Owners cave again??

[Member 23807]

I tend to disagree on previous comments made that this is a HUGE deal for the small market teams. For starters, the $50 Million hard-cap really isn't a hard-cap when you consider the fact that each team is allowed 1 franchise player to exceed that amount. So for instance, Toronto could have a payroll of $60 Million when you factor in Sundin's contract as a franchise player. How does that really change from the current landscape?

Many of you are saying, "Well at least we got the CAP"... well that's the same thing as saying you'd be happy with a $100 Million cap because at least we got a cap....

I don't think this deal goes far enough. The highest spending teams will still be the highest spending teams. The only way I see that this deal can work is if there is some sort of true revenue sharing agreement in place. That's the only way it'll work and I just can't see that happening - but I could be wrong.

If the deal is as many have reported, I think the owners balked at just the wrong time.

PJStyles

 

[Trottier]

A hard cap @ $50m with and excemption for a franchise player means that $10m/$11m salaries can remain and continue to grow.

Regardless of those who wish to get caught up in "who caves," please explain what the heck is inherently bad about the concept of the hardcap (and thus salaries) growing?!

If one is a fan of the LEAGUE and one who wishes to see it flourish, you would think one would want to see the cap increase steadily. For that will be indicative of increased revenues coming into the league!

Is the goal is to permanently stop salary growth, or is it to create a system that allows payroll spending to be tied more directly to revenue intake?

The latter goal is noble. The former is nothing more than vindictive and void of any economic thought.

***

The system being rumored is, on the surface, outstanding, as it caps excessive spending, while allowing for continued budget increases (and thus roster maneuverability), albeit at a penalty (luxury tax). Both sides apparently acknowledge what some here refused to do (and instead called others of us "fear mongerers" for pointing it out. ). Namely, that if you institute a hardcap at a ridiculously low, REPRESSIVE number (e.g., $40MM), teams will not be able to transact players.

 

[Levitate]

with a salary cap at $50 mill, i don't think i'm much in favor of a "franchise player" deal...and i'm pretty pro player in all this

franchise player just seems to open up too many loopholes at the moment

 

[Member 23807]

I would much rather see them allow the cap itself to grow as revenues grow as opposed to letting one franchise player's salary grow... the reason I say that is that franchise players could hold some team's hostage with this arrangement and get more money than they normally would get. This could all take place in an environment where the NHL will more than likely experience declining revenues in the next 3-5 years as a result of the damage of this lockout south of the border.

PJStyles

 

[MarkZackKarl]

I dont like the franchise player tage either. I think that if there is the hybrid soft cap that looks like a reality... they should at least have some type of exemptions for home grown players... Like the Luxury tax is different dependent on the homegrown players, or 3 of the players you drafted can be exempt from counting towards to soft cap etc... Just so it makes it worthwhile to build from within, and not to punish teams like New Jersey, Ottawa or Tampa who have built up their cores properly ...

 

[MmmBacon]

What's the source of this alleged offer? Is there a link?

 

[i am dave]

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.

It's not a matter of how much money you have to spend. It's a matter of how much money are you making. If Bill Gates owned every team in the League, he wouldn't spend the same amount in Carolina as he would in Detroit. Why? Because the revenue is different. There has to be an incentive for teams that generate revenue to spend more money. The only thing a low-cap does is to not punish the low-revenue teams. I know fans of those teams don't want to hear it, but at some point, the CBA had to address the fact that the money makers needed to be satisfied as well.

 

[DuklaNation]

This deal sucks. If its true, hockey is in a downward death spiral. Let the Chapter 11's commence.

 

[Trottier]

I know fans of those teams don't want to hear it, but at some point, the CBA had to address the fact that the money makers needed to be satisfied as well.

Thank you for suggesting - horrors - a very basic point, yet one lost on some.

This CBA will be designed to benefit all franchises, not just the small-market ones, or those who are managed poorly.

 

[ScottyBowman]

This deal sucks. If its true, hockey is in a downward death spiral. Let the Chapter 11's commence.

Great. Maybe those cities in Canada and the US who have a population of 500k will realize that they aren't major cities and never deserved an NHL team from the beginning.

 

[Levitate]

This could all take place in an environment where the NHL will more than likely experience declining revenues in the next 3-5 years as a result of the damage of this lockout south of the border.

but that's also a reason why both sides need to come to an agreement and not let this drag on forever. if the NHL decides it wants it's low hard cap and it's not gonna ever bend, and the NHLPA sticks to its guns too (i think they'd do it for at least another year if it came down to it) then the damage from the lockout is going to be even worse and the NHL may be screwed even WITH the owners getting everything they want. what good is a hard cap if no one is making money while staying under it anyways?

I know fans of those teams don't want to hear it, but at some point, the CBA had to address the fact that the money makers needed to be satisfied as well.

and yes i agree with that too...sorry to some teams but there is always going to be teams that are better off financially than others...

 

[Munchausen]

If this rumor was exactly the deal put forward by the league, which I strongly doubt, I'd find it nothing short of pathetic, considering they have the upper hand. I could live with a 50M hard cap and a soft (but steap) cap at 40M, but the franchise player clause is Pejorative Slured, for a lack of a more appropriate word. That would mean there would still be 30M+ in disparity between the teams' expenses in player salary. I'm all for it, but please, no franchise player exemption. Everybody under 50M. Period.

 

[Greschner4]

What's the source of this alleged offer? Is there a link?

There is no source, other than the echo chamber interplay between some internet rumors, repeaters of those rumors, and some reporting of the existence of those rumors in mainstream sources.

There's no real evidence that the hard/soft cap 40/50M offer is even on the table. Think about it ... there's no way the rollback's going to be in there too, otherwise the players will have both caved on the cap and negotiated against themselves by leaving the rollback they offered in a cap system.

All of which leaves me pretty pessimistic.

 

[i am dave]

This deal sucks. If its true, hockey is in a downward death spiral. Let the Chapter 11's commence.

Hold on, now, this is starting to get ridiculous.

A $36M cap where a significant portion of teams would have to cut, buyout, or disperse up to half their payroll (read: talent) to satisfy the 5 or 6 teams who suffer from poor revenue generation (for whatever reasons) is good for the game? Yet a cap only $14M more where there is a possibility for one player to not count towards that cap is going to bring on bankruptcy? Why do I get the feeling that if the cap was set at Calgary's payroll (minus Iginla's "franchise" salary), we wouldn't be having this conversation?

 

[Member 23807]

Great. Maybe those cities in Canada and the US who have a population of 500k will realize that they aren't major cities and never deserved an NHL team from the beginning.

This comment just shows the level of misinformation that exists. Population is not the only determinant of whether a city should be given a hockey team. You do realize that Edmonton sold out 85% of their games last season? Compare that to larger U.S cities with much larger populations who are lucky to sell-out half their stadiums.

This is about putting teams in locations where hockey matters, where fans enjoy the game and will pay to see a game. Population is, in my humble opinion, an over-rated statistic used to justify the failures that exist in various sports leagues.

PJStyles

 

[Member 23807]

If this rumor was exactly the deal put forward by the league, which I strongly doubt, I'd find it nothing short of pathetic, considering they have the upper hand. I could live with a 50M hard cap and a soft (but steap) cap at 40M, but the franchise player clause is Pejorative Slured, for a lack of a more appropriate word. That would mean there would still be 30M+ in disparity between the teams' expenses in player salary. I'm all for it, but please, no franchise player exemption. Everybody under 50M. Period.

I couldn't agree more... looks like someone else has seen the light

 

[looooob]

Great. Maybe those cities in Canada and the US who have a population of 500k will realize that they aren't major cities and never deserved an NHL team from the beginning.

while I agree that many of my 'small market brethren' so to speak protest too much on these boards, I'm not sure what kind of NHL you are picturing without any Canadian cities (save Toronto I assume)

 

[i am dave]

This comment just shows the level of misinformation that exists. Population is not the only determinant of whether a city should be given a hockey team. You do realize that Edmonton sold out 85% of their games last season? Compare that to larger U.S cities with much larger populations who are lucky to sell-out half their stadiums.

This is about putting teams in locations where hockey matters, where fans enjoy the game and will pay to see a game. Population is, in my humble opinion, an over-rated statistic used to justify the failures that exist in various sports leagues.

PJStyles

So then why is Edmonton having revenue problems? For all intents and purposes, most NHL arenas are around the same size. Why do the Oilers have trouble generating the revenue that Philadelphia does?

 

[txpd]

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.

not at all. colorado has a $60m payroll. the hard cap is at $50m with an exemption for a "franchise player" that doesnt count against the cap. So, you designate Peter Forsberg and his $10m salary as the franchise player and you have a payroll at $50m + the exempt $10m for Forsberg.

Do you see what I am saying now?

 

[MmmBacon]

There is no source, other than the echo chamber interplay between some internet rumors, repeaters of those rumors, and some reporting of the existence of those rumors in mainstream sources.

There's no real evidence that the hard/soft cap 40/50M offer is even on the table. Think about it ... there's no way the rollback's going to be in there too, otherwise the players will have both caved on the cap and negotiated against themselves by leaving the rollback they offered in a cap system.

All of which leaves me pretty pessimistic.

That's what I suspected. Seems odd people are taking this so seriously.

 

[Hockey_Nut99]

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.

Doesn't the idea of losing one of those guys make u crazy? Now you know how some small market teams feel. They groom people for a long time and then lose those core star players to teams that pony up a big raise. They are forced to trade a highly skilled veteran for some kid who isn't even ready, draft picks, or a player of less calibre.

 

[i am dave]

not at all. colorado has a $60m payroll. the hard cap is at $50m with an exemption for a "franchise player" that doesnt count against the cap. So, you designate Peter Forsberg and his $10m salary as the franchise player and you have a payroll at $50m + the exempt $10m for Forsberg.

Do you see what I am saying now?

I see what you're saying. But I don't see the huge problem. So what if Forsberg gets $30M, it doesn't matter. There are still 24 players subjected to a $50M cap. You'll forgive me if it sounds an awful lot like the "small market" fans were expecting to get loaded up with "franchise players."

A hard cap at under $40M is no more fair to the large-revenue teams than a $100M cap would have been to a low-revenue team. It's called compromise.

 

[txpd]

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.

Which ten year players are you talking about? Hatcher, Schneider, Chelios? Blake?
Roenick, Amonte? Jagr? Belfour? Leetch? you mean those guys?

second...how can a team field a good team if $11m of the cap is directed at one player? look at colorado. Forsberg gets $10m or $11m, Sakic $10m and Blake $9m
and their payroll is in the $60m range. With Kariya and Selanne gone they are under that now.

 

[nyr7andcounting]

Althought the outline of the deal is what I have wanted for a while now, atleast in philosophy, I am completely against the idea of a franchise player not counting against the cap. Inflation starts at the top, and allowing a franchise player to make as much as he can will influence other players to hold out and demand higher salaries. At the same time, the big markets would continue to have a decided advantage over the smaller markets. If a small market can only spend $32 million, fine, but the biggest markets shouldn't be able to spend almost twice that. The $50 million should be a hard cap with no exceptions.

 

[TruGr1t]

I see what you're saying. But I don't see the huge problem. So what if Forsberg gets $30M, it doesn't matter. There are still 24 players subjected to a $50M cap. You'll forgive me if it sounds an awful lot like the "small market" fans were expecting to get loaded up with "franchise players."

Yah, this is a little bit obscene. It sounds like a lot of people expected franchise players to be 'ordered' to be put on their teams or something. I don't think it's reasonable to expect the actual dismantling of entire organizations from the new cap, in fact I think most teams will stay 'relatively' intact. I don't understand this logic of people thinking talent dispersion will immediately happen as soon as the CBA is signed.