NHLPA losing its shoes and socks now....

[joepeps]

Correct. If the cap is low, everything else being favored is completely minimized. Whether you become a free agent at 27 or 31, you can still only sign for how much cap space a team has.

that offer at 42 was bad... in the cap they included players on the injured list players makeing over 500K in the minors, bonuses, and of ****... plus all the other issues that were a rip off to them....

 

[DuklaNation]

Bob Goodenow, it was the best of times, it was the worst of times.

 

[GSC2k2*]

that offer at 42 was bad... in the cap they included players on the injured list players makeing over 500K in the minors, bonuses, and of ****... plus all the other issues that were a rip off to them....

What makes you think those things are not still included in the new cap number?

 

[King_Brown]

Franchise player rule could work in the NHL if they reduce RFA down to say 25-27 years old. I think no player would want that rule, as they can could be resitricted to a team there entire career, by being tagged every year.

 

[txomisc]

that offer at 42 was bad... in the cap they included players on the injured list players makeing over 500K in the minors, bonuses, and of ****... plus all the other issues that were a rip off to them....

and that stuff is not included in these caps? Do those fairly insignificant things make up for 6 million dollars?

 

[joepeps]

and that stuff is not included in these caps? Do those fairly insignificant things make up for 6 million dollars?

I would say so... but we dont' know whats in the new cba... and plus linkage is better than a 42.5 mil cap.. because it can rise up... it sure as hell can't get any lower and if it does the NHL should fold...

 

[Larry Melnyk]

I kinda lost my stomach for following the ins and outs of this battle a long time ago..I couldn't care less about who "wins" or "loses" anymore (everybody lost) but it just seems like the majority on this board only care about seeing the players and BG "lose" big time so they can say "told you so" and "the greedy players got what they deserve"...

Anyway, one question here...many people are saying that the players should have accepted the cap/offer from the owners a long time ago and now are getting substantially less..That might be true, then again it might not...Does anybody know what counts as revenue now compared to several months ago? They sure as heck fianlly spent a heck of a time going over it so it wouldn't be surprising if the give and takes even out...

 

[Gee Wally]

I would say so... but we dont' know whats in the new cba... and plus linkage is better than a 42.5 mil cap.. because it can rise up... it sure as hell can't get any lower and if it does the NHL should fold...

It certainely can get lower. They already lost ESPN as small as it was it was incremental income. June 15th is huge for corporate sponsors of the league. That represents millions more per team.

Then here in Boston luxury box money is due very soon. I know for a fact one sponsor that is pulling out due to the mess with hockey as well as the upcoming NBA lockout.

I think as it stands right now if we look globally around the league, the likliehood of the cap amount going down is pretty good.

 

[HockeyCritter]

It certainely can get lower. They already lost ESPN as small as it was it was incremental income. June 15th is huge for corporate sponsors of the league. That represents millions more per team.

Then here in Boston luxury box money is due very soon. I know for a fact one sponsor that is pulling out due to the mess with hockey as well as the upcoming NBA lockout.

I think as it stands right now if we look globally around the league, the likliehood of the cap amount going down is pretty good.

Which is precisely why I think we’ll see a deal sooner than later.

Additionally I think the NHL will engage in some aggressive marketing (coupled with rule changes to fix the on ice product **crossing fingers**) to take advantage of the void that the NBA could leave . . . . heck TNT and ESPN will have air time it needs to fill without basketball. I could see the NHL offering games to those stations (granted a reduced rate) - - but still, get the game out there, get the fans back, find new fans.

 

[Gee Wally]

Which is precisely why I think we’ll see a deal sooner than later.

Additionally I think the NHL will engage in some aggressive marketing (coupled with rule changes to fix the on ice product **crossing fingers**) to take advantage of the void that the NBA could leave . . . . heck TNT and ESPN will have air time it needs to fill without basketball. I could see the NHL offering games to those stations (granted a reduced rate) - - but still, get the game out there, get the fans back, find new fans.

I agree wholeheartedly.
The league needs to be made healthy again. It needs to take advantage of everything it can to make it fast and hard hitting and above all ENTERTAINING. All the while , as you say, take advantage of the NBA lockout. I'd even consider a revenue sharing deal with the networks guaranteeing the networks make something. If the game can be improved and the league gets exposure to a new exciting brand of hockey , then the rest will take care of itself.

The league also needs to somehow become very , very kid and family friendly. It is losing out now to too many other sports and entertainments...

I could go on and on but it's time to commute home.

 

[Lanny MacDonald*]

I agree with you on that. But linkage is better than 42.5 fixed. Thats if they can increase revenue.

I'm not sure why this "offer" is brought up so often. It was on the table for about eight hours before the season was cancelled, and then pulled and shredded. The NHL never wanted a deal like the $42.5 million fixed. They wanted the linkage and they got the linkage.

The players all along have said NO cap! There is a cap. The said NO linkage. There is linkage. They said NO to 54%! The linkage is supposed to be 54% MAXIMUM with NO money in escrow. The players had the opportunity to get 54% GUARANTEED from revenues PLUS 50% of profits over $115 million, and they pissed it away. The NHLPA got CRUSHED because of their own stupidity, greed and lack of foresight to see what the NHL was up against as a league.

Spin it any way you like, but the players got destroyed in every way and have taken a massive hit on all levels. Who in their right mind is going to get these guys to sponsor their products when 80% of the fans are against them? They not only got hit at the salary level, but likely at their sponsorship levels as well. The NHLPA leadership miscalculated and this is one of the most one sided labor settlements I think you'll ever see. Landslide victory does not effectively describe the probable outcome of this dispute.

 

[GSC2k2*]

and that stuff is not included in these caps? Do those fairly insignificant things make up for 6 million dollars?

More than $6 million, txomisc.

Assuming we are talking the G&M reported deal, those numbers included the benefits (up to $5 mil, says Shoalts, but at least $2.5 mil, per the NHL). This makes the real cap $31.5 to 33.5 million, even assuming the lower NHL quoted benefit number.

The $42.5 was in addition to the $2.5 mil in benefits, for a total of $44.7 million.

So we have a difference of $9 to 11 million, not $6 million. And yet the PA shills will still tell you that is a MUCH better deal than was offered in February.

 

[HockeyCritter]

I agree wholeheartedly.
The league needs to be made healthy again. It needs to take advantage of everything it can to make it fast and hard hitting and above all ENTERTAINING. All the while , as you say, take advantage of the NBA lockout. I'd even consider a revenue sharing deal with the networks guaranteeing the networks make something. If the game can be improved and the league gets exposure to a new exciting brand of hockey , then the rest will take care of itself.

The league also needs to somehow become very , very kid and family friendly. It is losing out now to too many other sports and entertainments...

I could go on and on but it's time to commute home.

This is one area where the Capitals excel. There are Family Four Packs where a family can receive four tickets, four hats, four sodas, four hot dogs, and four programs for as little as $60 (granted you’re pretty high up there, but the seats are very good (MCI really doesn’t have a bad seat in the house)). They also offered special packages to Boy/Girl scouts and various hockey clubs. Slapshot Sundaes (reduced ticket pricing for children and free ice cream sundaes) were always sold out (sadly the only time the Caps sold out last season). The Caps partnered with local Exxon stations where you received a free ticket (with purchase of one) after eight fill-ups. Until the last season, the Caps also ran numerous print and television ads featuring various players. And of course, players made numerous appearances (usually partnered with reading programs in various local schools).

I am certain that Leonsis will continue to target families (the truest way to grow a fan base) as well as find ways to keep current fans happy. The rest of the league needs to do so as well, it is in everyone’s best interest to do so.

 

[Chayos]

but what are the other parts of the deal? everyone focuses on the cap # but that might actually be the least important factor in the whole thing. a $36 mil cap with favorable free agency, qualifying offers, arbitration, etc might be better in some ways. they could set the cap at $100 mil but if there are no ways to get more $$ what good does that do the players. it isn't like they are taking the same deal and just lowering the cap.

People seem to be forgetting the floor is in this deal that wasn't in the 42.5 offer in FEb. The floor will keep teams like Pitts, min, col, Car, and other in the FA bidding wars for middling players just to make the floor. This gives players as much or more money than the higher cap would. Teams have to spend this money where they were not before. This is the concession the players got IMO. The teams who go to the top of the range are still going to go there, but a lot of teams would have stayed at 15-20 million who won't be able to do that now.

 

[txomisc]

I would say so... but we dont' know whats in the new cba... and plus linkage is better than a 42.5 mil cap.. because it can rise up... it sure as hell can't get any lower and if it does the NHL should fold...

Well considering the PA fought tooth and nails against linkage and stated they would prefer a cap that didnt more, i fail to see how all of a sudden linkage is better for them

 

[Resolute]

Anyway, one question here...many people are saying that the players should have accepted the cap/offer from the owners a long time ago and now are getting substantially less..That might be true, then again it might not...Does anybody know what counts as revenue now compared to several months ago? They sure as heck fianlly spent a heck of a time going over it so it wouldn't be surprising if the give and takes even out...

That is something the owners would have negotiated then as well. The problem in the past wasn't that the owners werent willing to negotiate what is and is not HRI, but that the players weren't willing to negotiate it.

I've always believed that any deal involving a cap would necessitate the players and owners agreeing to define revenue. That was as much true in February as it is now.

 

[Mess]

More than $6 million, txomisc.

Assuming we are talking the G&M reported deal, those numbers included the benefits (up to $5 mil, says Shoalts, but at least $2.5 mil, per the NHL). This makes the real cap $31.5 to 33.5 million, even assuming the lower NHL quoted benefit number.

The $42.5 was in addition to the $2.5 mil in benefits, for a total of $44.7 million.

So we have a difference of $9 to 11 million, not $6 million. And yet the PA shills will still tell you that is a MUCH better deal than was offered in February.

Did I miss an article that said if the NHLPA took the $42.5 mil Final offer that all 30 teams promised to pay the full $42.5 cap amount in player Salaries .

So lets say we take the average of your 9-11 mil dif and make it $10 mil ave ..

So Lets say Toronto and Detroit pay every cent and Pittsburgh ices last years team at $20 mil total .. Toronto and Detroit just gained the PA $10 mil + $10 mil for $20 mil over the current deal .. Then Pittsburgh ($42.5 - $20 mil team Salary). Loss of <$22.5 mil > for the PA total .. Everything gained by 2 teams spending was nulified by 1 team spending as before and not reaching $42.5 mil.

Repeat Colorado and Phillly at $42.5 mil cap .. Florida at $ 21 mil
Repeat NYR and Dallas at $ 42.5 mil cap ....Nashville at $22 mil ..

So what good is this for the PA ??

Or in case you don't follow that logic .. Detroit at 42.5 , Toronto at 42.5 , Pittsburgh at $20 mil = ( $42.5 + $42.5 + 20.0 ) = 105 mil / 3 teams = $35 mil ave per team CEILING..

That sounds like the same thing as the Globe and Mail report??

Or Do it for all the teams I did DET,NYR,DAL,COL,TOR, PHIL, all at $42.5 & Pitts $20, Florida $21, Nashville $22. = ($42.5 X 6 + $20 + $21+ $22 ) = $318 mil total / 9 teams = $ 35.3 ave per team CEILING..

That sounds like the same thing as the Globe and Mail report??

Now that all the Big 6 markets are already include .. where do we believe Anaheim, Columbus, Atlanta, Phoenix, Edmonton, Calgary, Washington, Chicago, Carolina would end up with no HARD CAP FLOOR ?? I am willing to bet it no where near the 42.5 mil Cap ceiling ..

Looks like a huge loss expected for the PA ahead based on that deal and the systemic issues where terrible to boot .. and the cap was fixed all 6 years as well ..

It shows that even if all 6 - 8 big market teams spent every penny of the $42.5 mil that they couldn't make the deal better then the current one for the PA because of the spending habits of the other 22 teams and their afforability to spend, to remain profitable.

 

[txomisc]

People seem to be forgetting the floor is in this deal that wasn't in the 42.5 offer in FEb. The floor will keep teams like Pitts, min, col, Car, and other in the FA bidding wars for middling players just to make the floor. This gives players as much or more money than the higher cap would. Teams have to spend this money where they were not before. This is the concession the players got IMO. The teams who go to the top of the range are still going to go there, but a lot of teams would have stayed at 15-20 million who won't be able to do that now.

I have asked this question numerous times and dont think I have recieved one reply to it. How many teams do you honestly believe would spend below 22 million dollars if there was no floor? To me, a floor is that low is a nonfactor.

 

[txomisc]

More than $6 million, txomisc.

Assuming we are talking the G&M reported deal, those numbers included the benefits (up to $5 mil, says Shoalts, but at least $2.5 mil, per the NHL). This makes the real cap $31.5 to 33.5 million, even assuming the lower NHL quoted benefit number.

The $42.5 was in addition to the $2.5 mil in benefits, for a total of $44.7 million.

So we have a difference of $9 to 11 million, not $6 million. And yet the PA shills will still tell you that is a MUCH better deal than was offered in February.

Thanks. I think the main thing we see here is people (this does happen on both sides) have become so emotionally attached to a "win/loss" aspect of CBA negotiations that they can't bring themselves to admit what is really going on. It isnt even a conscious thing anymore.

 

[missK]

I have asked this question numerous times and dont think I have recieved one reply to it. How many teams do you honestly believe would spend below 22 million dollars if there was no floor? To me, a floor is that low is a nonfactor.

I think the floor is more of an line so that a team doesn't screw their market/fans by dumping salaries to get more luxury tax dollars.

 

[p.l.f.]

im not so sure the salary cap will go any higher in upcoming seasons.
it may even go down !

but what i like is the lower the salary cap, the more potential for teams to come back to canada.

i dont care if the game doesnt sell in carolina or nashville or wherever.
all the more opportunity to have it in hamilton quebec or winnipeg .


the league losing money and franchises in the red financially is a good thing as far as i'm concerned - i hate the 30 team league with its watered down lineups.

 

[kdb209]

im not so sure the salary cap will go any higher in upcoming seasons.
it may even go down !

but what i like is the lower the salary cap, the more potential for teams to come back to canada.

i dont care if the game doesnt sell in carolina or nashville or wherever.
all the more opportunity to have it in hamilton quebec or winnipeg .


the league losing money and franchises in the red financially is a good thing as far as i'm concerned - i hate the 30 team league with its watered down lineups.

I agree that the Salary Cap may very well drop in the second year of the CBA if first year revenues (a big unknown) come in less than projected, but I don't think the new CBA with a cap really helps Winnipeg or Quebec or Hamilton.

A CBA with a low cap allows teams in Carolina or Nashville or <insert your favorite non traditional market or expansion team here> to survive and be financially successful where they are, so why would they move. And if any teams did relocate (because an owner thought he could make even more money in some greener pasture), Winnipeg (I don't think either of the other two are really viable relocation options) would have to compete with much larger potential American markets - Portland, Vegas, Houston, etc. I think the only real chance Winnipeg has for ever getting a team again is expansion - if 4 or 5 or more years down the road the league has recovered enough to consider to expanding to 32 teams.

And I'll restrain myself from getting into the argument that expansion has NOT watered down teams.

 

[GSC2k2*]

Quote:
Originally Posted by gscarpenter2002
More than $6 million, txomisc.

Assuming we are talking the G&M reported deal, those numbers included the benefits (up to $5 mil, says Shoalts, but at least $2.5 mil, per the NHL). This makes the real cap $31.5 to 33.5 million, even assuming the lower NHL quoted benefit number.

The $42.5 was in addition to the $2.5 mil in benefits, for a total of $44.7 million.

So we have a difference of $9 to 11 million, not $6 million. And yet the PA shills will still tell you that is a MUCH better deal than was offered in February.

Did I miss an article that said if the NHLPA took the $42.5 mil Final offer that all 30 teams promised to pay the full $42.5 cap amount in player Salaries .

Um, are you following the same thread? If you read my post above, I am correcting another poster's math (for which he thanked me). It allows for the comparison of one top cap number to another.

Secondly, i hope you are not rolling out the thoroughly discredited argument that teams would never spend to the cap. Once more with feeling: prior to these negotiations, NHL salaries were heading in one way and one way only - up, up and away. More teams were spending at higher numbers.

So lets say we take the average of your 9-11 mil dif and make it $10 mil ave ..

So Lets say Toronto and Detroit pay every cent and Pittsburgh ices last years team at $20 mil total .. Toronto and Detroit just gained the PA $10 mil + $10 mil for $20 mil over the current deal .. Then Pittsburgh ($42.5 - $20 mil team Salary). Loss of <$22.5 mil > for the PA total .. Everything gained by 2 teams spending was nulified by 1 team spending as before and not reaching $42.5 mil.

Repeat Colorado and Phillly at $42.5 mil cap .. Florida at $ 21 mil
Repeat NYR and Dallas at $ 42.5 mil cap ....Nashville at $22 mil ..

Now, Massager, before I went to law school I toyed with the idea of being a math major while an undergrad, so I know my way around numbers. That said, I must be missing your point, because you are aimlessly stringing figures together. Can you please enlighten me? Are you doing the Feb deal vs. now deal comparison again? What are you talking about?

So what good is this for the PA ??

Or in case you don't follow that logic .. Detroit at 42.5 , Toronto at 42.5 , Pittsburgh at $20 mil = ( $42.5 + $42.5 + 20.0 ) = 105 mil / 3 teams = $35 mil ave per team CEILING..

That sounds like the same thing as the Globe and Mail report??

Or Do it for all the teams I did DET,NYR,DAL,COL,TOR, PHIL, all at $42.5 & Pitts $20, Florida $21, Nashville $22. = ($42.5 X 6 + $20 + $21+ $22 ) = $318 mil total / 9 teams = $ 35.3 ave per team CEILING..

That sounds like the same thing as the Globe and Mail report??

Again ...

Now that all the Big 6 markets are already include .. where do we believe Anaheim, Columbus, Atlanta, Phoenix, Edmonton, Calgary, Washington, Chicago, Carolina would end up with no HARD CAP FLOOR ?? I am willing to bet it no where near the 42.5 mil Cap ceiling ..

Well, here your point seems to be emerging frlom the murk. A bunch of teams won't spend near the cap. Well, whether they do or do not, my original point regarding what the caps were by comparison holds true: $31.5/33.5 versus $42.5. As far as how many teams that affects, that depends on your point of view I suppose. If one is a PA shill who won't see anything or concede a point after they have been hammered on it repeatedly AND don't mind a little self-contradiction, they would say eight or so. If you are halfway sensible and/or have some perception and can read a simple chart showing the trajectory of NHL salaries in non-CBA circumstances, you would say eight off the bat, with a lot more once the salary escalation train and agent collusion resumed its constant path.

To say nothing of the fact that salary sizes set by the high spenders of the league affects all teams...

Chum, if as you suggest the cap size is irrelevant and affects only a few teams, ask yourself this: why did the PA allow the flushing of an entire season over it? At the eleventh hour, why were they exchanging faxes and drawing lines in the sand over an inconsequential issue? I thought so.

Looks like a huge loss expected for the PA ahead based on that deal and the systemic issues where terrible to boot .. and the cap was fixed all 6 years as well ..

Firstly, you have no idea what the NHL position was on systemic issues. The negotiaing point was the PA December 9 proposal. THe NHL required adjustments to that proposal. That does not mean "terrible". As for the cap being fixed, I will remind you - AGAIN - that the PA required the removal of linkage to even discuss a cap at that time.

It shows that even if all 6 - 8 big market teams spent every penny of the $42.5 mil that they couldn't make the deal better then the current one for the PA because of the spending habits of the other 22 teams and their afforability to spend, to remain profitable.

Well, wrong again. But you know that, don't you, you little scamp. First off, spending "habits" is not the correct term. Compulsory spending is more like it, after agents get through with them. Secondly, a "floor" of $19.5-21.5 million (which is after the benefits are deducted) is hardly anything at all. For 23 players, it is miniscule by any standard. THe floor (at the reported level) is horrendous for the PA. No team would have spent below it in any event.

You can try to cobble toether unrelated numbers as much as you wish. If you want to, I can trot out the owners' best offer, which was a $29.8 million FLOOR.

If I am perchance not responding to your points, that would be because I missed them. Can you please enlighten me, IF that is the case.