Can I Get Paid for what Strachan Does?

[Hawker14]

Hey , please explain to me what columns or facts I have presented in anything but an honest fashion.
What a

okay, here...

I would be interested on what the moron feels is a reasonable rate of return on the investment. Does by "a majority of owners realize they could have made money under the Dec. 9 proposal from the players, the one that offered a 24% salary rollback and other significant concessions. " he mean that 16 owners could have made a return of 1% of the value of their investment whille the other 14 lose hundreds of millions?
The guys a moron & does a diservice to his masters, the NHLPA.

just because u disagree with him doesn't make him dishonest in his views. nice try rationalizing your intolerance of differing viewpoints.

 

[kerrly]

already said they would revenue share....

Thats what a minimum payroll means.QUOTE]

Their revenue sharing plan was extremely weak and was just as bad as the one in the last CBA. I'm talking real revenue sharing.

There was no minimum payroll in the owners last proposal, if that is what you are getting at.

Anyway, I was replying to why the league didn't accept a variation of the 12/9 proposal if it would have worked. Because without revenue sharing it only works for some teams not all. The point was that with revenue sharing it could work.

Revenue sharing alone does absolutely zero to stop losses or to dramtically reduce spending. The Dec. 9th proposal is a joke and has been blasted many times on this board so I don't feel the need to pick it apart again.

Here's a line from the NHLPA's proposal with the $49m soft cap, in regards to revenue sharing:

(c)Replace NHLPA Revenue Sharing Plan with NHL Revenue Sharing Plan to share at least $88M in each year of the Agreement. Clubs may credit any payroll taxes paid against their revenue sharing contribution.

http://www.nhlpa.com/MediaReleases/ReleaseDetails.asp?mediaReleaseDisplayId={A23D7FA2-CA27-41C6-990E-33AEC0C394AF}

Now the NHLPA's revenue sharing plan couldn't have been much different if they were willing to accept the NHL's version. Revenue sharing has never been nearly as much of an issue to the PA as everyone has been making it out to be. In their Dec. 9th proposal they were willing to accept as little as $65m in revenue sharing. Clearly the NHL and NHLPA are in the same ballpark when it comes to revenue sharing.

 

[thinkwild]

The magnet theory is true, but not how everyone here understands it. I have brought up this point before, and most people will agree that what Bettman did end up explaining was that the 49.5 million cap won't cause every team to be at 49.5. But will cause an increase in salaries related to similar players. Example if a couple of 49.5 million dollar teams pay x player x amount, then y player will want y amount from teams that can come nowhere close to that. So because of salary arbitration and such, these players will get close to that value as long as the contract was within reason, therefore bringing most teams salary up a directly proportional amount. That is the magnet theory as it should be explained.

Maybe they could try paying a player his salary starting from game one until the end of the Stanley Cup. If you play until the finals, you get your entire check, otherwise you miss the last couple months of cheques.

The salary is what you get paid if you are playing for the Cup that year.

 

[nyr7andcounting]

Revenue sharing alone does absolutely zero to stop losses or to dramtically reduce spending. The Dec. 9th proposal is a joke and has been blasted many times on this board so I don't feel the need to pick it apart again.

Here's a line from the NHLPA's proposal with the $49m soft cap, in regards to revenue sharing:

(c)Replace NHLPA Revenue Sharing Plan with NHL Revenue Sharing Plan to share at least $88M in each year of the Agreement. Clubs may credit any payroll taxes paid against their revenue sharing contribution.

http://www.nhlpa.com/MediaReleases/ReleaseDetails.asp?mediaReleaseDisplayId={A23D7FA2-CA27-41C6-990E-33AEC0C394AF}

Now the NHLPA's revenue sharing plan couldn't have been much different if they were willing to accept the NHL's version. Revenue sharing has never been nearly as much of an issue to the PA as everyone has been making it out to be. In their Dec. 9th proposal they were willing to accept as little as $65m in revenue sharing. Clearly the NHL and NHLPA are in the same ballpark when it comes to revenue sharing.

Of course it doesn't stop aggregate losses or reduce spending alone....but a cap doesn't increase revenues and profits or level the playing field alone either. The league needs a cap, it needs revenue sharing even more. The biggest problems in the league are with the small market teams who don't have near the revenues to compete, even if there was a salary cap. Revenue sharing is the only way to fix that.

Both of your examples are without a hard cap present. Of course the PA didn't care about revenue sharing on 12/9 because without a hard cap they wanted the big markets to keep as much money as possible so they can spend it on salaries. The same goes for the $49 million cap. But if you are going to have a 40, 42, 45, 38 million hard cap the PA is not going to sign it unless there is revenue sharing.

Before that last meeting to save the season a couple of days after it was cancelled, didn't the PA say they weren't going to discuss the hard cap number until the 2 sides agreed on a revenue sharing plan?

Bottom line is revenue sharing does more for the league as a whole than a salary cap will ever do.

 

[kerrly]

Of course it doesn't stop aggregate losses or reduce spending alone....but a cap doesn't increase revenues and profits or level the playing field alone either. The league needs a cap, it needs revenue sharing even more. The biggest problems in the league are with the small market teams who don't have near the revenues to compete, even if there was a salary cap. Revenue sharing is the only way to fix that.

Both of your examples are without a hard cap present. Of course the PA didn't care about revenue sharing on 12/9 because without a hard cap they wanted the big markets to keep as much money as possible so they can spend it on salaries. The same goes for the $49 million cap. But if you are going to have a 40, 42, 45, 38 million hard cap the PA is not going to sign it unless there is revenue sharing.

Before that last meeting to save the season a couple of days after it was cancelled, didn't the PA say they weren't going to discuss the hard cap number until the 2 sides agreed on a revenue sharing plan?

Bottom line is revenue sharing does more for the league as a whole than a salary cap will ever do.

I'm not against revenue sharing at all, and in fact I agree with you in its importance. It's very important in stablizing the franchises on the bottom rung, and helping them compete. In the previous linked proposals the NHL has stated that it will make sure that teams can spend up to salary floor, and IMO thats plenty good. But I do think the league made a mistake with the revenue sharing plan that the NHLPA exposed after the cancellation of the season. And I believe that the talks broke off because the NHLPA wanted to negotiate nearly all of the other systemic issues (not just revenue sharing) before they talked about a cap number.

With all that said, a cap is still by far the best thing that will happen to this league. It will provide the league long-term health which is the biggest issue that we face. It may not create a 100% even playing field like 100% revenue sharing would, but I don't think anyone is asking for that. We just want the gap dramatically lowered, so we have the chance to compete and create our own revenues, by having a better shot at success every year. I would take any of the NHL's proposals without revenue sharing, over any of the NHLPA's proposals with 100% revenue sharing. Why? Because revenue sharing alone or accompanied by any of the PA's proposals are a system for disaster, with major inflationary loopholes, easily putting the league in ruins within a couple years time. No revenue sharing and any NHL plan would still see a healthier and more competitive league than previous. Revenue sharing doesn't fix the major systemic issues, and arguably makes the system even worse without a major system deflator. The reason the NHLPA wants a major revenue sharing plan in a tighter system, is to extract the most possible money out of it. They would like a revenue sharing plan that would allow every team to spend right up to the cap. Don't let them fool you that they are in it for the good of the small market teams. Thats a by-product of their real motivation for it.

 

[nyr7andcounting]

With all that said, a cap is still by far the best thing that will happen to this league. It will provide the league long-term health which is the biggest issue that we face. It may not create a 100% even playing field like 100% revenue sharing would, but I don't think anyone is asking for that. We just want the gap dramatically lowered, so we have the chance to compete and create our own revenues, by having a better shot at success every year.

But why will it provide long-term health for the league? It's something that I don't buy. The cap stops the highest spenders from spending what they want to, but the impact on the bottom of the league because of that is minimal. The weakest teams still have the biggest problem...they don't have enough revenues. A cap doesn't create revenues for those teams it simply stops the teams that do have revenue from spending all of it.

I don't want 100% revenue sharing either...but a league where some of the markets barely even have a fan base is a league that needs a good amount of revenue sharing no matter what system it is under.

You want the gap lowered? revenue sharing does it...it takes money directly from the big and gives it to the small. You want the chance to compete financially with the big teams? revenue sharing does it for the same reason. You want to create your own revenues? why not have big markets give you some of theres? Without revenue sharing any increase in the revenues of small markets will be equaled by an increase in big markets. If the league ever recovers, having just a cap will leave the same disparities in revenues the only difference is that the big markets will be making huge profits.

 

[Pepper]

But why will it provide long-term health for the league? It's something that I don't buy. The cap stops the highest spenders from spending what they want to, but the impact on the bottom of the league because of that is minimal. The weakest teams still have the biggest problem...they don't have enough revenues. A cap doesn't create revenues for those teams it simply stops the teams that do have revenue from spending all of it.

Sheesh...For 1405435th time, here's how salary cap will help smaller teams:

When the payrolls of the top teams is cut between 10-50%, it means the demand for players goes down and when the demand goes down, the prices (=salaries) will also go down. That means that smaller teams can field the same team for less money or a better team for the same money. If they do the former, they might have enough revenues to become healthy. And when they are more competitive compared to the former rich teams, they will get extra revenues from the gate (more people will come to arenas when the team does better).

We should really put a FAQ on top of this forum where all the basic issues are explained so that we don't have to type them over and over again.

 

[nyr7andcounting]

Sheesh...For 1405435th time, here's how salary cap will help smaller teams:

When the payrolls of the top teams is cut between 10-50%, it means the demand for players goes down and when the demand goes down, the prices (=salaries) will also go down. That means that smaller teams can field the same team for less money or a better team for the same money. If they do the former, they might have enough revenues to become healthy. And when they are more competitive compared to the former rich teams, they will get extra revenues from the gate (more people will come to arenas when the team does better).

We should really put a FAQ on top of this forum where all the basic issues are explained so that we don't have to type them over and over again.

No kidding I'm not a ****ing moron. But you need to look at what affect this will have as opposed to just simply what it is. You are just stating facts without declaring if that's the best thing...almost like you simply take Bettman's word for that of God and declare that's the best thing.

The increase in revenues in small markets, due to the increase in competition on the ice by those markets via a cap on the top spenders, will not only be minimal but will also have a minimal affect on the overall health of those teams. Some of the teams that are stuggling have been good in recent years yet pure competition didn't bring them financial stability did it?

I agree the cap has a positive affect on the economics of small markets...but I do not think that it will have a better affect than revenue sharing would. The reason for my opinion on this is that I simply don't think that the revenue streams are there for many of the small markets in the league. There are a lot of ways in which these teams should be able to increase revenues, but because fan bases are so small and TV ratings are so bad I don't think that increase will be enough to get the small markets back on track. Simply put, as far as sustaining small markets and 30 teams, the benefits from a cap are no where near close to the benefits from revenue sharing. Therefor, if you really want to ensure long term health of the league, revenue sharing should be the #1 priority.

 

[Pepper]

If Bettman and owners think that is the right way to go, who are we to tell them they are wrong?? They didn't become millionaires by being stupid, they have carefully studied the options and decided that a hard cap at 40M or so is the best way to go.

Small markets will get more revenue and less costs, that should make them economically viable to survive in the future.

Owners have decided that they don't want revenue sharing and even the small teams are 'happy' with it. In an exchange for the hard cap, the big teams get to keep their revenues making them profitable.

 

[SENSible1*]

If Bettman and owners think that is the right way to go, who are we to tell them they are wrong?? They didn't become millionaires by being stupid, they have carefully studied the options and decided that a hard cap at 40M or so is the best way to go.

Small markets will get more revenue and less costs, that should make them economically viable to survive in the future.

Owners have decided that they don't want revenue sharing and even the small teams are 'happy' with it. In an exchange for the hard cap, the big teams get to keep their revenues making them profitable.

NO NO NO....the PA KNOWS what is best for the owners. It really is a miracle that these men became billionares without the PA to tell them how to run their other businesses.

Don't let anyone try and tell you that the PA is only looking out for their own wallets, that's just not true.

 

[Timmy]

If Bettman and owners think that is the right way to go, who are we to tell them they are wrong?? They didn't become millionaires by being stupid, .

Well, they did have a little brain fart in '95.

Now they're just trying to air out the room.

 

[futurcorerock]

http://www.canoe.ca/NewsStand/TorontoSun/Sports/2005/03/17/963739-sun.html

The same Strachan who says Blue ice is bad because it slaps the traditionalist in the face? No wonder they say Hockey is in bad shape, they let people like this write articles, IN CANADA!