If I was the NHLPA....

[hockeytown9321]

How would you feel if the Red Wings could only afford a 30,000,000 payroll and not be able to sign any F/A's or resign it's current players. I think your view would be quite different although it would be easy to post here that it wouldn't bother you.

You're right, it would bother me if my team couldn't resign all of its players. If you bothered to pay attention to anything I've written, that's why I don't want a cap. It makes building a team impossible.

 

[eye]

You're right, it would bother me if my team couldn't resign all of its players. If you bothered to pay attention to anything I've written, that's why I don't want a cap. It makes building a team impossible.

So you finally acknowledge that your view is selfish and that you care little about other teams in the league or the future growth of hockey.

You can and will keep most of your team each year under a cap system with people like Ken Holland and Jimmy Devalano at the helm. You should have more faith in your management. I'm sure that certain player exemptions from a cap is negotiable and with salaries reduced by an avg. of 24% and other inflationary mechanisms reduced or eliminated there is no reason why your team can't stay intact. How about thinking of the majority of the league instead of the select few teams that can afford to continue doing business as usual.

 

[hockeytown9321]

So you finally acknowledge that your view is selfish and that you care little about other teams in the league or the future growth of hockey.

Again, if you ever bother to read what I write, you'd know I advocate 100% revenue sharing, which evens the playing field much more than a cap. So yes, I'm only looking out for my team.

 

[MacDaddy TLC*]

You should read the article at the link you posted, especially question 1.2. It tells you exactly what is included in defined football revenue.

My point that the NFL cap is relatively the same as the television revenue is supported here: http://sports.yahoo.com/nhl/news;_ylc=X3oDMTBpdDcyMnNwBF9TAzk1ODYxODgzBHNlYwN0bQ--?slug=daretocompare&prov=tsn&type=lgns

I knew I wasn't dreaming.

 

[Legolas]

I think that the NHLPA knows that if they did agree to a cap, the owners would still find a way to mess it up to the point that the NHL players would still make a lot of money anyway...that's why they agreed to salary rollbacks, etc....but it's obviously easier for the players to make lots of money without a cap. More importantly, if there is "cost certainty", then the players will be affected just as badly as the owners once revenues go down, which I would have to say is practically a certainty...that's the key for the NHLPA I think...they're afraid of agreeing to a cap at 55% of revenues or whatever, and then watch those revenues decrease annually..

 

[CarlRacki]

Again, if you ever bother to read what I write, you'd know I advocate 100% revenue sharing, which evens the playing field much more than a cap. So yes, I'm only looking out for my team.

OK, I'm confused. You oppose a cap in part because it forces parity and takes away incentive for winning, yet want 100 percent revenue sharing?
I'm curious, but without the fiscal benefits that come from
- selling out your building
- selling lots of your team merchandise
- selling your local broadcast rights for better rates
- going deep into the playoffs

why should a team's ownership bother investing much money in its product? If their revenues are the same irregardless of wins and losses, why spend the money to win?

 

[CarlRacki]

I think that the NHLPA knows that if they did agree to a cap, the owners would still find a way to mess it up to the point that the NHL players would still make a lot of money anyway...that's why they agreed to salary rollbacks, etc....but it's obviously easier for the players to make lots of money without a cap. More importantly, if there is "cost certainty", then the players will be affected just as badly as the owners once revenues go down, which I would have to say is practically a certainty...that's the key for the NHLPA I think...they're afraid of agreeing to a cap at 55% of revenues or whatever, and then watch those revenues decrease annually..

Some contradictions here:
1. The NHLPA is opposed to a cap because they would still make a lot of money if one were established? Hmmm...
2. The NHLPA claims that the owners' projection of 3 percent growth is far too conservative. So where do you get the notion that they believe revenues will descrease?

 

[hockeytown9321]

OK, I'm confused. You oppose a cap in part because it forces parity and takes away incentive for winning, yet want 100 percent revenue sharing?
I'm curious, but without the fiscal benefits that come from
- selling out your building
- selling lots of your team merchandise
- selling your local broadcast rights for better rates
- going deep into the playoffs

why should a team's ownership bother investing much money in its product? If their revenues are the same irregardless of wins and losses, why spend the money to win?

Because the more revenue any team makes, the more of it they'll see, and the healthier the league will be.

Its auite different than a cap, becuase it still allows teams to build and keep a team together. It doesn't artifcially bring everyone down to the lowest level.

 

[CoolburnIsGone]

Hmm, this is interesting to me...so many of you are behind an NFL-style salary cap but wouldn't want 100% revenue sharing. You do realize that the NFL has 80% revenue sharing??? Do you pro-cap people think that if the NHLPA agreed to a salary cap that the owners would agree to 80% revenue sharing?? I personally doubt that the owners would agree to it...even if it meant getting the cap they want.

 

[Wetcoaster]

Hmm, this is interesting to me...so many of you are behind an NFL-style salary cap but wouldn't want 100% revenue sharing. You do realize that the NFL has 80% revenue sharing??? Do you pro-cap people think that if the NHLPA agreed to a salary cap that the owners would agree to 80% revenue sharing?? I personally doubt that the owners would agree to it...even if it meant getting the cap they want.

All is not rosy with the NFL's revenue sharing and salary cap.

Actually revenue sharing in the NFL stands at 67% and it is dropping as NFL owners use creative bookeeping to keep more and more dollars out of the shared revenue pool. This has led Gene Upshaw to finally consider quit being a "house union" and threaten the NFL owners with the loss of the salary cap after 2006.

Under the current agreement, there will be no salary cap for the 2007 season.

"We don't have that much time, because if we actually get to that uncapped year, it's over," Upshaw said. "We'll never get the cap back once it goes away."

Since the first contract with free agency and the salary cap took effect in 1994, it always has been extended before it expired to avoid the uncapped year. It was last extended in 2001.

"The money that isn't shared has gone from 30 percent (of total revenues) in 1994 to 37 percent today, and with revenues at almost $6 billion, that's a significant amount of money," he said. "We've had a good deal for 10 years now, and we want that to go forward, but the model has to change."

The NFLPA seems to have finally woken up.

BTW the NHL shares about 9% of revenue.

 

[thinkwild]

Re: if i was the NHLPA

To use Burkes words, when the PA determines they want your advice on what they should do, Ill make sure they have your number

All is not rosy with the NFL's revenue sharing and salary cap.

Actually revenue sharing in the NFL stands at 67% and it is dropping as NFL owners use creative bookeeping to keep more and more dollars out of the shared revenue pool. This has led Gene Upshaw to finally consider quit being a "house union" and threaten the NFL owners with the loss of the salary cap after 2006.

Under the current agreement, there will be no salary cap for the 2007 season.

"We don't have that much time, because if we actually get to that uncapped year, it's over," Upshaw said. "We'll never get the cap back once it goes away."

Since the first contract with free agency and the salary cap took effect in 1994, it always has been extended before it expired to avoid the uncapped year. It was last extended in 2001.

"The money that isn't shared has gone from 30 percent (of total revenues) in 1994 to 37 percent today, and with revenues at almost $6 billion, that's a significant amount of money," he said. "We've had a good deal for 10 years now, and we want that to go forward, but the model has to change."

The NFLPA seems to have finally woken up.

BTW the NHL shares about 9% of revenue.

When Upshaw said, "We'll never get the cap back once it goes away." , i assumed he was in fear they would lose it, ( which seemed very strange to me), it didnt sound like he was using it as a threat to the owners. Are you suggesting he is more diplomatic than i understood?

Bettman always talks of enhanced revenue sharing. But it must really be a divisive issue amongst the owners. Too bad there is a gag order on discussing it, it would seem an interesting issue to explore. But I imagine the owners figure its none of our business. Fair enough. IF fans got wind of the fact that Edmonton wouldnt qualify for revenue sharing under their own revenue models, their lies would be further exposed. Even the owners seem smart enough though to devise a system that doesnt allow Wirtz to receive any money.

 

[thinkwild]

The NFLPA was saying they want to renogiate their CBA because of all the revenues that arent falling under their defined revenues. When they initially signed the agreement, they hadnt forseen all the ways owners would shuffle money, or not declare rich luxury suite streams etc. Good lesson to learn.

I guess its possible that all sports owners will make one collective stand. Hockey remains out for the rest of the year. Then they are joined by basketball, and finally football. Then all the unions can join together and negotiate with all pro sports owners as one industry with baseball, hockey and football divisions, etc.

 

[Wetcoaster]

Re: if i was the NHLPA

To use Burkes words, when the PA determines they want your advice on what they should do, Ill make sure they have your number




When Upshaw said, "We'll never get the cap back once it goes away." , i assumed he was in fear they would lose it, ( which seemed very strange to me), it didnt sound like he was using it as a threat to the owners. Are you suggesting he is more diplomatic than i understood?

Bettman always talks of enhanced revenue sharing. But it must really be a divisive issue amongst the owners. Too bad there is a gag order on discussing it, it would seem an interesting issue to explore. But I imagine the owners figure its none of our business. Fair enough. IF fans got wind of the fact that Edmonton wouldnt qualify for revenue sharing under their own revenue models, their lies would be further exposed. Even the owners seem smart enough though to devise a system that doesnt allow Wirtz to receive any money.

Upshaw was not fearful - it was a threat to certain owners.

Bettman's "enhance revenue sharing" is designed not to be divisive because he would not survive if he actually championed such a course. better to blame the players.

He has been vague about his plans for revenue sharing. But what we do know is the league's vision of a "revenue sharing pool that will be funded primarily by a portion of revenues generated in the Stanley Cup playoffs" and may be one of the key reasons the big spending, high revenue teams have bought into Commissioner Gary Bettman's cost certainty.

 

[thinkwild]

I will dispute that. The NHL is a 2 billion dollar industry because they boast the best players, but also because they have developed the hockey market in America, that they have the installations and capital required to feature the players adequately, because they give out the Stanley Cup and that they have many teams with a deep tradition. The NHL and its teams brand and marketing has a big part to play in being a 2 billion dollar industry.

Yes, I agree, it is a partnership. The league is the product as long as it has the best players in the world. Otherwise it is a lesser product, just as if the same players attempted to start another league. They need each other. They have to find a way to compromise.


Re: Detroit needing to get to the 3rd round to profit - that was the budget and expectations they planned for. A risk the owner could afford and was willing to take. I agree it is a bit unfair that small market teams like Detroit have to lose their UFAs like Federov, Hull and Robitaille because they cant afford it, but it isnt a sign the system is unfair, it is fair management and money decisions to make.

 

[CoolburnIsGone]

All is not rosy with the NFL's revenue sharing and salary cap.

Actually revenue sharing in the NFL stands at 67% and it is dropping as NFL owners use creative bookeeping to keep more and more dollars out of the shared revenue pool. This has led Gene Upshaw to finally consider quit being a "house union" and threaten the NFL owners with the loss of the salary cap after 2006.

Under the current agreement, there will be no salary cap for the 2007 season.

"We don't have that much time, because if we actually get to that uncapped year, it's over," Upshaw said. "We'll never get the cap back once it goes away."

Since the first contract with free agency and the salary cap took effect in 1994, it always has been extended before it expired to avoid the uncapped year. It was last extended in 2001.

"The money that isn't shared has gone from 30 percent (of total revenues) in 1994 to 37 percent today, and with revenues at almost $6 billion, that's a significant amount of money," he said. "We've had a good deal for 10 years now, and we want that to go forward, but the model has to change."

The NFLPA seems to have finally woken up.

BTW the NHL shares about 9% of revenue.

Oh I don't disagree with you that all is not so great with the NFL's CBA. But I'm not sure where you got your numbers from. According to the link posted above by Mayor of MacAppolis, it clearly states "80 percent of all gate receipts, among other things, are spread evenly among the teams." Since the NHL is basically a gate-driven league, any other revenue should be mostly kept by individual teams as that revenue is a result of their individual market. But I'd like to see where you got your numbers from as a comparative. I just think even 67% is probably unlikely for the owners to share in revenue. I wonder if the league had more than 9-10% revenue sharing over these last 10 yrs or so from the last CBA and was closer to what the NBA & MLB have (35%), what would the state of the league be in now and would there have needed to be a lockout.

 

[Wetcoaster]

Oh I don't disagree with you that all is not so great with the NFL's CBA. But I'm not sure where you got your numbers from. According to the link posted above by Mayor of MacAppolis, it clearly states "80 percent of all gate receipts, among other things, are spread evenly among the teams." Since the NHL is basically a gate-driven league, any other revenue should be mostly kept by individual teams as that revenue is a result of their individual market. But I'd like to see where you got your numbers from as a comparative. I just think even 67% is probably unlikely for the owners to share in revenue. I wonder if the league had more than 9-10% revenue sharing over these last 10 yrs or so from the last CBA and was closer to what the NBA & MLB have (35%), what would the state of the league be in now and would there have needed to be a lockout.

It comes from a 2002 (?) study for the NHL which concluded 9 percent compared to 67 percent for the NFL and around 35 percent each for the NBA and Major League Baseball.