Owners cave again??

Status
Not open for further replies.

GirardIsStupid

Registered User
Dec 15, 2002
4,518
377
Visit site
Hockey_Nut99 said:
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.

why else have i been advocating revenue sharing??? did you read my post at all...i said i wanted all teams to go through periods of success over a prolonged amount of time. i totally empathize with the small market teams especially since my city lost an NHL franchise. i always knew how small market teams felt and don't assume otherwise.
 

snakepliskin

Registered User
Jan 27, 2005
1,910
22
Wilmington NC
attendance revenue is just a piece of the pie--while the size of the market does matter the deal that a team has with the arena or the city is almost as important-i am a canes fan and i'm sure the team lost the 8 mill they say if you figure in gate receipts and misc revenues but they are also "gale force holdings" which operates the RBC Center plus the revenues from parking and concessions and renting the facility and figuring all that in the total company probably broke about even. now saying that, businessmen are not in business to break even and i cannot for the life of me see how they can continue to pay these exorbitant salaries with the TV deal that they now have nor can i see how the players could expect them to. the other major US sports incl. NASCAR all have TV deals a lot sweeter than the NHL does. I know a lot of American hockey fans incl myself are ticked at ESPN for pretty much abandoning hockey but in the end ESPN or Foxsports or even NBC could save the sport, especially if the NHL would implement some rules changes to open up the game of which increasing the ice size and eliminating the red line are my favorites
 

i am dave

Registered User
Mar 9, 2004
2,182
1
Corner of 1st & 1st
nyr7andcounting said:
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.


Under the rumored cap/franchise scenario, though, does not the inflation therefore bring incentives for a franchise player to stay with one team?

If every team has their franchise player making X million dollars, and all 30 teams are within X million dollars of the cap, the franchise player has no bargaining power, no ability to reset the market, and no way to move to another team. This is probably why most NFL players get p*ssed off when they get hit with a franchise tag.

And I'll say it again - I question whether a team should be in the league if they can't compete with a payroll higher than $32M.
 

Member 23807

Guest
PitkanenPower said:
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?

Because up until last year, the differential between the USD and CDN $ was huge. People can point to 2004 and say it's not an issue any more, but let's get real here, until there's some sort of mechanism for smoothing out currency differences, you cannot compare Philly to Edmonton.

PJStyles
 

Levitate

Registered User
Jul 29, 2004
30,950
7,656
i think a very important thing, regardless of how the CBA turns out, is for the NHL to figure out how to make the game more entertaining again.

changes in equipment such as goalie chest protectors (not just pads, the chest protectors are gigantic these days and IMO completely unnessary to be that big) stringently enforcing the rules against obstruction (who cares if a 1/3 or 1/2 of the season is a parade to the penalty box? eventually it will even out and we'll be left with a better quality product in the long run if the refs stick to their guns) and some of the rule changes that could improve the game...

there needs to be a deadly serious push to improve the quality of the game so it is more marketable, and it also needs to be marketed better as well! hockey is never gonna be like football or something in terms of nationwide popularity (in the states) but it could do a lot better than it is doing....

finding serious and real ways to make the NHL more interesting and profitable is essential to the whole thing in the long run
 

bennysflyers16

Registered User
Jan 26, 2004
84,295
62,231
You have to remember that with this " So Called Deal ", if the FLyers spend the 50 mill.hard cap, They will also have to spend 10 mill. in luxury tax to the teams under 40 mill. So that makes 60 mill., plus add a exempt player for 10 mill. ??? No way they will spend 70 mill. So with the luxury tax and revenue sharing, I think the smaller markets would be able to sign at least one more player with the extra $$ they receive.
 

bennysflyers16

Registered User
Jan 26, 2004
84,295
62,231
PJStyles said:
Because up until last year, the differential between the USD and CDN $ was huge. People can point to 2004 and say it's not an issue any more, but let's get real here, until there's some sort of mechanism for smoothing out currency differences, you cannot compare Philly to Edmonton.

PJStyles

Then it is not a hockey problem, it is a problem with our terrible $$. If the Oilers solely rely on the strength of the Cdn. $ to make money, they are in trouble.
 

Levitate

Registered User
Jul 29, 2004
30,950
7,656
Because up until last year, the differential between the USD and CDN $ was huge. People can point to 2004 and say it's not an issue any more, but let's get real here, until there's some sort of mechanism for smoothing out currency differences, you cannot compare Philly to Edmonton.

i think it's more than that...teams like the leafs are profitable and can afford to spend money. some markets are just better than others for whatever reason, it's not all just about ticket sales...some teams have better deals with their operating expenses and have much better marketing and merchandising

there's just no way you can make everyone equal cuz not every market is equal
 

Morbo

The Annihilator
Jan 14, 2003
27,100
5,734
Toronto
Bennysflyers16 said:
So with the luxury tax and revenue sharing, I think the smaller markets would be able to sign at least one more player with the extra $$ they receive.

One player won't make up for the extra guys signed by the rich teams who spend the most you can spend, or close to it.

This system would bring salaries down a bit, but it wouldn't change the current economic order, nor does it provide any cost certainty.
 

Flukeshot

Briere Activate!
Sponsor
Feb 19, 2004
5,153
1,710
Brampton, Ont
While I agree that the franchise player designation could really screw things up, IF it were true that the luxury tax kicked in at $40m that would create a huge amount of revenue sharing for the lower revenue teams. Everyone keeps saying that $50M doesn't do enough to even out the teams payrolls. There are quite a few teams that would be over $40M and if it is true that the tax would be $1 for $1 that means there is a lot of money to be spread around.

Detroit, New York (R), Toronto, Dallas, Philadelphia and Colorado would all be at or near $50m even with a franchise player salary exemption. Those 6 teams would all also be clost to the $50m mark with a player salary rollback of 24%. They would all be over the taxable mark of $40m. At $1 for $1 taxing that is up to $60m dollars to be spread to teams under the tax level. There would likely be a few more teams over $40m to provide a few more $ into that total but $60m of taxed money overall is realistic I believe. I know it is not all that much to spread out to the 10-15 other teams that would be under the soft cap but it would be $4-$6 per team. Or I'm sure a system could be worked out that saw the teams out of those 10-15 with lower revenues receiving a greater chunk of the sharing.

With the addition of other revenue sharing, even the minimal amount suggested by the league in past offers. (or was that just numbers bounced around on TSN)... Anyway all other revenue sharing could add a couple more million to lower teams. I know these numbers are guestimates at best but hell, $6m covers about 1/6 of Calgary's player payroll of last season of $36m. Which under a rollback would be $6m of $27.36m.

Long story short. It is not that bad of a deal when it comes down the the financials. No it is not perfect and no it does no directly create cost certainty but IMO it makes for more level competition which matters most.
 

bennysflyers16

Registered User
Jan 26, 2004
84,295
62,231
PepNCheese said:
One player won't make up for the extra guys signed by the rich teams who spend the most you can spend, or close to it.

This system would bring salaries down a bit, but it wouldn't change the current economic order, nor does it provide any cost certainty.

1 extra 3 mill. $ player could have made the difference with the Flames this year.
Would you rather have this deal, or no hockey for 2 years ?
 

bennysflyers16

Registered User
Jan 26, 2004
84,295
62,231
Flukeshot said:
While I agree that the franchise player designation could really screw things up, IF it were true that the luxury tax kicked in at $40m that would create a huge amount of revenue sharing for the lower revenue teams. Everyone keeps saying that $50M doesn't do enough to even out the teams payrolls. There are quite a few teams that would be over $40M and if it is true that the tax would be $1 for $1 that means there is a lot of money to be spread around.

Detroit, New York (R), Toronto, Dallas, Philadelphia and Colorado would all be at or near $50m even with a franchise player salary exemption. Those 6 teams would all also be clost to the $50m mark with a player salary rollback of 24%. They would all be over the taxable mark of $40m. At $1 for $1 taxing that is up to $60m dollars to be spread to teams under the tax level. There would likely be a few more teams over $40m to provide a few more $ into that total but $60m of taxed money overall is realistic I believe. I know it is not all that much to spread out to the 10-15 other teams that would be under the soft cap but it would be $4-$6 per team. Or I'm sure a system could be worked out that saw the teams out of those 10-15 with lower revenues receiving a greater chunk of the sharing.

With the addition of other revenue sharing, even the minimal amount suggested by the league in past offers. (or was that just numbers bounced around on TSN)... Anyway all other revenue sharing could add a couple more million to lower teams. I know these numbers are guestimates at best but hell, $6m covers about 1/6 of Calgary's player payroll of last season of $36m. Which under a rollback would be $6m of $27.36m.

Long story short. It is not that bad of a deal when it comes down the the financials. No it is not perfect and no it does no directly create cost certainty but IMO it makes for more level competition which matters most.


Bang On !!
 

i am dave

Registered User
Mar 9, 2004
2,182
1
Corner of 1st & 1st
PJStyles said:
Because up until last year, the differential between the USD and CDN $ was huge. People can point to 2004 and say it's not an issue any more, but let's get real here, until there's some sort of mechanism for smoothing out currency differences, you cannot compare Philly to Edmonton.

PJStyles


You cannot then expect an NHL CBA to fix problems that are inherently a socio-political-economic problem
 

txpd

Registered User
Jan 25, 2003
69,649
14,131
New Bern, NC
PitkanenPower said:
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.

I certainly see your problem. You don't want to see large revenue teams lose their financial advantage over other teams. the fact is that if a small market team had forsberg and sakic, they would have lost sakic to the rangers with that offer sheet and could never have afforded to trade for blake if they had already traded for Patrick Roy.

"Loaded up" with franchise players???? HAHAHA...How many NHL teams don't have a single franchise player? A true top 30 in the NHL player?? Considering that teams like Colorado, NYR, Toronto, Philadelphia and forth can afford 4 or 5 of them at once, it doesn't leave a lot for the balance of the NHL.

That's my problem and that is a serious problem for the league. Sure people will turn on the tv to watch the Red Wings or the Avalanche and will buy tickets to see them when they show up in the smaller markets, but the dozen or so teams with no name rosters that haven't won anything can't draw flies, particularly when they are playing each other. There is a big TV draw the see the Preditors and the Bolts right now. The Lightning even as Cup winners are basically a no name team. Make it the Preds and the Oilers and no one is watching.

You have to consider that the league needs more than a couple of showcase teams to have a healthy league.
 

Levitate

Registered User
Jul 29, 2004
30,950
7,656
i'd also imagine that the franchise player salary would be taxed as well...you're allowed to go over the $50 mill mark with it but you're still going to be taxed if it adds to over $40 mill part of your payroll

so like someone pointed out...if colorado has a $60 mill payroll now, even designating forsberg the franchise player means that colorado is going to be paying out $80 mill in reality, with $20 mill of that going to revenue sharing
 

davemess

Registered User
Apr 9, 2003
2,894
236
Scotland
Its an interesting idea for a CBA and could really work.

The franchise player thing is the only real problem but that could be sorted by adding a tag onto who is eligable to get that tag. Maybe force that player to have already played on that team for 8 or 10 years previously. That way you encourage the teams to hold onto older star players who they might consider cutting to free up cap space.
 

hockeytown9321

Registered User
Jun 18, 2004
2,358
0
Flukeshot said:
Detroit, New York (R), Toronto, Dallas, Philadelphia and Colorado would all be at or near $50m even with a franchise player salary exemption. Those 6 teams would all also be clost to the $50m mark with a player salary rollback of 24%.

Actually, after the 24% rollback, Detroit's payroll would be about $43 million. Taking away Lidstrom as the franchise, its at about $36 million.
 

bhawk24bob

Registered User
Jan 25, 2005
378
5
PJStyles said:
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

this is about being in the 'big time' of professional athletics. obviously, hockey is important in edmonton, but does that mean it should have a pro team at the highest level? not necessarily. i could probably name a million towns in canada where hockey is important, but the fact remains that they could not support an nhl franchise. kansas city probably has the same population as edmonton, could probably sell out a ton of its games because there's nothing else to do, but would they be able to support an nhl franchise? probably not.

population is increadibly important when determining where to have franchises because it dictates local television revenue, national television revenue, and merchandise sales. there's no reason why a team that struggles to break even with a 30 mil. payroll while selling out 85% of its games should be in the same league as a team that can afford a 60 mil. payroll while selling out its games. in case you haven't figured out, this is about money, not fan support.
 

kerrly

Registered User
May 16, 2004
811
1
Regina
Thunderstruck said:
NO HOCKEY FOR TWO YEARS!

Couldn't agree more Thunder! If the NHL signs on a deal like this, they are bigger tools than I thought. I'm not sure if I even buy this deal. They go from an incredibly hard stance to something way closer to the players side. No cost certainty, no real way to stop inflation. In a dire time for the league, this is not the deal to sign. I would much rather prefer no hockey for two seasons to get the right deal.
 

Levitate

Registered User
Jul 29, 2004
30,950
7,656
Actually, after the 24% rollback, Detroit's payroll would be about $43 million. Taking away Lidstrom as the franchise, its at about $36 million.

well see this is what needs to be cleared up (assuming this proposal is even on the table and isn't something fabricated out of thin air)

does the franchise player tag count towards the soft cap? and just allow a team to spend over the hard cap? or is it exempt from the soft cap too?

IMO it's going way too far to exempt the franchise player from the soft cap, it could be workable with the hard cap if implimented with care...
 

A Good Flying Bird*

Guest
txpd said:
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.


Wow. So colorado gets to keep Forsberg, Sakic and Blake.
Oh, the injustice.

Seriously, though. Forsberg, Sakic and Blake eat up $30 million.
That leaves precious little to sign the konowalchuks, Skrastins, Barnabys, not to mention the Footes, Hejduks and Tanguays.
This deal will drastically reduce spending by the Detroits and Colorados.
 

Member 23807

Guest
Bennysflyers16 said:
Then it is not a hockey problem, it is a problem with our terrible $$. If the Oilers solely rely on the strength of the Cdn. $ to make money, they are in trouble.

Indirectly it is a hockey problem because you have discrepancy with the teams as a result of currency fluctuations. Yes currencies on their own are not a hockey problem, but they factor into the fundamental issues at hand when we talk about teams like the Oilers, Flames etc...

Revenue Sharing is absolutely key in any deal for both small market teams in the U.S and teams in Canada where the currency can go against them and hurt them in a serious way.

PJStyles
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad

-->