Ideal CBA

Status
Not open for further replies.

SENSible1*

Guest
Newsguyone said:
This is my beef.
If the owners were willing to make four promises, I'd join their side:
1. We will cap ticket prices for the duration of the contract.
Unlike salaries, ticket prices in each market are set independently. A cap on salaries at least provides the opportunity for teams to cut ticket prices and certainly provides the opportunity for fans in big markets to demand this concession as profits rise.

In addition, the PA has ZERO interest in seeing ticket prices (revenues) drop and have done nothing to support fans in this area.

At best an issue that should leave you equally pissed at both sides.

2. We will cap profits. Excess profits will go into a fund run by the NHL and the PA and will be used market the game of hockey or build the sport in Canada and the US.
The owners have offered to share profits with the players. Neither side has suggested they be funneled to marketing or building the sport.

At best an issue that should leave you equally pissed at both sides.

3. As well as a salary cap, there will also be significant revenue sharing.
The NHL has offered revenue sharing sufficient to allow all team to meet the cap minimum.

The PA has asked for more revenue sharing and an unlinked system in order to increase their take.

The owners should increase revenue sharing, but only if the PA agrees to linkage.

The stands taken by both sides to this point should leave you equally pissed at both sides.

4. We will attempt to bring hockey back to Winnipeg and we will explore hockey in Quebec City.

The NHL's position and a low linked cap is the only scenario where this is even a remote possibilty.

The PA's position is that small markets should die.

The only possible reaction to the two sides postions on this issue is your 100% support for the league.

Glad to know that the NHL will have another passionate hockey fan in their corner after you examine these issues.
 

jamiebez

Registered User
Apr 5, 2005
4,025
327
Ottawa
Allow me to take this thread in a different direction, rather than pro-player vs. pro-owner (which we've seen 1000 times). What would be in your ideal CBA, tailored to what you want as a fan of a particular team? None of us are owners or players (I assume); we're fans, so let's discuss what we want.

I'm a Senators fan, and a Jets sympathizer. Here's what I want in MY CBA:
- I like the idea of linkage and a minimum payroll because let's face it, the revenues are coming from me. If I'm being asked to spend more as a consumer, that should translate to a better product for my team on the ice.
- I like the idea of revenue sharing because I live in a small market and want my team to be competitive with the likes of the Leafs and Rangers. Share the revenues that really differentiate the big from the small, like corporate sponsorship and local TV deals. Also introduce gate sharing so the visiting team gets a portion of the home team's gate, which rewards the talented teams that draw well in other markets and allows two teams to both benefit from a healthy rivalry.
- I like the idea of of owners having arbitration rights because that means the end of contract holdouts. Alexei Yashin, I'm looking in your direction here....
- I like the UFA age exactly as it is, thank you, because it rewards the teams that draft and develop well by letting them keep their young players for at least 10 years or so.
- I don't like the idea of a hard cap, at least not a cap that ensures all teams are spending the same amount all the time. It kills the excitement of the trade deadline, which I love. Go with a lower and upper bound seperated by $10M or so, where teams are all able to spend within the range and move up or down as their team gets better or worse.

Basically, a system with room for parity, so you always have hope (like the NFL) but allows for a dynasty if you manage your team well (like the NFL). I'm not suggesting the NFL's system (although I do like it) but something that allows for all of the above to happen.

A lot of good ideas have been put out by both sides, but let's face it - they only have their own best interests at heart. Here's what's in my best interest.

I don't expect everyone (or anyone, really) to agree with this, but let me know what you think, or better yet, what would work best for you?
 

WC Handy*

Guest
Mine.... and this is what I want for the league, not for my team...

Soft Cap at 50% of Revenues
Player's cap hits would reduce as their tenure with an organization increased. A player in his first three years with a franchise would have his entire salary count against the cap. A player in his 4th, 5th, or 6th years with a team would have 90% of his salary count against the cap. A player with 7 or more years with an organization would have an 80% cap hit. One note about this is that a player's first year with a franchise would be the first season in which he is property of a team, so players in the juniors are accumlating seasons after they have been drafted. Unlike the NBA, tenure is not traded along with a player.

Salary Floor at 40%
No cap hits come into play here. Teams must actually pay out that much in salaries.

Unrestricted Free Agency
600 actual games played in the NHL or at 31 years old, whichever comes first.

Revenue Sharing
50% of Local TV Revenue
40% of Gate Revenue
40% of Concessions
 

joepeps

Registered User
Jan 2, 2004
12,697
674
Toronto
Visit site
Thunderstruck said:
And the vast majority were honest hard working players when they only made 100,000 a year. The players who play for pride would continue to do so, even if their wages are cut by 90%.

Why should we care if the players portfolio's have to take a hit to make the league viable in more markets?


Yeah play for pride and not support their family... :dunno:
 

joepeps

Registered User
Jan 2, 2004
12,697
674
Toronto
Visit site
jamiebez said:
:handclap: :handclap: :handclap:

Great post!


my #1 was ticket prices... When they asked bettman if they would cap it.. he said it's up to individual teams, but when they said why can't owners spend just a little? well they need to keep their players...

#2.....Stop bull****ing about your book.. everyone know companies hide money.. "write **** off".. and other stuff... If you want linkage.. let the players write off there salary as well... you offer them 5 mill.. they only pay tax on 4 mill :dunno: (not that you can do that) lol.... but it's an example on how Linkage wont work... the Owners will keep hiding money to say there no making a profit.. or they are breaking even.. or at best making just a little bit to keep running... :dunno:
 

WC Handy*

Guest
joepeps said:
but it's an example on how Linkage wont work...

How can you possibly sit there and spew this nonsense when there are two leagues that are currently functioning perfectly fine with linkage?

he Owners will keep hiding money to say there no making a profit

Wrong. The owners will be foreced to report whatever revenues they agree to report when the revenues are defined in the new CBA. If they don't accurately report them, not only will they face whatever sanctions that would be laid out in the CBA they could face criminal charges for fraud.
 

joepeps

Registered User
Jan 2, 2004
12,697
674
Toronto
Visit site
WC Handy said:
How can you possibly sit there and spew this nonsense when there are two leagues that are currently functioning perfectly fine with linkage?



Wrong. The owners will be foreced to report whatever revenues they agree to report when the revenues are defined in the new CBA. If they don't accurately report them, not only will they face whatever sanctions that would be laid out in the CBA they could face criminal charges for fraud.


and if you believe that nonsense.. then you should go back and look at the real world.... "THEY CAN GET AUDITED AND FACE CHARGES FOR FRAUD" but when you have lawyers who are good.. money is being hidden... It's everyone dont' kid yourself...... you should really take a law course or accounting course for that matter....... :dunno:
 

WC Handy*

Guest
joepeps said:
and if you believe that nonsense.. then you should go back and look at the real world.... "THEY CAN GET AUDITED AND FACE CHARGES FOR FRAUD" but when you have lawyers who are good.. money is being hidden... It's everyone dont' kid yourself...... you should really take a law course or accounting course for that matter....... :dunno:

Then why isn't this a problem in the NBA and the NFL?
 

joepeps

Registered User
Jan 2, 2004
12,697
674
Toronto
Visit site
WC Handy said:
Then why isn't this a problem in the NBA and the NFL?


they didn't just throw in a cap and linkage...

THEY HAD REVINUE SHARING FOR MANY YEARS BEFORE THEY IMPLEMENTED THE SYSTEM THAT THEY HAVE NOW.......

whereas the NHL wants to do eveything at once and be the NFL... GUESS WHAT YORU NOT THE NFL.. YOU WILL NEVER BE THE NFL IN THE STATES........you might be the CFL.....

BETTMANS AN IDIOT AND and so are you if you belive his nonsense....
 

WC Handy*

Guest
joepeps said:
they didn't just throw in a cap and linkage...

THEY HAD REVINUE SHARING FOR MANY YEARS BEFORE THEY IMPLEMENTED THE SYSTEM THAT THEY HAVE NOW.......

What does this have to do with whether or not the NBA and NFL owners accurately report revenues?


whereas the NHL wants to do eveything at once and be the NFL... GUESS WHAT YORU NOT THE NFL.. YOU WILL NEVER BE THE NFL IN THE STATES........you might be the CFL.....

What does this have to do with whether or not the NBA and NFL owners accurately report revenues?

BETTMANS A LOSE AND and so are you if you belive his nonsense....

What does this have to do with whether or not the NBA and NFL owners accurately report revenues?
 

joepeps

Registered User
Jan 2, 2004
12,697
674
Toronto
Visit site
WC Handy said:
What does this have to do with whether or not the NBA and NFL owners accurately report revenues?




What does this have to do with whether or not the NBA and NFL owners accurately report revenues?



What does this have to do with whether or not the NBA and NFL owners accurately report revenues?


I was talking about my first point.. lol I forgot to add in that part sorry...

NHL and NBA do hide money... whether they transfer it into another business that they own or totally not claim some revinues.. it's being done.. how do you know that it isn't???

For arguements sake...

If I was an NHL owner and i'm not mkakking money I would sell the team to the NHL or someone and... I wouldn't stay their and lose "money as they say they are" I don't beilive they are losing alot of money and if they are.. it's Bettmans fault for putting them in a non hockey town and expanding the league.. the NHL was fine before expansion....
 

WC Handy*

Guest
joepeps said:
NHL and NBA do hide money... whether they transfer it into another business that they own or totally not claim some revinues.. it's being done.. how do you know that it isn't???

So because it's not possible to prove that they aren't then we must assume that they are? Is that all you have to support you claim? If you're going to sit here and claim that NBA and NFL owners commit fraud and that NHL owners would do the same then you might want to back it up with some evidence.

If I was an NHL owner and i'm not mkakking money I would sell the team to the NHL or someone and... I wouldn't stay their and lose "money as they say they are" I don't beilive they are losing alot of money and if they are.. it's Bettmans fault for putting them in a non hockey town and expanding the league.. the NHL was fine before expansion....

First, I'd like you to tell me why you don't believe teams are losing money and would love to see some evidence of this.

Secondly, I'd like to see some evidence that expansion was the cause of teams losing money. Maybe you weren't aware of this, but teams in hockey mad areas are losing money. Edmonton. Pittsburgh. St. Louis. Calgary was until this past year.

Looking forward to your evidence...
 

joepeps

Registered User
Jan 2, 2004
12,697
674
Toronto
Visit site
WC Handy said:
So because it's not possible to prove that they aren't then we must assume that they are? Is that all you have to support you claim? If you're going to sit here and claim that NBA and NFL owners commit fraud and that NHL owners would do the same then you might want to back it up with some evidence.



First, I'd like you to tell me why you don't believe teams are losing money and would love to see some evidence of this.

Secondly, I'd like to see some evidence that expansion was the cause of teams losing money. Maybe you weren't aware of this, but teams in hockey mad areas are losing money. Edmonton. Pittsburgh. St. Louis. Calgary was until this past year.

Looking forward to your evidence...


Edmonton Pitts are losing money because of expansion...

those players would have went to Edmonton Pitts calgary...

I don't feel like proving my point over and over again.. on 10000 differnet threads... it gets too repetative... then you don't believe it anyways.. so whats the point.. look it up for yourself or search previous threads...
 

Matty

Registered User
May 20, 2002
2,396
0
Strawberry Fields
Visit site
The ideal CBA from a fan's standpoint?

Hmmm...

-Move the UFA age up to 35
-Change the Draft Age to 19
-Put a Cap in for Rookie salaries and Get rid of the loopholes including the ability to re-enter the draft.
-Abolish Player's arbitration rights
-Increase compensation for RFA offer sheet signings

That would be ideal

:D
 

PecaFan

Registered User
Nov 16, 2002
9,243
520
Ottawa (Go 'Nucks)
Newsguyone said:
You don't know jack about me.
I've made several of the same decisions my life.

Then maybe when someone says "money isn't everything", you shouldn't post insults like "Spoken like a guy who's never worked for a living", which to any rational person, indicates a basic disagreement with the principle being stated.

PepNCheese said:
$15k may not be worth it, but what about a hundred times that amount? Now what do you say? It's all relative.

People who make these idealistic statements about money have never had any of it to speak of, I find.

Yes, it's all relative. But relative amounts still have different effects. For example, a 10% change for someone near the poverty line can mean the difference between getting by, or bankruptcy, losing the car, house, or whatever. They're literally on the verge of homelessness, their future is in doubt. A 10% change for a multi-millionaire means a change in the number of times they order caviar each month, or how much goes in the children's trust fund. Even in their worst case, if they happen to be spending so much that $2.7 won't cover their expenses when $3 million did, it doesn't affect them in the same way. They don't lose their only vehicle, they lose one of them. They don't lose their only house, they lose one of them. At no time does their future ever look in jeopardy, these are just inconveniences to them. "Gosh Lovey, we'll have to sell the Rembrandt!".

Besides, we were talking about increases, not decreases. The same principle applies however. To the little guy, getting a 25% increase can be absolutely huge. You can go from renting to owning your own house. You go from barely scraping by, to actually being able to save for your retirement. Suddenly, college becomes a possibility for your kids.

To the millionaire, what difference does it make to go from $2.0 million to $2.5 million a year? "Gosh Lovey, now we'll be able to send the kids to college"? Hardly. For most, the only difference in their lives will be how large the personal fortune grows. The bottom line on the monthly statement from their financial advisor.

Nope, I stand behind what I said. I could care less if some guy cares more about his bank account than winning the Stanley Cup.
 

Weary

Registered User
Jul 1, 2003
1,068
0
PecaFan said:
Nope, I stand behind what I said. I could care less if some guy cares more about his bank account than winning the Stanley Cup.
So you believe the owners should just end this lockout? Or does your sentiment only apply to players?
 

AM

Registered User
Nov 22, 2004
8,463
2,512
Edmonton
Lol!

joepeps said:
I was talking about my first point.. lol I forgot to add in that part sorry...

NHL and NBA do hide money... whether they transfer it into another business that they own or totally not claim some revinues.. it's being done.. how do you know that it isn't???

For arguements sake...

If I was an NHL owner and i'm not mkakking money I would sell the team to the NHL or someone and... I wouldn't stay their and lose "money as they say they are" I don't beilive they are losing alot of money and if they are.. it's Bettmans fault for putting them in a non hockey town and expanding the league.. the NHL was fine before expansion....

Yes, the league was fine before expansion..... back when player salaries were being fraudulently kept down!
 

AM

Registered User
Nov 22, 2004
8,463
2,512
Edmonton
the players are the sticking point....

Weary said:
So you believe the owners should just end this lockout? Or does your sentiment only apply to players?

If it was financially viable, the owners would have come to an agreement a long time ago.
 

Weary

Registered User
Jul 1, 2003
1,068
0
AM said:
If it was financially viable, the owners would have come to an agreement a long time ago.
I see. Owners must value finances over the Stanley Cup. Players must value the Stanley Cup over finances. Doesn't seem quite fair somehow.
 

AXN

Registered User
Feb 10, 2004
1,451
0
I think 25 mil low and 50 mil high with lux tax starting at 40 mil to 50 mil will make a good CBA. I don't know how much revenue sharing they are talking about. 30 million minimum might be a little too high for some teams. You don't want teams going bankrupt if they are in trouble. Lux tax you can go from 40 to 44 at 25%, 44 to 48 at 50% and 48 to 50 at 75%.
 

AM

Registered User
Nov 22, 2004
8,463
2,512
Edmonton
Youre funny....

Weary said:
I see. Owners must value finances over the Stanley Cup. Players must value the Stanley Cup over finances. Doesn't seem quite fair somehow.

The reason we are in this predicament is that players valued money over cups and owners valued cups over money....

Pretty ironic huh? The owners should be called the players, and the players should be called....

Well, cant say that here.
 

PecaFan

Registered User
Nov 16, 2002
9,243
520
Ottawa (Go 'Nucks)
Weary said:
So you believe the owners should just end this lockout? Or does your sentiment only apply to players?

Not at all. It's not just a player thing. I have no problem with some low paid 3rd or 4th liner taking a job elsewhere for better pay, because he's just scraping by. Same with the owners, I support them because they just want to make a little money instead of losing it.

It's not unreasonable to worry about money when you're making little to none.
 

Weary

Registered User
Jul 1, 2003
1,068
0
AM said:
The reason we are in this predicament is that players valued money over cups and owners valued cups over money....
Yes. This selfish strike that resulted in the cancellation of a season is all about the players wanting more money from the owners. Except that it's not a strike -- it's a lockout. And it's not the owners that have given up money -- it's the players.
 

AM

Registered User
Nov 22, 2004
8,463
2,512
Edmonton
ok Peca

Weary said:
Yes. This selfish strike that resulted in the cancellation of a season is all about the players wanting more money from the owners. Except that it's not a strike -- it's a lockout. And it's not the owners that have given up money -- it's the players.

its your turn now.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad

-->