SImple Question for the Pro-owner crowd

Discussion in 'The Business of Hockey' started by A Good Flying Bird*, Feb 16, 2005.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. I understand that you guys think the players are a bunch of greedy SOBs lead by a guy you think is stupid, greedy and evil.

    But seriously. Let's take a look at where we were a year ago and where we are today.

    Now assume that the NHL quickly decided to adopt the PA's most recent proposal, in its entirety. (I am not saying the league should adopt it, I am just selecting it for arguments' sake)

    Is your favorite team, and the league, much better off than it was a year ago?

    Could your franchise not survive? WHy or why not?
    Explain how a $49 Mill cap would put your team out of business.

    Finally, logically explain to me why it is worth it for your team to completely cancel the season based on a $6M difference in cap levels.

    Please, keep the thread free of sarcasm and insults.
    I'd just like to see some thought-out opinions from the other side.
     
  2. kmad

    kmad riot survivor

    Joined:
    Jun 16, 2003
    Messages:
    34,119
    Likes Received:
    6
    Trophy Points:
    126
    Location:
    Vancouver
    My team is worse off than it was a year ago because the Canucks stood to make substantial amounts of revenue.

    However, I'm not a selfish *******. I want what's good for the long term health of the league. I'm a hockey fan before a Canucks fan, albeit only slightly.
     
  3. chriss_co

    chriss_co Registered User

    Joined:
    Mar 6, 2004
    Messages:
    1,769
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    CALGARY
    Calgary and Edmonton are not better off at a $49 million cap. I can name more but i'll keep this simple and short.

    These two teams were barely surviving at their mid to high $30 million dollar payrolls. In reality, once a cap is in place, they would operate at $30 million dollar budgets (or less). Now would the league be competitive if you had teams able to spend $20 million more on salaries???? I think not. Thats why it wont work.
     
  4. Fair enough, so explain how the long term health of the league is more secure if the league cancels the entire season (and drags it into next season) because of a six million difference in salary caps (which perhaps 6 or 7 teams will even use)
     
  5. CarlRacki

    CarlRacki Registered User

    Joined:
    Feb 9, 2004
    Messages:
    1,438
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    You start your thread with sarcasm and insults (not to mention a faulty premise), then expect something different? Pot. Kettle. Black.

    To answer your questions:

    1. Nobody's better off.

    2. I don't own a franchise, but the teams I follow closest will be just fine. What you fail to recognize is that some of the worst-off teams lose less by not playing.

    3. That $6 million is a farce. Try reading the PA's final offer. It was a soft cap of $49 million with ridiculous (and easily attainable) cap elevators.
     
  6. Tell me, what is the difference between $42.5 and $49Million?
    How much does this effect Calgary and Edmonton?
    They don't have to max out the salary cap, do they?
     
  7. CarlRacki

    CarlRacki Registered User

    Joined:
    Feb 9, 2004
    Messages:
    1,438
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    If the difference were so insignificant, why didn't the players just accept the NHL's offer?
    I'm guessing it's because the difference isn't as insignificant as you want to believe.
     
  8. sunb

    sunb Registered User

    Joined:
    Jun 27, 2004
    Messages:
    3,232
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Yale University
    Whats the difference between 42.5 and 49?

    There is obviously a difference and maybe you could ask Bob Goodenow why.

    If it didn't make such a substantial difference with Goodenow have made the harshest move in franchise sports history? It will be a decision that will live in infamy - and all because of that difference.
     
  9. futurcorerock

    futurcorerock Registered User

    Joined:
    Nov 15, 2003
    Messages:
    6,831
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Columbus, OH
    49 million dollar cap doesnt level the playing field for my Blue Jackets to compete against the Redwings and Blues in the division.
     
  10. txomisc

    txomisc Registered User

    Joined:
    Mar 18, 2002
    Messages:
    8,238
    Likes Received:
    13
    Trophy Points:
    141
    Occupation:
    self-employed
    Location:
    California
    Home Page:
    I am a fan of the Dallas Stars. Obviously, a cap would actually hurt them. My greater concern is the health of the league. I hate to lose the season, but I'd also hate to put a bandaid on a wound that needs stitches.
     
  11. chriss_co

    chriss_co Registered User

    Joined:
    Mar 6, 2004
    Messages:
    1,769
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    CALGARY
    The difference is 6.5 million.

    However, as i stated before, both the flames and the oilers wont be operating at the 42.5 million mark.. nor even the 40 mill mark...

    whereas your big spenders like detroit, toronto, rangers etc will be at the $49 million mark because they can afford it

    the $20 million difference that exists between a $49 ceiling and the flames/oilers budget is what will compromise the competitive levels for both teams.. thats why it doesn't work..

    whereas in the 42.5 million, you're only looking at $12.5 difference.. thats quite large already and thats why i already believe the $42.4 league offer was too generous!

    but thankfully Goodenow came to his senses about helping Calgary and Edmonton so he rejected the league's deal and now will end up with a deal through linkage.. i guess thats the one good thing Bob has done for me recently
     
  12. That's fine.
    And I've seen about a dozen threads with titles asking why the players won't cave in.
    So if you want to know, check those threads.

    But in this thread, I'm asking people to explain to me why this thread is so bad for their favorite teams.
    Fair enough?
     
  13. txomisc

    txomisc Registered User

    Joined:
    Mar 18, 2002
    Messages:
    8,238
    Likes Received:
    13
    Trophy Points:
    141
    Occupation:
    self-employed
    Location:
    California
    Home Page:
    Of course they don't. But thats 6.5 million extra dollars that a team can spend more than them. Lets say Calgary can afford 35 million dollars. If the cap is 42.5 that is 7.5 million which is basically either one superstar or 2-3 solid players. If the cap is 49 million thats 14 million. Which could be 2 huge superstars or 3-5 solid players. That difference is HUGE.
     
  14. snakepliskin

    snakepliskin Registered User

    Joined:
    Jan 27, 2005
    Messages:
    1,907
    Likes Received:
    5
    Trophy Points:
    86
    Location:
    Wilmington NC
    my team would be better off with a lower cap because a lower cap reduces the chances of losing a player you have cultivated into a really good player to a high payroll team that abuses the system when he reaches FA status--and my team is better off competitively by reducing the chance of 1 or 2 teams loading up their rosters with hired guns attempting to buy the cup (which has not worked for the ranger btw) therin jeeping the playing field more level for all. if you will notice how tilted the playing field is tilted in MLB with a luxury tax system. a cap is a necessary evil in sports and i hate to say that because i am a capitalist pig
     
  15. Trottier

    Trottier Very Random

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2002
    Messages:
    29,232
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Occupation:
    Marketing Executive
    Location:
    San Diego
    Home Page:
    I want to see the league sustain each of its 30 franchises, and cannot understand how any legitimate NHL fan would wish otherwise. However, to what end do you go to sustain the poorest teams? Another poster in this thread suggested - and I have no reason to challenge him - that the Oilers can only sustain a budget in the low-to-mid $30 million area....and that figure would put them an unfair $20 mil below the top teams.

    Is the only answer to lower the bar (the cap) to appease the most economically challenged franchises? That is, use the lowest common denominator to dictate the payroll benchmark?
     
  16. lazaer

    lazaer Registered User

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 2005
    Messages:
    25
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    e-town
    i thought it was established that it wasn't a 49 million dollar cap. a team could go 10% over 2 out of 6 seasons and they would review the cap after the 2006 season to see if it would go up. Of coarse if revenues stayed down then there need not be any review it could stay at 49 Million thank you very much. The deal the PA offered wasn't even close to getting it done, but on the surface it was close enough to help spread some of the blame.
     
  17. kmad

    kmad riot survivor

    Joined:
    Jun 16, 2003
    Messages:
    34,119
    Likes Received:
    6
    Trophy Points:
    126
    Location:
    Vancouver

    It's kind of a moot point, because the cap alone does nothing to salvage the state of the economically despaired franchises. It just limits the capabilities of the rich ones.
     
  18. But neither does a $42.5 Million cap.
    Sure, it gets you closer to exact parity.
    But is it worth the cancellation of the season.

    I mean, given where we've come from, and what your Bluejackets were up against up until now, isn't a $49 Million cap considered major progress? Not to mention the rollback.

    I'm not saying the league should accept it.
    I'd like to have seen the sides negotiate more and bring it to $45 Million, or whatever, with some of those loopholes closed.

    What I worry about is the long term health of the league if this lockout does wipe out the season and if this does stretch into next season.

    I was shocked to see the players give in on the cap, despite all the criticisms levied at the PA's proposal. I thought it would enable the two sides to actually get a deal done.

    It just seems so damn petty to cancel the season when at long last, the two sides were actually talking the same language, at least somewhat.
     
  19. nedved93

    nedved93 Registered User

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2003
    Messages:
    135
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Home Page:
    excellent point, which begs the question, how does a system based strictly on a hard cap help the handful of teams that lack the financial resources to sustain budgets in the low-to-mid $30 million range?
     
  20. I'm just trying to keep things light, getting those insults out of the way quick.

    Nobody? Is Detroit going to have a 78 Million payroll?
    DO you honestly think the Rangers, Detroit, Colorado and Philly are going to set the league's finances ablaze with what has been proposed?
    If so, I'd like you to explain how.

    You are not answering the question.

    We disagree.
    While there were loopholes and outs, it isn't nearly as insignificant as some of you have made it out to be..
     
  21. sunb

    sunb Registered User

    Joined:
    Jun 27, 2004
    Messages:
    3,232
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Yale University
    At the same time you can flip the question to ask Goodenow.

    What is the use of a 49 million dollar salary cap after a 24% rollback?

    Is only raises the bar (the cap) to limit the most economically advantaged franchises? That is, use the cap to dictate the payroll benchmark so that it only realistically affects the top 2-3 highest-spending franchises?
     
  22. Ar-too

    Ar-too Zealous Scrub

    Joined:
    Jan 8, 2004
    Messages:
    11,116
    Likes Received:
    15
    Trophy Points:
    130
    Gender:
    Male
    Occupation:
    Network Engineer
    Location:
    Columbus, OH
    No. That's why the NFL's system rules over all...
     
  23. Trottier

    Trottier Very Random

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2002
    Messages:
    29,232
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Occupation:
    Marketing Executive
    Location:
    San Diego
    Home Page:
    I acknowledge that point, 100%. A cap will slow the bleeding. It does nothing to address revenue.

    Just trying to gauge just how far the hard cap proponents would go to appease the poorer franchises, as it relates to a cap.
     
  24. Devonator

    Devonator Registered User

    Joined:
    Jan 5, 2003
    Messages:
    2,812
    Likes Received:
    175
    Trophy Points:
    156
    Occupation:
    Accounting
    Location:
    Proud Darul Harbian
    Home Page:
    I'll grant you I am not up to snuff like some of you chaps on all the business side of things but I do know as someone that resides in Calgary, that for their survival the Union has too be broken and these salaries have to be badly brought down to earth for small teams like the Flames to exist and others...

    That is common sense.......I am an Accountant by education and one doesn't have to be educated too far to understand that companies continuelly in red ink as many teams are, that something drastic has too be done...

    How anyone could be pro player is simply ever beyond me.......Objectively, expenses have too be slashed terribly and that biggest expense is players salary...


    Oh for the good ole days in the 80's when if someone signed for more the 300 000 a year, it made front page hockey news!!
     
  25. Scoogs

    Scoogs Registered User

    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2005
    Messages:
    18,310
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    126
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Toronto, Ontario
    This is how it goes. The key word is Parity.

    While it is true that a team doesn't need to hit the cap, you know that the large market teams will be at the max, all the time.

    Small market teams won't need to go to the max. But, as you have noticed in small market teams, most notably Edmonton, any homegrown talent they have, has to be sold off because they simply cannot pay their salaries anymore. So, 49mil is simply too much room.

    So you now have the big market teams freeing up some salary space so they can sign these superstar players. Small market guys get nothing.

    The parity between big and small market teams is too big.

    My thoughts, anyways.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page

monitoring_string = "358c248ada348a047a4b9bb27a146148"