Owners cave again??

[kerrly]

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.

You start moving teams out of Canada and you can kiss the NHL goodbye. The game will never survive with one team in Canada and the rest in the states. Because the Flames, Montreal, and even Ottawa and Vancouver aren't in the greatest positions financially. Say bye bye to the sport, and let it die a miserable death in front of 6000 fans at the Blackhawks game.

 

[kerrly]

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.

They could add the Oilers whole team under Sakic, Blake and Forsberg. That is an injustice.

 

[bennysflyers16]

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.

So you are small market fan, not hockey fans. Your main point in this is to save the Oilers instead of seeing NHL hockey. If your team were to receive 10 million dollars from revenue sharing and luxury tax, how could you possible complain about receiving FREE $$$$$$ ?

 

[A Good Flying Bird*]

You start moving teams out of Canada and you can kiss the NHL goodbye. The game will never survive with one team in Canada and the rest in the states. Because the Flames, Montreal, and even Ottawa and Vancouver aren't in the greatest positions financially. Say bye bye to the sport, and let it die a miserable death in front of 6000 fans at the Blackhawks game.

Look. I want hockey to thrive in Canada. And I'd like to preserve NHL hockey in Alberta.
However, the NHL survived just fine for 40 odd years with only Montreal and Toronto.
So let's not be silly.

 

[speeds]

From what I understand, the deal rumored is a hard cap of 50 mil with the LT money included, LT starting at 40 mil. Which really makes it a 45 mil cap on player salaries, plus 5 mil spent in LT, and a team is exempted a franchise player.

I might argue it works better in terms of revenue sharing (assuming the LT money goes somehow towards rev sharing) to simply scrap the franchise tag and increase teh hard cap from 45 mil to 55 mil, thus allowing a team to spend 55 mil on salaries plus the 15 mil it would be paying in luxury tax.

Big market teams can still spend more should they so choose, but now instead of the player being luxury tax exempt he'll generate more money via tax for the small teams to split up.

 

[i am dave]

Has it been rumored whether the franchise player would still be subject to the "luxury tax?"

 

[Son of Steinbrenner]

how does anybody know the deal you guys are debating is the deal thats on the table?

is it really

40 million dollar luxary tax

50 million dollar hard cap

franchise player

This would be a good deal for both sides.

 

[Flukeshot]

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

I should have been more clear with my numbers but my post was already getting to the "too long to bother reading" length. Detroit's salary at the beginning of the 2003-04 season according to USAtoday.com was about $77m. I'm sure that their current payroll is much less as they do not have a full roster. From the number of $77m after rollback (though uncertain if one is part of this highly unlikely rumored deal) it would have been $58.52m then take away $7.6m for Lidstrom's rolled back salary and you are still above $50m.

I'll point out too that Detroit's roster changed quite a bit over the past season. Most notably Hasek and Hull are gone. Yet the $77 is the number they entered the year with.

BTW, if anyone knows of a website with more up to date financials I'd love to see it. Thanks.

 

[tantalum]

There's something that needs to be clarified if this is the deal. And that's the franchise player. While the franchise player may not count towards the ultimate cap do they count towards the luxury tax?

What I mean is if a team is at $40 mil with it's other roster players and then have a franchise player at $10 mill is that a $10 mil franchise player or a $10 mil franchise player + $10 mil in tax money (assuming 1:1 tax). That becomes a very hefty price for the franchise player.

As well I don't think the franchise player is a huge concern. Teams can have there $10 million dollar Yashin's and Jagr's as far as I'm concerned. In the end one player, unless a top 5 goaltender, does not a team make. I don't think that clause is a huge concern with or without counting towards the tax.

Free agency...we always knew it was going to go down to atleast 29. 28 isn't a stretch or unexpected. Arbitration...the teams win IMO. The number of times players can use arbitration is drastically reduced and teams can bring a plyer each year to arbitration.

As long as the luxury tax is severe and starting at $40 mil I see this as being quite workable. Also does tax money (other than possible tax on a franchise player) count towards the cap? Making the cap really $45 mil.

No way did the players win if this is the deal...the only thing they win is lower free agency and perhaps the preservation of the high salary player. Rookie salaries down, salary roll back, arbitration much more in favour of the teams, a salary cap, no salary floor...all owner wins some big.

Of course it's doubtful any of this is true in the first place.

 

[Levitate]

There's something that needs to be clarified if this is the deal. And that's the franchise player. While the franchise player may not count towards the ultimate cap do they count towards the luxury tax?

yeah and like speed mentioned, we also have to wonder about the hard cap and soft cap relation...does the hard cap include taxed monies? so that it's really more like a hard cap at $45 with revenue sharing? that weakens revenue sharing IMO...

i think that this definatly isn't a "win" for the players, but it's not a "win" exactly for the owners, which is how it should be IMO. some sort of compromise

course it's probably all BS anyways

 

[kerrly]

So you are small market fan, not hockey fans. Your main point in this is to save the Oilers instead of seeing NHL hockey. If your team were to receive 10 million dollars from revenue sharing and luxury tax, how could you possible complain about receiving FREE $$$$$$ ?

10 million in revenue sharing I highly doubt, and its pure speculation. Let's have teams able to spend up to 60 million in payroll and lets give more money to teams lower on the totem pole so they can help salaries inflate as well. This would be the worst possible CBA. The only fans I see supporting this proposal are fans of large market teams, they are getting excited because they won't see their team torn apart. Sorry but my team has been torn apart one too many times for me to not voice my opinion on this horrible deal, whether its true or not of course. I get the feeling that the only way the anyone will realize the truth is if the Oilers do suspend the team. And at this point I'm almost willing to let them do that, just to prove that Nichols wasn't bluffing. He and the EIG have been saying this for years. Its not new to Oiler fans, and take my word for it this is not a PR stunt.

 

[Slewfoot]

If the rumored soft cap($40M) and the hard cap($50M) were derived by a percentage of the league revenues that would be adjusted each year and the luxury tax was indeed a dollar for dollar tax , how would this not be a better deal than having just a hard cap ?? If 10 of the 30 teams spent the $50M , that would result in $100M to be shared by the 20 remaining teams.

 

[kerrly]

Look. I want hockey to thrive in Canada. And I'd like to preserve NHL hockey in Alberta.
However, the NHL survived just fine for 40 odd years with only Montreal and Toronto.
So let's not be silly.

That is not even comparable. That was when there was only Montreal and Toronto to choose from. With the addition of more teams and a fan to really have their own identity as a fan of their hometown team, its much different. If these teams were to move or fold, its not like the fans would say thats ok, and everybody just follow the leafs. Fans will not forgive and forget like that. Especially when this was the deal that was supposed to change the league for the better. If the Oilers are done, I'm done with the NHL simple as that. I will get my hockey fix with other leagues that I'm interested in, the AHL and the WHL.

 

[bennysflyers16]

10 million in revenue sharing I highly doubt, and its pure speculation. Let's have teams able to spend up to 60 million in payroll and lets give more money to teams lower on the totem pole so they can help salaries inflate as well. This would be the worst possible CBA. The only fans I see supporting this proposal are fans of large market teams, they are getting excited because they won't see their team torn apart. Sorry but my team has been torn apart one too many times for me to not voice my opinion on this horrible deal, whether its true or not of course. I get the feeling that the only way the anyone will realize the truth is if the Oilers do suspend the team. And at this point I'm almost willing to let them do that, just to prove that Nichols wasn't bluffing. He and the EIG have been saying this for years. Its not new to Oiler fans, and take my word for it this is not a PR stunt.

Inflate to what ??????? They can't go higher than 50 million. You think that all these teams will contine to spend. If ten teams spend 50 million, that is 100 million in luxury tax, divide by the 15 bottom teams, and that is 6.66 million just from the tax. Add on revenue sharing and you could be at 10 million easily.

 

[tantalum]

yeah and like speed mentioned, we also have to wonder about the hard cap and soft cap relation...does the hard cap include taxed monies? so that it's really more like a hard cap at $45 with revenue sharing? that weakens revenue sharing IMO...

i think that this definatly isn't a "win" for the players, but it's not a "win" exactly for the owners, which is how it should be IMO. some sort of compromise

course it's probably all BS anyways

It's a decided win for the owners but not a completely crushing victory...which was never expected if a deal was to be hammered out before the season was shot. No season and I think the owners clamp down even more.

As you say it's probably all BS and even if it isn't the devil is in the details and we don't know those.

 

[hockeytown9321]

I should have been more clear with my numbers but my post was already getting to the "too long to bother reading" length. Detroit's salary at the beginning of the 2003-04 season according to USAtoday.com was about $77m. I'm sure that their current payroll is much less as they do not have a full roster. From the number of $77m after rollback (though uncertain if one is part of this highly unlikely rumored deal) it would have been $58.52m then take away $7.6m for Lidstrom's rolled back salary and you are still above $50m.

I'll point out too that Detroit's roster changed quite a bit over the past season. Most notably Hasek and Hull are gone. Yet the $77 is the number they entered the year with.

BTW, if anyone knows of a website with more up to date financials I'd love to see it. Thanks.

The NHLPA's 24% rollback proposal listed every player who was signed, team by team, and how the rollback affected them. I beleive its still on the NHLPA's website.

The Red Wings only have to sign Datsyuk and maybe Chelios. Under this rumored deal, they'd only pay a slight tax, if at all.

 

[kruezer]

I like this deal actually, its pretty solid, 50mil isn't too shabby a level for a hard cap, especially with a stiff tax (1 to 1) at 40mil, and that cash going to the lower total revenue teams (or to a marketing fund for the NHL, ).

I don't understand the hate for the Franchise player idea, people act like that will just allow NYR to continue to sign everyone, the most important thing to remember is that there would only be 30 players in this position, 30, its not like the Rangers could sign Iginla off Calgary for 30mil and declare him there Franchise and then turn around the next season and sign Kipper and declare him the Franchise, it would be a one time thing, I wouldn't like losing Iginla, but at least Calgary wouldn't eventually lose them both at 31, and everyone else we brought into the league if they become too rich for us.

Its only one player, though setting some restrictions on who can be chosen and how often it can be changed would be cool.

But this is still just another rumour.

 

[rabi]

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.

Since when did Barnaby get traded from Chicago?

 

[NorthOiler]

how does anybody know the deal you guys are debating is the deal thats on the table?

is it really

40 million dollar luxary tax

50 million dollar hard cap

franchise player

This would be a good deal for both sides.

Salaries for 2004:

$20 to $30 Million - 5 Teams; predators, penguins, wild, panthers, thrashers

$30 to $40 Million - 11 Teams; Blackhawks, Sabres, Oilers, Jackets, Lightning, Sharks, Hurricanes, Flames, Coyotes, Senators, Canadians

$40 to $50 Million - 4 Teams; Islanders, Canucks, Bruins, Devils

$50 to $60 Million - 3 Teams; Capitals, Ducks, Kings

$60 to $70 Million - 5 Teams; Leafs, Blues, Avalanche, Flyers, Stars

$70 to $80 Million - 2 Teams; Rangers, Wings

16 of the 30 NHL teams have a salary below $40 Million - many were losing money under the previous CBA. This proposal does nothing to address the current problem facing the majority of NHL teams. A 50 Million hard cap plus a franchise player is comforting for the few "money teams" but not the majority of the NHL. This proposal is affordable for 10 of the 30 NHL teams based on 2004 salaries.

Nothing would change under this proposal - small market teams remain farm teams. When you have disparity in team salaries - Predators $21,932,500 to the Wings $77,856,109 - you have a problem.

 

[kerrly]

Inflate to what ??????? They can't go higher than 50 million. You think that all these teams will contine to spend. If ten teams spend 50 million, that is 100 million in luxury tax, divide by the 15 bottom teams, and that is 6.66 million just from the tax. Add on revenue sharing and you could be at 10 million easily.

With the supposed ability to have a franchise player exempt from the cap it basically allows teams to keep the same salary structure. sure no more 75 million dollar salaries, but it allows the top eschelon players to keep their current salary structures and that is where the inflations starts. As long as GM's remain competitive and have room to spend they will continue to inflate salaries. Especially with this supposed revenue sharing going to the lower teams, it will give them a chance to help inflate salaries as well, especially with the room above them to continue to spend.

The more I continue to think about this, the more I think this is a bogus rumor, or the NHL has pulling the wool over everyone's eyes. I like to think its the first. This deal accomplishes nothing the NHL set out to do from the get go. The possibility for inflation is still a real threat with this deal, salaries will not even be brought close to what the NHL claimed was a reasonable area to help teams be profitable. This deal will not create a competitive balance, and I don't think they will 2/3 of the league to sign this deal, especially teams on the lower end. I'm not worried about it anymore. Its bogus.

 

[John Flyers Fan]

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 ...

What is the difference between having players you drafted and players you traded for. Just because you don't have many draft pick on your current roster doesn't mean that you're not a good drafting team.

The Flyers have been among the NHL's best drafting teams over the last decade, yet that only have a few drafted players on their roster.

 

[kruezer]

Salaries for 2004:

$20 to $30 Million - 5 Teams; predators, penguins, wild, panthers, thrashers

$30 to $40 Million - 11 Teams; Blackhawks, Sabres, Oilers, Jackets, Lightning, Sharks, Hurricanes, Flames, Coyotes, Senators, Canadians

$40 to $50 Million - 4 Teams; Islanders, Canucks, Bruins, Devils

$50 to $60 Million - 3 Teams; Capitals, Ducks, Kings

$60 to $70 Million - 5 Teams; Leafs, Blues, Avalanche, Flyers, Stars

$70 to $80 Million - 2 Teams; Rangers, Wings

16 of the 30 NHL teams have a salary below $40 Million - many were losing money under the previous CBA. This proposal does nothing to address the current problem facing the majority of NHL teams. A 50 Million hard cap plus a franchise player is comforting for the few "money teams" but not the majority of the NHL. This proposal is affordable for 10 of the 30 NHL teams based on 2004 salaries.

Nothing would change under this proposal - small market teams remain farm teams. When you have disparity in team salaries - Predators $21,932,500 to the Wings $77,856,109 - you have a problem.

But this deal puts a limitation on player costs, once and for all, I'd prefer if it was 45/35 of course, but you have to give to get. I mean its nothing spectacular, but the owners could also be getting a good deal on Free Agency and could be scrapping arbitration all together.

 

[Slewfoot]

Salaries for 2004:

$20 to $30 Million - 5 Teams; predators, penguins, wild, panthers, thrashers

$30 to $40 Million - 11 Teams; Blackhawks, Sabres, Oilers, Jackets, Lightning, Sharks, Hurricanes, Flames, Coyotes, Senators, Canadians

$40 to $50 Million - 4 Teams; Islanders, Canucks, Bruins, Devils

$50 to $60 Million - 3 Teams; Capitals, Ducks, Kings

$60 to $70 Million - 5 Teams; Leafs, Blues, Avalanche, Flyers, Stars

$70 to $80 Million - 2 Teams; Rangers, Wings

16 of the 30 NHL teams have a salary below $40 Million - many were losing money under the previous CBA. This proposal does nothing to address the current problem facing the majority of NHL teams. A 50 Million hard cap plus a franchise player is comforting for the few "money teams" but not the majority of the NHL. This proposal is affordable for 10 of the 30 NHL teams based on 2004 salaries.

Nothing would change under this proposal - small market teams remain farm teams. When you have disparity in team salaries - Predators $21,932,500 to the Wings $77,856,109 - you have a problem.

What if the luxury tax was at $1 to $1 over $40M including the franchise player ?
Do you think the Wings would still have a $77M payroll ?
IMO , a team that can't afford to spend more than $21M in payroll is a problem for the league as well.

 

[bennysflyers16]

Salaries for 2004:

$20 to $30 Million - 5 Teams; predators, penguins, wild, panthers, thrashers

$30 to $40 Million - 11 Teams; Blackhawks, Sabres, Oilers, Jackets, Lightning, Sharks, Hurricanes, Flames, Coyotes, Senators, Canadians

$40 to $50 Million - 4 Teams; Islanders, Canucks, Bruins, Devils

$50 to $60 Million - 3 Teams; Capitals, Ducks, Kings

$60 to $70 Million - 5 Teams; Leafs, Blues, Avalanche, Flyers, Stars

$70 to $80 Million - 2 Teams; Rangers, Wings

16 of the 30 NHL teams have a salary below $40 Million - many were losing money under the previous CBA. This proposal does nothing to address the current problem facing the majority of NHL teams. A 50 Million hard cap plus a franchise player is comforting for the few "money teams" but not the majority of the NHL. This proposal is affordable for 10 of the 30 NHL teams based on 2004 salaries.

Nothing would change under this proposal - small market teams remain farm teams. When you have disparity in team salaries - Predators $21,932,500 to the Wings $77,856,109 - you have a problem.

So if we assume the 15 lowest get 10 million from rev. sharing and luxury tax. You can sign 3 - 3.3 mill. dollar players for essentially free. Some of those teams were already playoff teams, so adding 3 players would be huge. With the 60-70 million dollar teams getting rid of players, the players to choose from will be bigger. Also, with teams dropping players, 3.3 million will get you a player that was making 4.5 million last year. If you add 3 of these players to the Flames, possibly cup champions, Oilers make the playoffs, All teams get better, which increase attendance, jersey sales etc.... = more revenue. My #'s are all speculation, but I think it can work.

 

[Flukeshot]

The NHLPA's 24% rollback proposal listed every player who was signed, team by team, and how the rollback affected them. I beleive its still on the NHLPA's website.

The Red Wings only have to sign Datsyuk and maybe Chelios. Under this rumored deal, they'd only pay a slight tax, if at all.

The rollback I don't believe was rumored, however Chelios, Datsyuk, Schneider and/or replacements for Thomas and Hull would be needed for the wings. Under past salary estimates that would be about probably over $10m right there.

But I agree, heck if the Wings salary WERE down to 36m then no one should be complaining, but that's not how it works I presume.