Brooks:NHLPA proposal details

[mooseOAK*]

Lost millions? Guess it depends what you mean by that, but compared to most teams, no he really hasn't lost that much. He actually has made more than he has lost and he has also watched the value of his team grow $200M in ten years. Not a bad return on his investment, considering he paid $84M for the team in 1995.

Hicks had the team for sale for one year and the reason the team did not sell? The same reason many people houses do not sell, he overpriced the team. He wanted close to $300M for the team in 2002, and it wasn't worth the money and he wouldn't sell it for less. He did have a few offers.

But I wouldn't worry too much about poor Tom. He lives in the most expensive house in Dallas at 29,000 square feet valued at $26M. I think he's doing just fine.

And unlike most of the rest of the league, the Stars have actually lost more by not playing than playing.

Year/Franchise Value/Revenue/Net income
1994-95 $43 million $21.7 million $2.2 million
1995-96 $63 million $33.9 million -$1.0 million
1996-97 Not Available
1997-98 $118 million $45.6 million -$2.6 million
1998-99 $149 million $59.4 million -$5.2 million
1999-00 $182 million $72.7 million $2.1 million
2000-01 $207 million $70.0 million -$4.3 million
2001-02 $254 million $96.0 million $6.3 million
2002-03 $270 million $108.0 million $5.6 million
2003-04 $259 million $103.0 million -$0.3 million

I'd have to question how real these numbers are after finding out that the Ducks were just sold for basically the same as their franchise price over 10 years ago.

There must be some reason why Hicks is trying to sell his team and can't find any takers.

 

[nyrmessier011]

i didn't read through the article, but basically what im getting from rangerboy is that the PA "offered" a cap of 42.5, revenue sharing and a possibility that the cap moves down...if I am right with what I am saying, shouldn't there be a deal soon?

 

[free0717]

Well if Brooks is right, we should have a deal reasonably quick however, i just hope bettman doesnt get greedy and drive another nail in the coffin and piss off the players again. Once the owners go too hard line, the players will ban together as they always have been taught and we will lose more NHL Hockey. Both the Players and Owners need to embrace the Paradigm of the right deal. No losers just two winners.

 

[RangerBoy]

i didn't read through the article, but basically what im getting from rangerboy is that the PA "offered" a cap of 42.5, revenue sharing and a possibility that the cap moves down...if I am right with what I am saying, shouldn't there be a deal soon?

The salary range gap is too big for the NHL.The NHL doesn't want a $20 million difference from what the big market teams will spend in comparision to the small market teams

 

[mooseOAK*]

Well if Brooks is right, we should have a deal reasonably quick however, i just hope bettman doesnt get greedy and drive another nail in the coffin and piss off the players again. Once the owners go too hard line, the players will ban together as they always have been taught and we will lose more NHL Hockey. Both the Players and Owners need to embrace the Paradigm of the right deal. No losers just two winners.

There is no way that either side can win now, all they can do is stem further losses.

 

[Mess]

The salary range gap is too big for the NHL.The NHL doesn't want a $20 million difference from what the big market teams will spend in comparision to the small market teams

NHL last proposal

Had a $ 37.5 Hard Cap ceiling and $ 21 Mil Hard Cap floor.

Difference : 16.5 Mil


Brooks numbers from Article ..

As we understand it, the PA proposed an approximate team payroll range between $24M-and-$42.5M for 2005-06 (maybe slightly less),

Difference : 18.5 Mil

 

[nyrmessier011]

NHL last proposal

Had a $ 37.5 Hard Cap ceiling and $ 21 Mil Hard Cap floor.

Difference : 16.5 Mil


Brooks numbers from Article ..

As we understand it, the PA proposed an approximate team payroll range between $24M-and-$42.5M for 2005-06 (maybe slightly less),

Difference : 18.5 Mil

exactly what i was going to post...if this is all true, I can't see even Bettman ruining this one...I think for the PA to propose around 40 means they want revenue sharing that the league doesn't...i think the number is conditional upon some other things the players want, which isn't too much to ask given they agreed a hard salary cap in the low 40's...the first cap on salaries in the NHLs history

 

[Boltsfan2029]

exactly what i was going to post...if this is all true, I can't see even Bettman ruining this one...I think for the PA to propose around 40 means they want revenue sharing that the league doesn't...i think the number is conditional upon some other things the players want, which isn't too much to ask when they agreed to a hard salary cap at 42.5 million.

Aren't there loopholes that make that cap actually closer to $50M? I've read so many theories, proposals, opinions and outright fabrications that I've lost track.

I'd assume that the "hard cap" would mean they've dropped the franchise player exception? Or was that ever really proposed?

 

[nyrmessier011]

Aren't there loopholes that make that cap actually closer to $50M? I've read so many theories, proposals, opinions and outright fabrications that I've lost track.

I'd assume that the "hard cap" would mean they've dropped the franchise player exception? Or was that ever really proposed?

we don't know if that was ever proposed...I haven't heard confirmation of it and I go to a half dozen sites to read about the lockout...eklund garbage

 

[SENSible1*]

Until we know the exact terms, speculation on the impact is useless.

For example:

A 42.5 cap with a franchise exemption and linked to next year's low revenues is a terrible offer.

A 42.5 cap with no franchise exemption and linked to 2003-04 revenues of 2.1 B is quite reasonable.

 

[kerrly]

Well..

If they keep getting into the playoffs(which the odds of that happening looked good going into last season) and possibly keep winning a few rounds here and ther(which they had an outside shot at) they could have likely afforded to pay that to him for the long haul..

thats how it works.. pay the guy... and if you keep winning.. you can afford to pay the guy.. if not.. you cannot afford to keep him so you let him go..

Yes, that's the way it works in small markets, and small markets only.

 

[Icey]

I'd have to question how real these numbers are after finding out that the Ducks were just sold for basically the same as their franchise price over 10 years ago.

There must be some reason why Hicks is trying to sell his team and can't find any takers.

Hicks isn't trying to sell the team. He had them on the market in 2002, but took them off.

There is also a big difference between selling a team with a winning record and a sell out record who makes a profit vs.selling a team with a losing record who can't sell a game out and loses money every year. A 5th grader could figure out which team would get more money.

 

[PecaFan]

Calgary can afford Iginla as long as he wants to stay here.

And yet, he's unsigned. Impervious to any rollbacks in the CBA, able to hold out for anything he wants.

It is far too early to be declaring "Calgary can sign Iginla".

 

[Drury_Sakic]

Yes, that's the way it works in small markets, and small markets only.

thats how it works everywhere minus NY..

Do you honestly think if Dallas went into a 3-5 season noise dive they would keep their top players?

Same for Colorado...Detroit?

 

[mooseOAK*]

Hicks isn't trying to sell the team. He had them on the market in 2002, but took them off.

There is also a big difference between selling a team with a winning record and a sell out record who makes a profit vs.selling a team with a losing record who can't sell a game out and loses money every year. A 5th grader could figure out which team would get more money.

A 4th grader would know that the Rangers are worth more money than every team above them in the standings. Win-loss means nothing and who is to say between the Ducks and Stars which team has the better future, it is looking like Anaheim now.

Hicks took the team off the market because he couldn't find any takers.

 

[kerrly]

thats how it works everywhere minus NY..

Do you honestly think if Dallas went into a 3-5 season noise dive they would keep their top players?

Same for Colorado...Detroit?

Sorry, what I meant by that is that it works that way in small markets, because they will have to let their tops guys go, and thats it. No replacing them with another big name player, that would be near the talent or signing a high priced free agent. The big markets can replace those players easily. Small markets aren't going to have the upper hand trading their big guys away after it was found out they were not contributing to the teams success. Its tough to think of a time, where a small market team traded away their best player and even came close to equalling the deal.