Huge News!!! Nhlpa Offers Cap

Status
Not open for further replies.

Pepper

Registered User
Aug 30, 2004
14,693
269
mudcrutch79 said:
For a guy who decided to come in here tossing verbal bombs, you've got your head located squarely in your ass. He raises an excellent point, one that those of us who are Oiler fans have generally acknowledged (even the anti-PA ones)-none of the NHL offers have made much sense from an Edmonton financial perspective, if the numbers are true.

Huh? They make plenty of sense for Oilers if you have realistic expectations. If you were expecting a flat $32M salary cap, you're in for a rude surprise.

mudcrutch79 said:
Financially, the Oilers claim to be limping along. As both sides have acknowledged, the NHLPA rollback will be quickly eaten up. There has been no substantive revenue sharing offered, as a mid-market team, according to the NHL numbers given to the PA, they aren't going to get much of whatever ends up being in place. It flat out doesn't make sense-who gives a rat's ass if your $33MM buys you better players, if you can't make any money at $33MM, and you aren't getting revenue sharing?

Maybe you should try reading my post before making wild accusations & assumptions?

They are not making money with a $33M at the moment, true. Under the new (assumed) cap, they WILL have much more competitive team which means extra revenues from gate & TV and most likely play-offs.

mudcrutch79 said:
BTW, you're ignoring that while Edmonton was already in the salary range proposed, the teams below would have had to come up to it; doesn't it seem more logical that with more cap room, they'd have a much better shot at the elite?

Not really, depends what kind of team you have been building in recent years. The % difference between Oilers and those lower in payrolls is quite small compared to Oilers and those having higher payrolls.

mudcrutch79 said:
That lawyer shot is pretty tired-I suppose it must be a pretty bitter experience realizing that there are smarter people out there willing to work harder than you to accomplish things. Al Strachan seems to have a hard time with it too; he's always taking shots at lawyers as well. That's nice company you keep.

The lawyer shot was from the earlier discussions where his theories were proven wrong by established laborlawyers, he has been posing as an expert but in the end he wasn't quite that.

I have a masters degree in marketing/international business so I'm quite comfortable when it comes to understanding the fundamentals of NHL's economical problems, that's something that most pro-PA yahoos can't say about themselves.
 

Pepper

Registered User
Aug 30, 2004
14,693
269
go kim johnsson said:
They would get laughed out of town.

that's the little bob goodenow inside your brain again voicing his wishes. Fact is that if this was ever going to NLRB it would be the NHLPA which would get laughed out of town with them claiming to have negotiatited in good faith (1 'proposal' in 2 months :lol )
 

VanIslander

A 19-year ATDer on HfBoards
Sep 4, 2004
35,134
6,428
It's a smoke screen. A PR stunt.

The season is done. Stick a fork in it.

Because now it's to the owners advantage to get the cap much lower through negotiations which would go through all summer.
 

mudcrutch79

Registered User
Jul 5, 2003
3,903
0
The Big Smoke
www.mc79hockey.com
Pepper said:
I have a masters degree in marketing/international business so I'm quite comfortable when it comes to understanding the fundamentals of NHL's economical problems, that's something that most pro-PA yahoos can't say about themselves.

I've got an undergrad in commerce, and I know enough to know that, based on the information available, you can't draw conclusions about the financial position of the league. Anyone who says otherwise is driven by an agenda. The fact that you've got a masters and are willing to claim, without any knowledge of the debt/equity positions of teams, without any knowledge beyond the questionable Levitt Report, without any knowledge of cash flows, that you understand the "fundamentals of NHL's economical problems" tells me that a) your area of expertise isn't economics/finance, or b) you've got an agenda. In either event, excuse me if I don't take your assertions that seriously.

They are not making money with a $33M at the moment, true. Under the new (assumed) cap, they WILL have much more competitive team which means extra revenues from gate & TV and most likely play-offs.

This is just absurd-they've made the playoffs 5 times in the past 7 years. There cannot be a rational business plan for the Oilers, and teams similar and below them in revenues that involves an assumption of making the playoffs. It simply does not make sense. With a 30 team league, 14 will miss the playoffs annually. They're just thrown to the wolves financially? They signed on for this? We're up to the NHL offering a $40 MM hard cap at this point; ignore Edmonton, how do other revenue challenged teams find the revenue to be profitable entities? Everyone keeps whistling the revenue sharing tune/singing about playoff revenue, and yet we've seen nothing concrete from the NHL about it. Any rational negotiator would look at these facts, and be extremely suspicious of the NHL's claims.

The lawyer shot was from the earlier discussions where his theories were proven wrong by established laborlawyers, he has been posing as an expert but in the end he wasn't quite that.

I've been reading these threads, and his postings pretty closely, and I'm a law student. There are some points where I've disagreed with him-not that that is all that relevant, he claims to have practiced in the field, but he's a credible source. What he says generally squares with what I know to to be true. There isn't a single poster here with any legal training and an understanding of the NHL, that I'm aware of, who thinks that impasse is a viable route. People with no legal background willing to opine on the NHL's glorious chances of success proceeding this way are a dime a dozen. Who are these labour lawyer experts you're referring to?
 

SuperUnknown

Registered User
Mar 14, 2002
4,890
0
Visit site
mudcrutch79 said:
It flat out doesn't make sense-who gives a rat's ass if your $33MM buys you better players, if you can't make any money at $33MM, and you aren't getting revenue sharing?

Basically, the point is that if $33MM buys you better players, then you should be able to increase your revenues, which in turn might turn in a small profit. As well, your chances of making the playoffs (and get playoffs money) is greater, that's if playoffs revenues aren't shared. If they are, well you got that much more at least.
 

mudcrutch79

Registered User
Jul 5, 2003
3,903
0
The Big Smoke
www.mc79hockey.com
Smail said:
Basically, the point is that if $33MM buys you better players, then you should be able to increase your revenues, which in turn might turn in a small profit. As well, your chances of making the playoffs (and get playoffs money) is greater, that's if playoffs revenues aren't shared. If they are, well you got that much more at least.

$33MM isn't going to buy you better players when you're already there, and there are a bunch of other teams trying to get there. Even if it does, some of the Edmonton's are going to miss the playoffs. Making the playoffs cannot be a prerequisite for breaking even/making money. Is the league just selling them out?
 

RW8

Registered User
Feb 10, 2004
1,269
8
a 28 game season and still a draft is a lot better than a combined 2006 draft and no games until october.
 

Pepper

Registered User
Aug 30, 2004
14,693
269
mudcrutch79 said:
I've got an undergrad in commerce, and I know enough to know that, based on the information available, you can't draw conclusions about the financial position of the league.

Yes you can, every report published so far (Levitt's, Forbes etc) prove that teams are losing money big time. What the exact numbers are is another issue.

mudcrutch79 said:
Anyone who says otherwise is driven by an agenda. The fact that you've got a masters and are willing to claim, without any knowledge of the debt/equity positions of teams, without any knowledge beyond the questionable Levitt Report, without any knowledge of cash flows, that you understand the "fundamentals of NHL's economical problems" tells me that a) your area of expertise isn't economics/finance, or b) you've got an agenda. In either event, excuse me if I don't take your assertions that seriously..

Like I said, I know quite enough to know that the teams are not doing too well financially. If you believe anything else it's you that have an agenda, not me.

Let's put it this way, there's a lot more evidence supporting league's claims than there's evidence supporting PA's conflicting claims.

I haven't taken your assertions seriously because they simply reek pro-PA bias.

mudcrutch79 said:
This is just absurd-they've made the playoffs 5 times in the past 7 years.

Yes and have advanced to 2nd round just once, correct me if I'm wrong but during the last 7 years they have had only 14 home play-off games?

mudcrutch79 said:
There cannot be a rational business plan for the Oilers, and teams similar and below them in revenues that involves an assumption of making the playoffs..

Of course not but the fact is that a hard cap of 42M WILL improve their position anyway so if they barely survive now, they will be better off in the future.

If salaries drop by 30% as a result of this cap, that means Oilers can field an equal team for 30% less money. That means a $23M team and $10M extra to bottom line. Doesn't sound too shabby now does it?

mudcrutch79 said:
There isn't a single poster here with any legal training and an understanding of the NHL, that I'm aware of, who thinks that impasse is a viable route. People with no legal background willing to opine on the NHL's glorious chances of success proceeding this way are a dime a dozen. Who are these labour lawyer experts you're referring to?

I believe it was Iconolast or Thunderstruck who quoted some expert laborlawyers which made Wetcoaster's 'expert opinions' look quite ridiculous.
 

Icey

Registered User
Jan 23, 2005
591
0
Of course not but the fact is that a hard cap of 42M WILL improve their position anyway so if they barely survive now, they will be better off in the future.

If salaries drop by 30% as a result of this cap, that means Oilers can field an equal team for 30% less money. That means a $23M team and $10M extra to bottom line. Doesn't sound too shabby now does it?


So now we are writting a new CBA just so Edmonton can survive and screw the other 29 teams in the league.

That's great thinking.
 

Pepper

Registered User
Aug 30, 2004
14,693
269
Icey said:
So now we are writting a new CBA just so Edmonton can survive and screw the other 29 teams in the league.

That's great thinking.

HUH??? Edmonton was just an example, it works for all the small teams as well as big teams.
 

Scoogs

Registered User
Jan 31, 2005
18,389
93
Toronto, Ontario
I truly believe that this is where the soft cap will come into play. At least both sides are speaking the same language now.

If they were to bring in a soft cap at say, $42mil, and the hard cap beginning at $45-$48mil... this "cap" issue could be behind us.

Now, entry levels and arbitration... more fun!!!!!!!!!
 

VanIslander

A 19-year ATDer on HfBoards
Sep 4, 2004
35,134
6,428
RW8 said:
a 28 game season and still a draft is a lot better than a combined 2006 draft and no games until october.
There will never be a combined draft.

They would do two separate drafts, even if on back-to-back weekends. The first (2005 class) will use a draft order based on the previous full season's performances. The second (2006 class) based on other method of ranking.

I don't understand how anyone could seriously think they'd combine them, as if teams could choose from a pool of players for both years combined. That makes no sense. The bottom performing teams from last season would jump at the chance, but the vast majority would nix the idea: it's just not in most team's best interests.
 

mudcrutch79

Registered User
Jul 5, 2003
3,903
0
The Big Smoke
www.mc79hockey.com
Pepper said:
Yes you can, every report published so far (Levitt's, Forbes etc) prove that teams are losing money big time. What the exact numbers are is another issue.

As long as we're citing experts, Russ Conway actually called a few up...

"If anybody calls this a superaudit, you give them my number," said Nelson Blinn, a 36-year certified public accountant from Haverhill and member of the Banknorth auditing committee. "This is absolutely, unconditionally not an audit. To pass it off as one is nonsense."

Richard Delgaudio, a professor of accounting and auditing at Merrimack College in North Andover who is a certified public accountant and nationally known lecturer on accounting, explained the difference between an audit and a review.

"An audit implies that you look at documentation and source documentation," he said. "A review is when you just kind of look things over to see if it seems right."

This isn't the point of what we're discussing here, but there are public sources who refute your postion that this is quite enough. Forbes methodology involves guessing from the outside, without any access to the books-even the NHL says that they're wrong. There is not enough info out there.

Like I said, I know quite enough to know that the teams are not doing too well financially. If you believe anything else it's you that have an agenda, not me.

I guess that's for others to judge. I've tried to square the NHL's actions with their claims, and I can't. My conclusion is that the numbers are wrong, or that there are other beneficial to which we're not privy. Not every team is going to make the playoffs, and no rational owner would proceed with a business plan that requires a playoff run to turn a profit.

Let's put it this way, there's a lot more evidence supporting league's claims than there's evidence supporting PA's conflicting claims.

What conflicting claims? The PA basically says that they don't know/care what the NHL's financial position is. They noted that Forbes contradicts the NHL's position, which was stupid of them to do, but there it is. The NHL is the one who have claimed massive losses, the PA says they don't know and don't care. You might not like the PA's position, but there's more evidence to back it up.

I haven't taken your assertions seriously because they simply reek pro-PA bias.

Fine, do with it what you will. I've been accused of both pro-PA and pro-owner bias on here over the past couple of months, so it's really irrelevant to me.

Yes and have advanced to 2nd round just once, correct me if I'm wrong but during the last 7 years they have had only 14 home play-off games?

That can't be right, but it really doesn't matter. You're saying that a plan requiring an appearance in Rd. 2 is acceptable now? So to hell with the 22 teams that don't make it that far?

If salaries drop by 30% as a result of this cap, that means Oilers can field an equal team for 30% less money. That means a $23M team and $10M extra to bottom line. Doesn't sound too shabby now does it?

Sure, except what the NHL has proposed is a salary range, where the Oilers would, according to their numbers, be making no money, barring a playoff run. You don't seem to understand how the NHL's proposal would work.

I believe it was Iconolast or Thunderstruck who quoted some expert laborlawyers which made Wetcoaster's 'expert opinions' look quite ridiculous.

Do these people market themselves as laborlawyers? I figure your average Masters degree knows that it's "labour lawyers". Provide a link, or let it go.
 

Coffey77

Registered User
Mar 12, 2002
3,340
0
Visit site
Machoking2003-04 said:
The point is the players caved. They gave into a cap, no its just a matter of figuring out an amount. They will meet today, I saw on another thread that Roenick, Pronger and Iginla will be apart of the meeting.

THERE WILL BE A SEASON! YOU GOTTA BELIEVE!!!!!!!!

Hope after all.

The owners want 40 but can't they just split the difference at 45-46 with the players.
 

Bruwinz37

Registered User
Feb 27, 2002
27,429
1
Scugs said:
I truly believe that this is where the soft cap will come into play. At least both sides are speaking the same language now.

If they were to bring in a soft cap at say, $42mil, and the hard cap beginning at $45-$48mil... this "cap" issue could be behind us.

Now, entry levels and arbitration... more fun!!!!!!!!!

I have been saying for weeks it would be a cap without linkage between 42-45m. For those of you who dont think this will help small market teams I think you have to consider the big picture. This will help them remain competitive in free agency and would allow them to keep their home grown talent. Having teams not being to outspend them by 10s of millions of dollars would maintain a competitive environment for all.

As far as all the other issues I would think that many of them have already been decided on. Arbitration and entry level deals have been a part of negotiations all along and have probably been agreed upon.
 

richardn

Registered User
Mar 6, 2004
8,513
80
Sault Ste. Marie
I think it they come to an agreement set up a season to end in August. Whats the difference if the cup is handed out in August, then we could have a meaningful season with no long lay off into next season. It would almost be like back to back season's with no lay off.
 

richardn

Registered User
Mar 6, 2004
8,513
80
Sault Ste. Marie
Coffey77 said:
Hope after all.

The owners want 40 but can't they just split the difference at 45-46 with the players.

I think the owners will come back with 45 the players will then counter with 46 and we will have hockey again. For the first time in a long time I think we may have a season.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad

-->