Oilers owner(s)...says they will be gone without a cap

[Bring Back Bucky]

If the Oilers left.. I do not think it would harm The Flames... We almost lost our team but a Save our Flames campaign in 1999/2000 was a success and the fans stepped up, not to mention the new Flames fans the team picked up from last years playoff run. Our ownership is more stable, and the franchise as a whole is more stable.

With that said.. I would not want the Oilers to leave. The Battle of Alberta is too good to lose.

I'm afraid your thinking on this one is a bit naive. The Flames face most of the same problems as the Oilers, a playoff run doesn't change the big picture.

 

[kerrly]

If the Oilers left.. I do not think it would harm The Flames... We almost lost our team but a Save our Flames campaign in 1999/2000 was a success and the fans stepped up, not to mention the new Flames fans the team picked up from last years playoff run. Our ownership is more stable, and the franchise as a whole is more stable.

With that said.. I would not want the Oilers to leave. The Battle of Alberta is too good to lose.

Those new Flames fans you picked up in the last season playoff run, will be the same fans that jump ship as soon as you have a bad season. If fans are that quick to abandon their old team and join up with yours, nothing is stopping them from jumping ship again and going to the next contender.

 

[shakes]

So has no one been able to answer the "We can't survive paying 30 million but make us spend 34 million and this will make it all better" question? I mean, aside from the "banking on getting far into the playoffs" scenerio someone so creatively posed.

No wonder Little Gary doesn't want ownership saying anything. Whether you are a millionaire player or a billionaire owner, I guess it doesn't get you immunity from the "foot in mouth" disease.

 

[Mr Sakich]

So has no one been able to answer the "We can't survive paying 30 million but make us spend 34 million and this will make it all better" question? I mean, aside from the "banking on getting far into the playoffs" scenerio someone so creatively posed.

No wonder Little Gary doesn't want ownership saying anything. Whether you are a millionaire player or a billionaire owner, I guess it doesn't get you immunity from the "foot in mouth" disease.

what oilers management has said is that they break even when they are at about 45 mill Canadian in team payroll. If they are allowed to compete competitively with that payroll, they will continue to do so. They will not lose money just to compete, nor will they put in the effort if a 45 mill salary means they are the montreal expos of hockey.

A cap makes everyone close to equal and thats all they want.

 

[Anksun]

So has no one been able to answer the "We can't survive paying 30 million but make us spend 34 million and this will make it all better" question? I mean, aside from the "banking on getting far into the playoffs" scenerio someone so creatively posed.

No wonder Little Gary doesn't want ownership saying anything. Whether you are a millionaire player or a billionaire owner, I guess it doesn't get you immunity from the "foot in mouth" disease.

Imo Oilers can survive right now, and they must think if a cap is put in place even if it's 34M. It would bring a way of optimism in the city, they might finally been able to keep some players, and in the process bring more interest in the team and revenus. Point is without a cap, the Oilers wont been able to stay in the 30-35M range even with their actual "we send a guy to another team as soon as he's very good" process, without a cap the increase will continue and in this view it wont matter if it's Edmonton or Calgary, they will be gone.

 

[MrMackey]

You got that backwards. Payrolls are always done in USD. That same $31 million USD payroll that cost the Oilers $44.3 million CAD last year at a 0.70 dollar would now only cost the Oilers $37.8 million CAD at a 0.82 dollar. Instant savings of $6.5 million CAD due to the exchange rate are often overlooked because it doesn't support the idea that the Oilers are in serious trouble.

Actually, you've got it backwards. The Oilers base their payroll on revenues in Canadian dollars.

What Sakich's saying is if the Oilers make their budget and decide that they can spend $44.3M CDN on payroll, then they speculate what the avg exchange rate will be and base their payroll limit on that number. When the dollar is higher than expected, the team makes a profit or spends more money (last year with Ulanov, Nedved). When the dollar drops, they have to shed salary to break even (Niinimaa and Carter).

Edmonton spend $31M last season, because they felt they could afford $45M CDN. Using that same number this year, they'd be able to spend $36M+ this season. The Oilers always spend up to breakeven on payroll.

There have been a number of initiatives in place to bring capital in to the Oilers that have expired with the CBA (equalization payments, AB gov't player tax, Heritage Classic, cash injections).

 

[CGG]

Actually, you've got it backwards. The Oilers base their payroll on revenues in Canadian dollars.

What Sakich's saying is if the Oilers make their budget and decide that they can spend $44.3M CDN on payroll, then they speculate what the avg exchange rate will be and base their payroll limit on that number. When the dollar is higher than expected, the team makes a profit or spends more money (last year with Ulanov, Nedved). When the dollar drops, they have to shed salary to break even (Niinimaa and Carter).

Edmonton spend $31M last season, because they felt they could afford $45M CDN. Using that same number this year, they'd be able to spend $36M+ this season. The Oilers always spend up to breakeven on payroll.

There have been a number of initiatives in place to bring capital in to the Oilers that have expired with the CBA (equalization payments, AB gov't player tax, Heritage Classic, cash injections).

My bad, you're right, I don't read good.

Teams should be hedging throughout the year though, so they don't get flattened if the dollar starts to fall. And I don't think they paid a dime of Nedved's contract last year.

Regardless, the Oilers and all Canadian teams should be in better financial shape, so long as the dollar stays up around the 0.80 range, instead of the 0.63 of two years ago.

 

[OilerFan4Life]

if edmonton is selling out every game and are still losing money, that tells you one of two things- either ticket prices are too low, or edmonton cannot support an nhl team, which wont change if there's a salary floor.

lol.....A blackhawk fan saying Edmonton cant support an NHL team. BTW when was the last time a blackhawk game was on local tv in Chicago??

The hawks are a frikin joke.

 

[Crosbyfan]

You will need to subscribe to read the whole thing, but this is as harsh a stance as i have heard from any members of ownership.

Link

We realize he is in a small market and needs to be subsidized to survive, but did he say why it was so important that the NHLPA make up the difference instead of the NHL? Did he explain why players in New York should have their wages based on Edmonton's market. Did he say he could not survive even if the NHL made up HALF the difference and the NHLPA only made up the other HALF (in wage limitations).

Or did he just tow the Bettman line?

 

[MrMackey]

And I don't think they paid a dime of Nedved's contract last year.

Now that you mention it, I think you're right there. My bad.

Regardless, the Oilers and all Canadian teams should be in better financial shape, so long as the dollar stays up around the 0.80 range, instead of the 0.63 of two years ago.

No doubt about it. The Oilers should have no problems surviving with a better dollar.

However, the revenues won't be what they were without all the assistance they've received over the past few years... so keeping up with the payroll they've had recently will be a challenge if the cost of players continues to rise. If there is no real drag on salaries, then the quality of the typical player that Edmonton signs will continue to drop.

 

[YellHockey*]

Any thoughts on a new building for the Oilers to help generate more revenue ???

I know the Penguins have the oldest building in the NHL, but I believe that the Isles and Oilers would be next in line.

I think that will be Nichols next demand. He's probably figured out that Bettman has little chance of getting the PA to capitulate on a hard cap. There might be a possibility but its remote. So he figures he'll lay the groundwork for a new building.

He'll say the Oilers can't go on without a hard cap. Then when the CBA mess is sorted out and there's no hard cap, he'll make his statement. He'll say something like "We didn't get a hard cap and there's only one way for the Oilers to survive in Edmonton. We didn't want to have to do this but we know how much the great fans in Edmonton love the NHL. But if the Oilers are to survive in Edmonton we need a new building.".

If this isn't the case, why bother even making a statement? He's not going to convince the players and Alberta is pretty much on an NHLPA witch hunt for any player who doesn't drink Bettman's koolaid. Why waste his time if doesn't have a purpose behind his statements?

 

[me2]

You're right about that one.

Maybe it should simply be game by game revenue sharing. IE, when Iginla comes to Toronto to play us with Calgary, and we've got a sold out arena, we hand over 30% of the games sales to the Flames. Also, when we go to Calgary, they hand us 30% of their game sales.

Allow 20% for the rink running costs, then split the rest 50-50 with the visitors (ie 40%). Takes two teams to play a game. Any fan that doesn't want to "pay for the other teams players" should just consider what the game would be like if only the home team skated out. Pay $50 a ticket to watch the home team skate around aimlessly for 60 minutes?

 

[Hockey_Nut99]

It's weird how the rest of Canada and anybody else sees todays comments as a "shocker". Nichols has been saying this for the past number of years. Their goal was to get to 2004. They even had to inject 14 million into the franchise to make it to 2004. Why would they need to inject that much money into the franchise if it were ok?

 

[barrel_master]

No, the Oilers would actually never do something like that. There is something in the west called "ethics" and the business owners out there know that if they screw the local population you are done in them thar parts. The Oilers community ownership would never consider somethin like that, or they would screw themselves out of all of the businesses at the same time.

Now now... let's not turn this into an 'east vs west' thing... instead lets focus all our energies and hatred on the NHLPA!

 

[oil slick]

Ken King, Flames President and CEO had this to say in todays Calgary Sun:

"We just spent the last several years working very hard to get to what I believe is the starting point -- not the finishing point but the starting point -- for a new era in which we can operate and make long-term plans," King said.

"Were it not for the prospect for a new era, I think the Calgary Flames would have been gone a long time ago.

"We fought for years to stay in a position that would permit us to get into the new world. We're waiting for it."

"Calgary's position always has been we support and feel strongly that a new system that has all the necessary characteristics for long-term stability be put in place before we resume competition.

"That system and the process for that is being well handled by the league."


Damnit those Calgary Flames... always complaining. Lets let them sink too!

 

[YellHockey*]

There is something in the west called "ethics" and the business owners out there know that if they screw the local population you are done in them thar parts.

And then you have to move to Tampa?

 

[X0ssbar]

I actually think this announcement was more a warning shot accross the bow of the NHL negotiating team than to the NHLPA. In other words:

Message from the Oilers ownership to the NHL - do not cave on the cap!

 

[Lanny MacDonald*]

And then you have to move to Tampa?

Actually it appears you move to Ottawa and buy a hockey team.

 

[SENSible1*]

I actually think this announcement was more a warning shot accross the bow of the NHL negotiating team than to the NHLPA. In other words:

Message from the Oilers ownership to the NHL - do not cave on the cap!

The message was for both sides, but I found the choice of "suspending" operations very interesting.

It certainly is a huge hammer, should the PA choose to decertify. Numerous teams could flood the market by simply suspending operations in a non-unionized NHL until labour costs bottomed out or a new PA had formed.

 

[YellHockey*]

Actually it appears you move to Ottawa and buy a hockey team.

I didn't know that Toronto was "the west". And you don't move to Ottawa, you buy the team but live in the Barbados.

 

[Morbo]

I actually think this announcement was more a warning shot accross the bow of the NHL negotiating team than to the NHLPA. In other words:

Message from the Oilers ownership to the NHL - do not cave on the cap!

And if today's rumoured NHL offer is true, that message was contemptuously ignored.

 

[Hockey_Nut99]

Some people say the Oilers whine. I don't blame them even if they do sound like that. This isn't just going back to Doug Weight. This goes back to the early 90's when they dismantled their whole team year by year. Hey guess who wont he stanley cup in 1994? The NEW YORK OILERS. Who made the finals in 93? The King shad lots of core Oilers on their team. The Oilers made the Western Final in 91 and 02 but went into the tank until 97.

They made a good trade to get Doug Weight and groomed him into a star franchise player. He got over 100 points one season and left the Oilers scoring 92 points. Niinima (sp?) was a good trade. Guerin was a good trade. Curtis Jodeph was a great aquisition. He single handedly won those 1st round upset series over dallas and cpolorado. Those four right there were huge loses. Why would someone want to keep running them when they know that they are grooming their star players for the New Yorks or Detroits to take a stab at? What do they get in return? Always a less calibre player or a highly touted kid. Pretty much have to hit the restart button every few years.

 

[Wolfpack]

I've seen the question asked here on this thread many times - If the Oilers can barely survive with a payroll just over $30 million, how does it benefit them to have to raise their payroll to meet a $34 million payroll minimum?

The answer is simple if you just use common sense.

First of all, the Oilers wouldn't have to give away their top players like they have been for the past decade. Other teams will be unable to over-value those players by offering them $8 million/yr contracts.

Secondly, the Oilers will be more competitive. Even though they might have to spend $2-3 million more on payroll, Dallas, Colorado, Detroit and St. Louis will be dumping salary left and right, meaning THEORETICALLY instead of finishing 8th or 9th every single year and either missing the playoffs or becoming a first round speedbump for a team with twice their payroll, the Oilers will have the same chance of winning the Cup as every other team in their conference. Assembling a great team will come down to drafting and trading instead of who can offer the best players the most money. The Oil would MORE than make up that $2-3 million in home playoff dates, broadcast rights, pay-per-views, merchandising, etc.

The statements made by Cal Nichols yesterday were very realistic. The Oilers cannot compete in a league where teams are allowed to spend $50 million on payroll. The Oilers can afford to increase their payroll to meet the minimum requirements if they are able to make noise in the playoffs. In a new system with cost certainty, if the Oilers continue to miss the playoffs and the team therefore doesn't make any money, it becomes a management issue and K-Lowe and others get canned for not doing a good enough job. That's the way it is supposed to work.

 

[Hockey_Nut99]

Finally someone with some common sense. I hate when people say "If they are losing money at 30 Million, then how can they make money at 34 Million?"

 

[me2]

The statements made by Cal Nichols yesterday were very realistic. The Oilers cannot compete in a league where teams are allowed to spend $50 million on payroll. The Oilers can afford to increase their payroll to meet the minimum requirements if they are able to make noise in the playoffs. In a new system with cost certainty, if the Oilers continue to miss the playoffs and the team therefore doesn't make any money, it becomes a management issue and K-Lowe and others get canned for not doing a good enough job. That's the way it is supposed to work.

The old CBA + $50m hard cap and I think the oilers could survive and do OK. They'd still lose players as they get old but it wouldn't be as bad, and they'd get a cheaper stronger team for the $. Whether they'd want to is a different matter.