occur.
 

FLYLine27*

BUCH
Nov 9, 2004
42,410
14
NY
pei fan said:
The moderators should lock all these threads spewing this garbage .THE SEASON
IS OVER.
Why dont you just not click articles and posts like this then? Problem solved for you.
 

Bauer83

Registered User
Aug 27, 2004
577
0
Jester said:
you get them to the floor and that is as far as you should need to take. think about it this way, the owners proposal was a 10 million dollar gap between minimum to max. compared to before, that is nothing. UFA's are going to get distributed much more easily across the league, teams will keep talent, etc... that will have a massive effect on the way business used to operate.

i also have a thesis.

winning breeds fans. people are front-runners, this is a fact. if some of these teams that have been stuck with small market fan bases, thus can't generate consistent good revenue and keep their good players can get consistently good and start to do those things they will slowly start to get to the point where they don't need to be propped up in revenue sharing and be able to work towards getting at the top of the cap level.

revenue sharing should be a crutch... not a permanently established thing. long term you want all your markets to be viable on their own, without help from the others... and at the same time you want EVERYONE to be competitive. the nhlpa does not address competitive balance at all in any of their thought processes because what do they care? they've proven that when they hit UFA status they will go to the consistent winners and thus have their chance at winning... that leaves the fans out in the cold.

a change to that dynamic needs to occur.

Agree with a lot of the stuff you say. But there are two ways to look at revenue sharing. In the NFL the green bay packers, from what I have read so please don't start throwing knives if I am wrong, do not generate that much revenue even though they have extremely dedicated fans. The major revenue sharing program in the league allows them to always be competitive, and to always be showing a profit. This also makes every team want to grow the league, as the more the league grows the more the profit grows.

The other is the way that you looked at it. Now it is so true that winning brings people into the building. Look at vancouver now, tickets are almost impossible to come by. But it has not always been that way. Same with Calgary, and if this year was to start up they would most likely have sold out every game. So allowing each team to hit the floor works, but to me it only works as long as the gap between the floor and the cap is reasonably, and not in the 25-30 million dollar range. I would have really liked a 15 million dollar gap, with revenue sharing allowing the teams to stay within that range. Then it puts an onus on the management to make smart drafting decisions and trades, to build a winning franchise.
 

Jaded-Fan

Registered User
Mar 18, 2004
52,446
14,304
Pittsburgh
I am also hoping that something along the lines of the NHL's original proposal of a $10 million gap between floor and ceiling is in the final CBA. $32 - $42 million sounds good to me, and will give every team a very good chance year in year out and yet allow for differences in development stage of various teams, some rebuilding, some shooting for a Cup. Note that I am sure, like in the NFL, those numbers can be played with for a Cup run with signing bonuses and restructuring contracts. This by far would be the best outcome in my book, as otherwise, as has been said above, some owners will no doubt field bare bones teams and pocket any revenue sharing, etc.

One other advantage none have spoken of. Many many teams under a properly run revenue sharing system will be 'givers' some years and 'takers' others. True there are some markets that will always be so large to be amost permanently 'givers' but we are a gate driven league, at least for now. Your team has a stanley cup run you make more, both from increased fan interest in a winning team and the playoff tickets. Out of the playoffs and rebuilding for 3 or 4 years fans decrease and no playoff money. Look at my Pens, only three and four years ago they had payrolls of $32 and $33 million and for a twenty some year run had attendence smack dab in the middle of the pack, approaching 16,000 many years, and over some. The past few years they went into rebuilding, sold off players and attendence naturally dropped. When you are rebuilding your team will likely be a taker, a giver when not, so this effects many more teams in a gate driven environment.

Final point: Tangent to what I said above, I absolutely friggin hate when people are making their lists of teams to get rid of they take a snapshot of this moment and never look at the big picture. Perhaps half on that 'list' you all compile are there because they are in a rebuilding mode, or are new and never yet built up. For whatever reason they are not at this moment at a stage where the fans can be tested while having a winning team. Some, such as my Pens, have a past where the market has been tested with winning teams and sold out many games. So please look at the big picture if I am to take your arguments seriously.
 
Last edited:

Jester

Registered User
Jul 9, 2004
34,076
11
St. Andrews
Bauer83 said:
Agree with a lot of the stuff you say. But there are two ways to look at revenue sharing. In the NFL the green bay packers, from what I have read so please don't start throwing knives if I am wrong, do not generate that much revenue even though they have extremely dedicated fans. The major revenue sharing program in the league allows them to always be competitive, and to always be showing a profit. This also makes every team want to grow the league, as the more the league grows the more the profit grows.

The other is the way that you looked at it. Now it is so true that winning brings people into the building. Look at vancouver now, tickets are almost impossible to come by. But it has not always been that way. Same with Calgary, and if this year was to start up they would most likely have sold out every game. So allowing each team to hit the floor works, but to me it only works as long as the gap between the floor and the cap is reasonably, and not in the 25-30 million dollar range. I would have really liked a 15 million dollar gap, with revenue sharing allowing the teams to stay within that range. Then it puts an onus on the management to make smart drafting decisions and trades, to build a winning franchise.

each team in the NFL gets something like 80+ million dollars a year from tv alone. add to this the fact that NFL gate is 60/40, road team gets 40% of the gate for all games.

NFL is really not comparable to the NHL due to the TV contract... which the NHLPA attempts to use to prove their cap point, but it really isn't applicable because it still fails to address competitive balance in the league.
 

A Good Flying Bird*

Guest
bhawk24bob said:
exactly. he's also part of the 2 percent of the players that actually shows up every night with the intention of putting on a show for the fans. i would love for somebody in the pa to go up to roenick and see his reaction to how they feel over what he did.

Maybe it's because you're a blackhawks fan, but I've gotta say, two percent is extremely low.
I'd say that about 80 percent of the NHL guys show up and bust ass each and every game.
(maybe showing up and the intention to put on a show are two different things0

Either way, I've got not qualms with JR. He's a media ho. But I've gained respect for him over the years, even if I sometimes question his motives.
If he's dissatisfied with the PA's negotiating, he's got every right to work behind the scenes and change it.
 

Bauer83

Registered User
Aug 27, 2004
577
0
Jester said:
each team in the NFL gets something like 80+ million dollars a year from tv alone. add to this the fact that NFL gate is 60/40, road team gets 40% of the gate for all games.

NFL is really not comparable to the NHL due to the TV contract... which the NHLPA attempts to use to prove their cap point, but it really isn't applicable because it still fails to address competitive balance in the league.

But my argument to that is define revenues in a differ way then. Learn how to share the revenue that is brought into the league in other ways. The NHL still has tv contracts, just not amazing deals like the NFL. To me that is just making up an excuse, as there are still 2.1B in revenues(or was). I can understand the owners not wanting to hand there money over, but the league is in dire needs. I had a feeling if the NHL would have offered a 32 million floor in their last offer, the players would have jumped. Could be wrong because they continue to say they want the gap between teams to allow a marketplace, but if they were a good union they would take that deal in a sec. So that would require a good revenue sharing plan from the league. Once the deal is cut, sit down with the players and all owners and determine a way to grow the revenues. For all you people who say hockey is just completely dead in the states, I am sorry but its not. Its just not a major sport yet, and it will take its time. But I am from Edmonton, and two years ago made a road trip to watch my oilers in Phoenix. Sat with around 9000 fans which is extremely small, but being the intoxicated fella I was I talked with everyone. And around 10 people that I ended up sitting beside, had said that they watched two games last year, and just became hooked that they bought season tickets this year. It will take time for it to become a big 3 sport, and that is why the league requires a plan that allows everyone to think long term.
 

Jester

Registered User
Jul 9, 2004
34,076
11
St. Andrews
Bauer83 said:
But my argument to that is define revenues in a differ way then. Learn how to share the revenue that is brought into the league in other ways. The NHL still has tv contracts, just not amazing deals like the NFL. To me that is just making up an excuse, as there are still 2.1B in revenues(or was). I can understand the owners not wanting to hand there money over, but the league is in dire needs. I had a feeling if the NHL would have offered a 32 million floor in their last offer, the players would have jumped. Could be wrong because they continue to say they want the gap between teams to allow a marketplace, but if they were a good union they would take that deal in a sec. So that would require a good revenue sharing plan from the league. Once the deal is cut, sit down with the players and all owners and determine a way to grow the revenues. For all you people who say hockey is just completely dead in the states, I am sorry but its not. Its just not a major sport yet, and it will take its time. But I am from Edmonton, and two years ago made a road trip to watch my oilers in Phoenix. Sat with around 9000 fans which is extremely small, but being the intoxicated fella I was I talked with everyone. And around 10 people that I ended up sitting beside, had said that they watched two games last year, and just became hooked that they bought season tickets this year. It will take time for it to become a big 3 sport, and that is why the league requires a plan that allows everyone to think long term.

those people are going to drop their tickets after this... which is why teams my die if this doesn't get resolved quickly.

the players have shown zero interest in actually getting involved in defining revenue's and dealing with the hard money of the league. the fact that they've refused to hire their own people to audit the NHL is proof of this (and doesn't make sense why they wouldn't do it just for the sake of it).

the NHL had a 90 million dollar revenue sharing plan to go. that would probably have gotten everyone that needed help to the threshold.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad

-->