One set of boundaries - Parity on the Ice - Close but no Cigar

Discussion in 'The Business of Hockey' started by Mess, Jul 4, 2005.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Mess

    Mess Global Moderator

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2002
    Messages:
    75,059
    Likes Received:
    805
    Trophy Points:
    214
    Home Page:
    One Set of Boundaries :

    Rumours coming out suggest that the New CBA will be close to :

    $22 mil Floor - $36 mil Ceiling (excluding team benefits) and a

    Luxury tax of $1 for $1 starting at $29 mil.


    Two Set of Rules :

    Small market teams will receive Revenue Sharing from Big markets ..

    Some of which will be the Luxury tax money collected


    Parity Close but no Cigar :

    Those teams that are collecting Revenue Sharing money will not be able to spend into Luxury tax range.

    it would make not sense to give them money and then fine them to give it right back again.

    Conclusion :

    Big Market teams that provide Revenue Sharing can spend to $36 mil Hard Cap ceiling ..

    Small market teams that collect Revenue Sharing can spend to $29 mil Luxury Tax floor

    All teams must be above $ 22 mil Hard Cap floor

    SO what does this all mean ..

    When a big UFA hits the market and we are speaking of Cap Space available ..

    Its not equal at all ... Small markets would ice a team below $29 mil & Big markets below $36 mil.

    So a small market team is NOT competing equally for the services of UFA..

    $7 mil CAP advantage to Big markets in Cap space (which is actually $14 mil in actual spending including the $7 mil Luxury tax).

    Does this not make logical sense?.
     
  2. Pepper

    Pepper Registered User

    Joined:
    Aug 30, 2004
    Messages:
    14,543
    Likes Received:
    3
    Trophy Points:
    126
    You could have said all that in one sentence.

    There was no parity whatsoever under the previous, under the new CBA there's lots of parity, the difference between big and small teams is small.
     
  3. ScottyBowman

    ScottyBowman Registered User

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2003
    Messages:
    2,361
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Detroit
    Home Page:
    I didn't want to make a new topic but my question is... do you guys think their was more parity during the last 10 years or during the 80's?
     
  4. ti-vite

    ti-vite Registered User

    Joined:
    Jul 27, 2004
    Messages:
    3,086
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    94
    all in black normal font.
     
  5. Timmy

    Timmy Registered User

    Joined:
    Feb 2, 2005
    Messages:
    10,690
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Awards:
    And, a team would weigh whether or not it wants to receive revenue sharing, or sign the UFA.

    It will all be about the decisions of the GM/Pres/owners.

    Besides, a couple million difference in payrolls is a heluva lot better than differences in the tens of millions.
     
  6. Tra La La

    Tra La La Registered User

    Joined:
    Feb 13, 2003
    Messages:
    4,707
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Buffalo, New York
    Hmm I would have Thought. If a team exceeds the 29 mil lux tax. They would pay dollar for dollar, and be Excluded from Lux Tax sharing. But still having the choice.
    For Instance if The Leafs were under 29 mil, and The Sabres Over. The Leafs would collect a Share from the Lux Tax. While The Sabres would pay Dollar for dollar.
    Thats how I imagined it would go.
     
  7. Bruwinz37

    Bruwinz37 Registered User

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2002
    Messages:
    27,430
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Occupation:
    Sales
    Dont try to instill logic in this. Just let the pro PA crowd spin this in whatever way that makes them feel better.
     
  8. Timmy

    Timmy Registered User

    Joined:
    Feb 2, 2005
    Messages:
    10,690
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Awards:
    Sorry, my bad.
     
  9. CMUMike

    CMUMike Registered User

    Joined:
    Feb 13, 2005
    Messages:
    68
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    It's 14 in real dollars, but not in player dollars. They can only maintain a roster with an additional 7M worth of players. Even at 7M difference, you're looking at a much more even playing field. Compare the 7M gap to 20, 30, 40M gaps.
     
  10. Good Lord, the Stanley Cup stayed in Montreal, Long Island and Edmondton for 12 of 13 years.

    The parity of the the last decade looks positively communist next to that.
     
  11. Tuggy

    Tuggy Registered User

    Joined:
    Nov 26, 2003
    Messages:
    37,561
    Likes Received:
    1,007
    Trophy Points:
    173
    Location:
    Saint John
    Which is why I don't understand where he is coming from. How would parity not come from this? Is 7M really going to make that much of a difference?
     
  12. Pepper

    Pepper Registered User

    Joined:
    Aug 30, 2004
    Messages:
    14,543
    Likes Received:
    3
    Trophy Points:
    126
    This is pretty enterntaining actually.

    Shiny, big fonts in different colours, lot's of formatting (underlining, italics, bolding) used and a very long post in general to make their pro-PA point somehow more logical

    And in the end a total letdown with some very faulty logic.
     
  13. Mess

    Mess Global Moderator

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2002
    Messages:
    75,059
    Likes Received:
    805
    Trophy Points:
    214
    Home Page:
    Do you think it will work this way ?..

    Revenues Sharing acceptace optional ??

    I wonder how the league will determine who gets it and who pays it ??

    Hockey Market Size ?? Population ?? Total Team Revenue ??
     
  14. Mess

    Mess Global Moderator

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2002
    Messages:
    75,059
    Likes Received:
    805
    Trophy Points:
    214
    Home Page:
    Talk about childish ..

    Did you miss your afternoon nappy ?.
     
  15. Jaded-Fan

    Jaded-Fan Registered User

    Joined:
    Mar 18, 2004
    Messages:
    43,764
    Likes Received:
    2,968
    Trophy Points:
    186
    Does not bother me overly much, and I am from one of the markets who theoretically would complain.

    First of all some years every single team may get to the point of spending a bit more, for that year or two . . .to 'go for it' and add a couple of players more when the time is right, their talent that they have developed is at its peek. This system allows for that. Second, as said above, this difference is not enough to allow anyone to pull away from anyone else like was allowed under the old system. Face it, except for that 'go for it' part that I said above, it merely allows a few teams one or two f'ck ups more than the rest of us, and based on past history deep down I know Toronto and The Rags have much more than that in them . . . ;)
     
  16. Kaizer

    Kaizer Registered User

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2003
    Messages:
    4,321
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    36
    Location:
    Moscow , Russia
    It looks good and fair for both sides (I mean small and large market teams) and also thanks for info, now I understand it a bit :)
     
  17. AM

    AM Registered User

    Joined:
    Nov 22, 2004
    Messages:
    5,326
    Likes Received:
    9
    Trophy Points:
    96
    yah

    but it wasnt based on the size of the owners wallet.
     
  18. Boltsfan2029

    Boltsfan2029 Registered User

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2002
    Messages:
    6,264
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Occupation:
    Paralegal
    Location:
    In deleted threads
    Nor I. If memory serves, the closest my team has been to league average payroll is $11M below (that being the Stanley Cup season). Being $7M below would be quite an improvement!
     
  19. Mess

    Mess Global Moderator

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2002
    Messages:
    75,059
    Likes Received:
    805
    Trophy Points:
    214
    Home Page:
    Why not player dollars ..

    The luxury tax fines will go to small markets likely to be used on players for their team ..

    So while I agree that the team incurring the fine is not spending it directly another team would possiblly.

    No doubt the playing surface has be greatly corrected by the new CBA ..

    The point I was trying to get accross was that when say a big UFA like Forsberg or Pronger hits the market .. Big market teams have that extra $7 mil in cap space to accomdate them, and the use of buyouts this summer anyways that don't count towards a Cap even more.

    Nashville has to fit in Prongers 5 to 6 mil reguest below $29 mil and NYR below $ 36 mil.
     
  20. HSHS

    HSHS Losing is a disease

    Joined:
    Apr 5, 2005
    Messages:
    17,642
    Likes Received:
    5
    Trophy Points:
    116
    Location:
    Redondo Beach, Ca
    I think you need to break apart the term "Revenue Sharing" to its pieces to answer the main question here.

    For one, I am most confident that all team, no matter what their payroll status, will receive equal amounts from the playoff revenue (this assumes that 100% of playoff revenue goes into a poll). If assumption is incorrect, then I would still say that a team at 39M that misses the playoffs and a team at 22M that misses the playoffs will get the same payout.

    The second portion is the distribution of luxury tax. This is where Messenger's original post may work... not sure I think this is logical or correct. We'll have to see. I believe that this will also be split evenly into 30 pieces.
     
  21. Pepper

    Pepper Registered User

    Joined:
    Aug 30, 2004
    Messages:
    14,543
    Likes Received:
    3
    Trophy Points:
    126
    I was about to fall asleep but fortunately I saw this thread.

    Really, I'm not sure (and it seems most posters think the same) what your point is?

    NHL goes from big teams spending $40M+ more than small teams to big teams spending ~7-8M more than small teams and you make the claim "still no parity".

    Just think about it, it's like saying that had Saddam Hussein killed only 10 kurds instead of 100.000 he would have still been a murderer, while technically correct those 2 have huge difference in reality.
     
  22. guymez

    guymez The Seldom Seen Kid

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2004
    Messages:
    21,683
    Likes Received:
    1,012
    Trophy Points:
    170
    Location:
    Alberta
    It was based on that insane philosophy of solid drafting and bringing players up through the system.
    ;)
     
  23. CMUMike

    CMUMike Registered User

    Joined:
    Feb 13, 2005
    Messages:
    68
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I'm with Mess on this one. Leave the stupid formatting out of the discussion and focus on the poster's really lame attempts at making this disaster worthwhile for the PA.
     
  24. Kaizer

    Kaizer Registered User

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2003
    Messages:
    4,321
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    36
    Location:
    Moscow , Russia
    But as I understand for Nashville (if they can do it) Pronger will cost 5 mil but for NYR he will cost X mil (before 29) and 2 * (5-X) after 29. Am I right ?
     
  25. Jaded-Fan

    Jaded-Fan Registered User

    Joined:
    Mar 18, 2004
    Messages:
    43,764
    Likes Received:
    2,968
    Trophy Points:
    186
    You are missing the forest for the trees. If a team was only buying one player then your argument might make some sense. Or if every team always paid every player exactly what they were worth. But they are filling out a team. That means dividing that whole amount between all the players. As I stated above you will have some contracts in their that will kill you too. Every team will now and then. So in the scheme of things it really only buys you an additional f'ck up or two, something easily overcome by slightly better management. If you f'ck up only slightly more than most then you will not have that extra $3 or $4 million, or even $7 million extra to offer.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page

monitoring_string = "358c248ada348a047a4b9bb27a146148"