Owners cave again??

Discussion in 'The Business of Hockey' started by txpd, Jan 27, 2005.

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

    txpd Registered User

    Joined:
    Jan 25, 2003
    Messages:
    53,441
    Likes Received:
    1,200
    Trophy Points:
    214
    Home Page:
    A hard cap @ $50m with and excemption for a franchise player means that $10m/$11m salaries can remain and continue to grow. That means with Jagr at $11m that NYR's hard cap is $61m. With Lidstrom at $10m the Red Wings hard cap is $60m and if they need to pay him $15 to sign for next year the hard cap will be $65m.

    I see the $1 for $1 luxury tax, but that won't stop the spenders from spending. What it will do is stop the midrange teams from spending and tip the league toward the spenders even further.

    I am hoping this rumor is NOT the deal.
     
  2. mabus

    mabus Registered User

    Joined:
    Mar 28, 2004
    Messages:
    1,269
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Home Page:
    I disagree with you completely, this would be a fantastic deal. The owners would NEVER get a 30 mill cap and we all know that. It was an initial hardline offer which obviously would be negotiated upwards to the 50-60 mill range, everyone knew that. So a 50 mill hard cap is actually on the low end. Put it this way, the toronto maple leafs have a good 60 mill or so in salary so they would be over the cap already. The luxury tax is a concession to the union, and a fair one. And finally the one marque player allows the best players to be spread out and be paid what they are worth on the market, very fair. A team like the red wings could not keep doing what they have been doing, neither could the rangers. This deal, if this indeed is what the offer is, would be exaclty what we've been looking for.
     
  3. oil slick

    oil slick Registered User

    Joined:
    Feb 6, 2004
    Messages:
    7,593
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    84
    First, I'll assume the unsubstantiated rumours are correct.

    I agree, it would be a cave in, and judging by the other rumours, this cave in will be at the bequest of the larger market teams. If this is the case, I would not be surprised if the Oilers/Flames demanded meaningful revenue sharing from the NHL with a threat to mothball if this didn't occur. Hopefully Bettman has told the big teams that they would have to revenue share regular season gate or something in exchange for such a high cap... because frankly I don't really think the big market teams or their fans care too much whether the Oilers etc. survive.

    It should be interesting. Although I would think a 50 million dollar cap + franchise player is fairly meaningless.
     
  4. Hockey_Nut99

    Hockey_Nut99 Guest

    A 50 Million cap would be pretty pathetic. I was hoping for a 40 million cap
     
  5. RangerBoy

    RangerBoy TRUST THE PROCESS

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2002
    Messages:
    38,538
    Likes Received:
    2,079
    Trophy Points:
    231
    Location:
    New York
    Home Page:
    The Capitals are paying 1/2 of Jagr's salary.I don't want to get into another pissing argument about Jagr and the Rangers and Caps.Hey Teddy Leonsis can spend $50 million.Of course,Teddy found religion after paying Jagr and Robert Lang
     
  6. txpd

    txpd Registered User

    Joined:
    Jan 25, 2003
    Messages:
    53,441
    Likes Received:
    1,200
    Trophy Points:
    214
    Home Page:
    How do you figure that the best players will be "spread out"??? Nothing has changed. Colorado would be able to afford its current $60m payroll and keep Forsberg($10m), Sakic($10m) and Blake($9m). This really changes nothing as far as making the marquee players in the league more accessable to the balance of the league. With this deal those players will remain in the 6 or 7 markets that they have been in for the past 10 years.

    The Rangers can afford to offer Jerome Iginla $14.5m as long as he is the franchise player. Then all they need to do is build a respectable team under $50m with Jagr's salary included. That's not that difficult.
     
  7. GODARD49

    GODARD49 Registered User

    Joined:
    Jan 27, 2005
    Messages:
    35
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    the bottom line is they have so many people there to help them hammer out a deal..they have lawyers there that can make a deal that works for both sides...both sides are just very stuborn and neither want to lose in the publics eye.....swallow your pride..except the cap and keep it closed....i would still love to be a guy in the league that makes 500K for playing hockey and not making 35k like i am....
     
  8. gerbilanium

    gerbilanium Registered User

    Joined:
    Oct 17, 2003
    Messages:
    274
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    If that's the deal the owners have been lying all along greatly exagerrating and I will switch allegiance to the players.
     
  9. Levitate

    Levitate Registered User

    Joined:
    Jul 29, 2004
    Messages:
    25,742
    Likes Received:
    720
    Trophy Points:
    169
    i think people are buying wayyyy too much into the idea that one side must "win" this. this isn't about "winning". if either side "wins" the NHL and us as fans are screwed.

    if either side "wins" (gets everything they want with no concessions) i think it means that the NHL will have been locked out for a long time, at least this year, maybe 2...which is a huge blow to the league. i wouldn't buy into the idea that the owners are better off not having any hockey at all...I'd say their franchises are losing more and more value the longer this drags on and that's not even taking into consideration other financial obligations the franchises may have that rely on hockey actually being played.

    and if course it hurts the players to not have the NHL going either. a deal needs to get done for the sake of both sides, and for the sake of the fans. and the only way that's really gonna happen is for both sides to make concessions and come to a compromise. that's not "caving"

    i think a $50 mill hard cap with a stiff luxery cap starting at around $40 mill is a pretty good idea...it does prevent salaries from escalating wildly, provides revenue sharing, and gives flexibility in salaries for the players as well. and IMO it's a lot better idea than the leagues proposed revenue sharing...taking money from the teams who make the playoffs

    dunno about the "franchise player" bit though
     
  10. Motown Beatdown

    Motown Beatdown Need a slump buster

    Joined:
    Mar 5, 2002
    Messages:
    8,572
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Indianapolis
    Home Page:

    They have to limit what a so called franchise player is. Sorry signing a UFA and calling him your franchise player is just plain wrong. For a players to be deemed a franchise player they need to be drafted by that team and/or been a member with that team for at least 5 consecutive years.
     
  11. i am dave

    i am dave Registered User

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2004
    Messages:
    2,182
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Corner of 1st & 1st
    I think the smaller market fans were also confusing "cost certainty" with "how do we let the Calgarys of the world even out the payroll playing field." Don't forget, a new CBA will likely last 10 years. With inflation, you better hope your teams are making enough to sustain a $50m payroll, because every time the CBA expires, the cap is going to go up.
     
  12. JagStyles

    JagStyles Registered User

    Joined:
    Jan 27, 2005
    Messages:
    107
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Toronto
    Home Page:
    What I don't like about this deal is that there is no mention of a minimum spending amount for the lower-end teams. The thing I really liked about the salary cap range is that it would force low-end teams to keep half-decent payrolls which in theory should allow for more competitiveness around the league.

    Under this proposal, I don't see the disparities between the teams in the league getting any better whatsoever.... If that's the case, the league should fold 6 teams and drop it down to 24 with 12 in each conference....

    PJStyles
     
  13. Goldthorpe

    Goldthorpe Meditating Guru

    Joined:
    Jan 22, 2003
    Messages:
    4,743
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    129
    Location:
    Montreal
    Maybe I don't understand, but aren't you contradicting yourself? If there's a hard cap at 50M, then Colorado WON'T be able to have a 60M payroll, by definition.
     
  14. i am dave

    i am dave Registered User

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2004
    Messages:
    2,182
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Corner of 1st & 1st
    I have no problem with this concept. You can probably argue the number of years down to maybe 3 or "parts of X seasons."
     
  15. Volcanologist

    Volcanologist Used Register

    Joined:
    Jan 14, 2003
    Messages:
    22,927
    Likes Received:
    592
    Trophy Points:
    214
    Location:
    Toronto
    If I was a fan of a small market team, I would be feeling pretty betrayed by this offer.
     
  16. buce

    buce Registered User

    Joined:
    Jan 25, 2005
    Messages:
    46
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Toronto
    It's still a good deal. The important thing is to get a cap in place. That's been a huge obstacle. You've have to think long term. That's what the NBA did, not they are looking at tightening their cap with their next cba.

    You are also forgetting about the rollback, changes to arbitration, and the entry level salaries. The cap restricts teams from crazy and pushing up the salary ceiling. Teams will adjust and it will stop the spiralling escalation of salaries going forward.

    Just because the Rangers can offer 14.5 million does that mean would like to. Yeah, they made idiotic contract offers to guys like Holik, but it's not like they don't care. Now that everyteam is under a certain level of restrictions, it will affect the way teams make offers. This cap makes sense for the first of having one. I can live with this cap just so Bryan McCabe has to admit that he will play under a cap.
     
  17. oil slick

    oil slick Registered User

    Joined:
    Feb 6, 2004
    Messages:
    7,593
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    84
    I think a cap at 35 million implies a certain amount of "how do we let the Calgarys of the world even out the payroll playing field." but you are right, a cap at 50 million + franchise does not do this. I personally think without meaningful revenue sharing, the salary gap between the rich and poor clubs will remain similar to where they are now.
     
  18. i am dave

    i am dave Registered User

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2004
    Messages:
    2,182
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Corner of 1st & 1st

    Well, two things. First, why shouldn't those 6 or 7 teams be able to keep the players they've had and groomed for 10 years? A salary cap should not be intended to punish the teams that already do well with the talent they have. If a team is able to manage the cap and be successful, more power to them.

    Second, can a team like the Rangers field a good team if $11M of the cap is directed to one player? That's not so easily done.
     
  19. Levitate

    Levitate Registered User

    Joined:
    Jul 29, 2004
    Messages:
    25,742
    Likes Received:
    720
    Trophy Points:
    169
    uh, that's why the franchise player is the exemption. kind of like football (as i understand it, which is tenuous at best, i don't pay attention to football financials)

    honestly the way things are, no matter what kind of deal is done, teams are gonna get screwed. the gap between the haves and the have nots is too big to make a perfect deal that works for every team. i don't even know who to blame for that...can you really blame teams like the red wings and rangers for being in good markets and being profitable? who do you blame for teams like calgary and edmonton being less than profitable? i dunno, life just isn't fair, and that applies to sports as well. there's no real way to really level the financial playing field because some teams will always make a lot more money than others
     
  20. sakicisstupid

    sakicisstupid Registered User

    Joined:
    Dec 15, 2002
    Messages:
    3,885
    Likes Received:
    18
    Trophy Points:
    141
    Home Page:
    why should colorado have to give up forsberg, blake, sakic??? forget about that! their my fav players. and colorado drafted/traded for those guys fair and square. if anything, their salaries should be lowered. i would be outraged if colorado had to give up any of its core players...especially when the team did a good job of acquiring them.

    plus, the talent shouldn't be spread evenly. all times should have a given opportunity of time where they can become a powerhouse for 3-5 years. i would like to see things go in cycles.

    but, who's to say all teams will do well competitively??? the NFL is currently watching a dynasty being built (Pats) while the Eagles and Steelers have been Super Bowl contenders so many times...and the Broncos have a good streak of winning seasons. Meanwhile...the Bears continue to always suck because teams like these don't have the key difference maker...good coaching/management. The NFL with its talent spread evenly is more static than the NHL when it comes to contenders.

    in the NHL, the key difference maker would be solid drafting..meaning NJ, Detroit, Colorado who have all been traditionally good drafting teams could still very well have their way. nonetheless, i don't want to see a great amount of player turnover. core players should stick with one team for a long period of time because it is those players fans can recognize and (in my case) truly appreciate. if Sakic, Forsberg, or Blake were forced to another team, I would be very upset.
     
  21. Levitate

    Levitate Registered User

    Joined:
    Jul 29, 2004
    Messages:
    25,742
    Likes Received:
    720
    Trophy Points:
    169
    and i think you'd also have to look at the huge change in the financial landscape you'd see with a deal like this compared to previous years. in past years, teams like the rangers and red wings have had payrolls near or at $80 million. teams like the caps have been around $70 million, etc etc.

    hard cap it at $50, and that's dropping $30 million off of some of those teams previous payrolls. that's a huge chunk, not to mention that at least some of that payroll will be taxed and given to the teams with less money to help even things out a bit


    i also wonder if they could make some kind of exceptions to recieved taxed monies counting against the luxery tax...like if a team uses recieved taxes monies to sign a player and goes over the soft cap threshhold, it's not held against them...but i see big potential for abuse with that as well, and it'd be difficult to impliment as well i think
     
  22. Hemsky4PM

    Hemsky4PM Registered User

    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2003
    Messages:
    7,316
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Billeting Ales
    Home Page:
    This is definately a rumor. Let's think about this for a few seconds. Supposedly the majority of teams are losing buckets of money. I don't think the Leafs and Rangers are driving the owners bus. Pittsburg, Nashville, Calgary, Edmonton, Vancouver, Ottawa, Anaheim, Carolina, Tampa, Florida, Buffalo, Phoenix, Washington, Atlanta and .... all want a hard cap that puts the average player salary down to a fixed level of 1.3M bucks. That's that. Even Philly and some of the other larger market/big money teams want a cap in place.

    The NHL did not come this far to cave. The circumstances this time are vastly different than in 1995. The NHL is willing to lose 2 seasons, I don't doubt that at all. It will take at least one lost season for the players to realize that life goes on without the NHL and that they are very fortunate to make the enormous sums of money they do.
     
  23. mabus

    mabus Registered User

    Joined:
    Mar 28, 2004
    Messages:
    1,269
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Home Page:
    i'm with buce on this. This deal, if real would be HUGE. Forget the numbers, the players would, for the first time ever, be agreeing to a HARD CAP. Time and inflation will take care of the levels, right now, we're getting our HARD CAP. It's a huge day for small market teams, if this is real. The small market teams are all spending 30 mill plus other than i think nashville, and the large market teams are capped to essentially where they are today. So while small market teams will be able to catch up {with inflation} the large market teams will remain where they are. Meantime, the luxury tax will distribute some revenue to the small market teams so they can spend more too. This is exactly what we were waiting for. Ok 50 mill may be more than some wanted, but remember, WE GOT THE CAP. Thats more than most people expected. Admit it, how many of you thought we'd NEVER get that hard cap, and were expecting a SOFT cap or Luxury tax at best? I say it again, this is HUGE.
     
  24. Levitate

    Levitate Registered User

    Joined:
    Jul 29, 2004
    Messages:
    25,742
    Likes Received:
    720
    Trophy Points:
    169
    good post...i'm a lot more pro player than pro owner but i've always felt if there was a good proposal that included a hard cap, it should be accepted as long as it was overall fair to both sides. i think something like this is about as close as you're going to get.

    though if revenue and franchise value go up over the years because of this, we'll have the players wanting some more leeway in the next CBA...which is to be expected, but hopefully if the league was in good shape things would go a little smoother this time around
     
  25. syc

    syc Registered User

    Joined:
    Aug 25, 2003
    Messages:
    3,062
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Not Europe
    Home Page:
    So? It's like that in every other pro sport, I don't see why hockey should be different. The only solution is for bill gates or another billionair to buy every team in the NHL.

    OR

    If they have rev sharing then the Oilers must charge the same per ticket as the Redwings. You can't have the best of both worlds with cheap tickets and a competitive team.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page

monitoring_string = "358c248ada348a047a4b9bb27a146148"