Sunday articles

[CarlRacki]

And guys like Jacobs and Wirtz have an extreme hatred of unions. they want to see the NHLPA completely destroyed.

It'd be one thing if these guys couldn't afford the difference between $42.5 and $45. They don't want to afford it.

Please provide proof there was a $45 million cap offer on the table and/or that the PA would accept such an offer. Last I checked, the last thing the PA said it would accept was a $49-54 million cap with easy-to-reach escalators.

 

[sundstrom]

Let me ask you a question, why is this so wrong? Jacobs has voted AGAINST expansion every time since 1979. This supposedly money hungry guy has been against expanding this league too fast even if it did mean immediate millions in his pocket. He always spends good money (although *how* he spends it should be questioned) and now he doesnt want to give his money away to teams that can barely run on a 25 million dollar payroll and in some instances dont have the fan base to support a team long term.

So yes, he wants a cap where everyone is viable on their own. Why is this bad?

because this is not like any other normal business. this is a league. nobody is showing up to see the Rangers or Wings, or Leafs or anyteam play an inter-squad game. The successful (and not so succesful like the Rangers) high spending teams need the lower revenue teams to be competitive or the league truly becomes a joke. these owners just don't own their teams. They own the whole league. Franchise values go up as the league gets more successful. Whether it's from a big TV contract like the NFL or not, a league can only be as strong as its weakest teams. revenue sharing is an absolute must along with the salary cap at a reasonable level. with good revenue sharing and a strong luxury tax there truly is very little difference between $42.5 and $45M. In fact, with the right tax percentage (say $3 to $1 over $42.5M) that high level that only 5 or 6 teams hit will help the lower revenue clubs even more.

 

[Bruwinz37]

because this is not like any other normal business. this is a league. nobody is showing up to see the Rangers or Wings, or Leafs or anyteam play an inter-squad game. The successful (and not so succesful like the Rangers) high spending teams need the lower revenue teams to be competitive or the league truly becomes a joke. these owners just don't own their teams. They own the whole league. Franchise values go up as the league gets more successful. Whether it's from a big TV contract like the NFL or not, a league can only be as strong as its weakest teams. revenue sharing is an absolute must along with the salary cap at a reasonable level. with good revenue sharing and a strong luxury tax there truly is very little difference between $42.5 and $45M. In fact, with the right tax percentage (say $3 to $1 over $42.5M) that high level that only 5 or 6 teams hit will help the lower revenue clubs even more.

Do you not realize that teams are losing a lot of money while paying less than 30 million a year? The big market teams arent willing to subsidize losing ventures. They want a market where all teams can survive in. That is one option, the loss of 4-6 teams would be another. Speaking for myself, I want either. The thing that will NOT happen now or ever again is a league where free spending is allowed. Now the players have to step to the plate and decide that they want 30 teams and enjoy their jobs or if they want to be out of jobs and out of salary.

Argue all you want for revenue sharing, but it wont fix the problems. Finding a financial landscape that caps off skyrocketing salaries will.

 

[bcrt2000]

going back to the topic name, I have a feeling "monday" articles will offer much more to us.

 

[sundstrom]

Do you not realize that teams are losing a lot of money while paying less than 30 million a year? The big market teams arent willing to subsidize losing ventures. They want a market where all teams can survive in. That is one option, the loss of 4-6 teams would be another. Speaking for myself, I want either. The thing that will NOT happen now or ever again is a league where free spending is allowed. Now the players have to step to the plate and decide that they want 30 teams and enjoy their jobs or if they want to be out of jobs and out of salary.

Argue all you want for revenue sharing, but it wont fix the problems. Finding a financial landscape that caps off skyrocketing salaries will.

I simply do not believe that. A league with $2.1 billion in revenue despite a horrible marketing job cannot honestly have teams that cannot turn a profit with a payroll of $35M if there is effective revenue sharing. Doing simple math, $2.1 billion split 30 ways is $70M. Now, obviously revenue sharing won't put equal revenue to each team. But each team should get enough to at least have that kind of payroll.

 

[richardn]

I think that he is just ponting out that it would need to be done, Betman said that revenue sharing was part of every proposal they made.

The revenue sharing in all the NHL proposals was a joke. It was just there to say that they had revenue sharing. It was there more for PR.

 

[Icey]

Let me ask you a question, why is this so wrong? Jacobs has voted AGAINST expansion every time since 1979. This supposedly money hungry guy has been against expanding this league too fast even if it did mean immediate millions in his pocket. He always spends good money (although *how* he spends it should be questioned) and now he doesnt want to give his money away to teams that can barely run on a 25 million dollar payroll and in some instances dont have the fan base to support a team long term.

So yes, he wants a cap where everyone is viable on their own. Why is this bad?

Money hungry is not a term I would use to describe Jacobs, cheapskate would be more like it. Afterall this is the same guy that went out and signed Martin Lapointe to that outrageous contract because Detroit called him cheap. He didn't do it because he thought LaPointe would make his team a better team, he did it because another owner called him cheap. I guess sometimes the truth does hurt.

To his credit he is the only owner who has walked away from an arbitration award, not once but twice, but at the same time is paying Joe Thorton at the age of 25 $7.5M. Makes absolutely no sense because at the end of the day Joe Thorton does not make the Bruins a better team. They are still out in the first round year after year. IMO if your paying a 25 year old $7.5M he had better make a difference on your team.

But Jacobs is right on the revenue sharing. The big market teams have a competent staff who know how to market their teams. They do their job and do it well. Their rewards should be the revenue. But now some other teams want to say hey thanks for doing such a great, but now how about handing over that money to us low lifes who can't seem to bring in any revenue. The way the NHL has the revenue sharing set up it rewards the teams with no revenue and punishes the teams who make the revenue. There are no provision that all teams must meet certain business standards to receive the revenue.

 

[bcrt2000]

I simply do not believe that. A league with $2.1 billion in revenue despite a horrible marketing job cannot honestly have teams that cannot turn a profit with a payroll of $35M if there is effective revenue sharing. Doing simple math, $2.1 billion split 30 ways is $70M. Now, obviously revenue sharing won't put equal revenue to each team. But each team should get enough to at least have that kind of payroll.

Say there is a system like that, then we have a cap of $42.5M. All teams are on even grounds so theres a lot of competition which drives salaries from $35M up to an average of $41M per team. Thats $1.2 billion. Lets say their new TV deal is half of what it used to be, so league revenues would be at around $1.7 billion.

So $1.2 billion of player salaries is 70% of league revenues, and we know that other costs for teams are probably around 35% since owners want to leave about 45% of money for profit & non-player costs.

This means that theoretically we could have a league where ALL 30 teams lose money with full revenue sharing. This is why a bigger TV deal is needed for a high percentage of revenue sharing to be viable.

 

[CarlRacki]

I simply do not believe that. A league with $2.1 billion in revenue despite a horrible marketing job cannot honestly have teams that cannot turn a profit with a payroll of $35M if there is effective revenue sharing. Doing simple math, $2.1 billion split 30 ways is $70M. Now, obviously revenue sharing won't put equal revenue to each team. But each team should get enough to at least have that kind of payroll.

Remember, there's a lot more to running a professional spors franchise than just payroll. Whatever teams spend for their plays, you can add at least another 40-50 percent in other costs (i.e. travel, coaching staff, scouting, marketing, ticket sales, front office, equipment, etc.) The Rangers, for example, spent almost $120 million last year. And many of those costs are fixed or beyond the team's control.

 

[vanlady]

going back to the topic name, I have a feeling "monday" articles will offer much more to us.

Here is an interesting one. This might also explain why the players thought they had a deal.


http://slam.canoe.ca/Slam/Hockey/NHL/Toronto/2005/02/20/936913-sun.html

 

[richardn]

Hard to take a post seriously when it's based on a false premise. Common revenues grew from $1.3 billion in 1997-98 to $2.23 billion last year, according to Forbes.

But you're right ... what kind of idiot would suggest a league where Green Bay competes with New York? Where Charlotte competes with Chicago? Where Buffalo competes with Boston? It would never work. It's madness, I tell you!

It don't matter how much revenue you build if there is no profit. The league could have 100 teams and 15 billion dollars revenue and it would mean jack squat. Bettman grew the league for a quick buck and is know paying for his mistakes.

 

[richardn]

owners:
- moved from $31M to $42.5M
- moved from linkage of 53-55% of revenues to no linkage
- willing to bring down UFA age 2 years
- wanted 2-way arbitration
- wanted qualifying offers to move from 110% to 75%
- moved from no revenue sharing to minimal revenue sharing

players:
- moved from no cap to cap
- moved from $52M to $49M
- moved from no linkage to upwards linkage
- want to lower UFAs to 29
- went from 1-way arbitration to allowing owners to send a player to arbitration once in his career
- not sure on qualifying offer status, but weren't pleased with 75%
- wanted heavy revenue sharing

I think the concessions and wants from both sides have been pretty even, unlike what the players are saying

You forgot that the players offered a 24 % rollback on all existing contracts. No one seems to remember this.

 

[sundstrom]

Remember, there's a lot more to running a professional spors franchise than just payroll. Whatever teams spend for their plays, you can add at least another 40-50 percent in other costs (i.e. travel, coaching staff, scouting, marketing, ticket sales, front office, equipment, etc.) The Rangers, for example, spent almost $120 million last year. And many of those costs are fixed or beyond the team's control.

i do know that, but i also believe that if marketed correctly, this league would pull in a hell of lot more than $2.1

 

[CarlRacki]

It don't matter how much revenue you build if there is no profit. The league could have 100 teams and 15 billion dollars revenue and it would mean jack squat. Bettman grew the league for a quick buck and is know paying for his mistakes.

There's no profit because the league's primary expense - players salaries - has grown at a rate significantly greater than revenues.

 

[richardn]

Is this the same Jeremy Jacobs that just got caught by the IRS for under reporting revenue in reguards to the Bruins????? He's still paying the fine.

Why don't the players trust the owners .

 

[sundstrom]

But Jacobs is right on the revenue sharing. The big market teams have a competent staff who know how to market their teams. They do their job and do it well. Their rewards should be the revenue. But now some other teams want to say hey thanks for doing such a great, but now how about handing over that money to us low lifes who can't seem to bring in any revenue. The way the NHL has the revenue sharing set up it rewards the teams with no revenue and punishes the teams who make the revenue. There are no provision that all teams must meet certain business standards to receive the revenue.

These big market teams also have a natural advantage because THEY'RE IN A BIG MARKET. The Rangers should have some advantage over Nashville because of their location.

 

[bcrt2000]

You forgot that the players offered a 24 % rollback on all existing contracts. No one seems to remember this.

woops, minor slip, i DO remember it, just not at that moment

 

[tritone]

You forgot that the players offered a 24 % rollback on all existing contracts. No one seems to remember this.

How could anyone forget about the 24% rollback? For shame

Imagine this, with the amount of times every NHLPA suck has tried to waffle the 24% rollback as the ultimate answer to every problem down everyone's throats, one still manages to forget it on a list of concessions....perhaps because it wasn't truly a concession at all with expired contracts, unsigned agents and the inevitable surpassing of current salaries within 3 years ? Perhaps everybody knows the 24% rollback is as much of a joke as Bob Goodenow's Public speaking abilities.

 

[richardn]

I simply do not believe that. A league with $2.1 billion in revenue despite a horrible marketing job cannot honestly have teams that cannot turn a profit with a payroll of $35M if there is effective revenue sharing. Doing simple math, $2.1 billion split 30 ways is $70M. Now, obviously revenue sharing won't put equal revenue to each team. But each team should get enough to at least have that kind of payroll.

Bingo, we have a winner. All the owners have to do to end this lock out is present a meaningfull revenue sharing system in place and the players will see the owners as attempting to do something for the better of the game and we would all be playing hockey. This is why I believe the Luxury tax works with high enough tax rates. It keeps payrolls lower while helping the smaller market teams bring there payroll's up and put together more competitive teams. All a salary cap does is insure big market teams to get richer and small market teams the ability to not lose as much money. What the league really needs is 30 something soft cap with strict luxury taxes that go directly to the lower payroll teams. Throw in the loss of draft picks as extra insurance to keep salaries from sky rocketing. That way the owners would be sharing revenue at there own risk of giving there competitor money hand over fist to have there mega payrolls which probably would be down substantially.

 

[hockeytown9321]

Please provide proof there was a $45 million cap offer on the table and/or that the PA would accept such an offer. Last I checked, the last thing the PA said it would accept was a $49-54 million cap with easy-to-reach escalators.

Read between the lines of any article. Listen to interviews by players. They obviously would've accepted a $45 million cap.

Remember, it was the league that invited the PA on Saturday, then offered the same "final" deal of $42.5. It was not incumbent on the players to propose anything on Saturday.

 

[tantalum]

Read between the lines of any article. Listen to interviews by players. They obviously would've accepted a $45 million cap.

Remember, it was the league that invited the PA on Saturday, then offered the same "final" deal of $42.5. It was not incumbent on the players to propose anything on Saturday.

Then the PA executive should have come to the table with such an offer. They didn't.

Yes it was the league that invited the union back to the table but there is considerable chatter that it was because union members and union executives wanted the olive branch extended to them. The league did just that. If the union was prepared to come down to a $45 mil cap nowhere does it say they had to wait for the NHL to make the offer because they formally called the meeting. That is simply a chicken**** excuse for the PA to use and has been using the entire time (and the league is guilty of it as well to a lesser extent IMO). Nor does it mean either side has to have an offer at all. Perhaps it would be smart but it isn't necessary.

The thing I don't particularly understand is the PA insistence on revenue sharing and thinking they truly have a say in it. They really don't. The NHL is not saying that Nashville makes $56 mil in revenues therefore no team can spend over $28 mil in salary. The NHL is trying to use a global revenue pool from all franchises to set the cap limits. THe SAME thing done in the NFL and NBA. It is up to the league to make sure that all 30 teams can survive through their own revenue sharing system. That's the most say the players have...trying to get a guarantee that the number of teams does not change for the duration of the CBA.

Now the PA can complain all they want about revenue sharing but the end result is that is a league concern when the next CBA is in place. It is not a player concern beyond guaranteeing jobs. I've briefly gone through the NFL and NBA cba's and nowhere do I see anything to do with revenue sharing (could be wrong but I didn't see it). All that is in there is the calculation of the cap based on the leaguewide revenue pools. The fact that the NHL was willing to put any sort of number on it is as much of an olive branch a PA can rightfully expect in that department. Especially if they don't even want to discuss the revenue streams and come to an agreement on what is and isn't hockey related revenue.

 

[GKJ]

Then the PA executive should have come to the table with such an offer. They didn't.

Why should they? The owners invited them to the meeting. Why would the owners invite the PA to a meeting and expect the PA to make an offer? If the PA had an offer to make they would invite the owners to meet with them.

 

[tantalum]

Why should they? The owners invited them to the meeting. Why would the owners invite the PA to a meeting and expect the PA to make an offer? If the PA had an offer to make they would invite the owners to meet with them.

Oh my god. It matters not who invites who. If you have an offer that is better than your last one that you would deem acceptable you table it especially when you don't hold the leverage. They didn't need to come down right to $45 but they could have cut it down to $47 and drop the exemptions and then perhaps get some movement from the league side. If you don't you can't sit there whining when the other side didn't. And again depending on what reporter you read/listen to while the NHL made the formal invitation many believe it was at the request of PA members/executives that the public Olive branch be extended (you know so the players can be thought of as heroes saving the day).

And if that wasn't the case that the PA wanted the olive branch perhaps the owners were willing to have Mario and Gretzky join the meetings so that two former players the PA trusts can give them the same information they won't accept from 28 other ownership groups. Perhaps it was discuss other issues (as it sounds like now anyways) Pehaps it was to discuss what to do with the draft. Perhaps it was to share a couple of beers. Who cares. They invited the PA to talk. Talk they did. If the PA wanted a better deal than the one the NHL was offering propose one that closes the gap.

 

[GKJ]

Oh my god. It matters not who invites who. If you have an offer that is better than your last one that you would deem acceptable you table it especially when you don't hold the leverage. They didn't need to come down right to $45 but they could have cut it down to $47 and drop the exemptions and then perhaps get some movement from the league side. If you don't you can't sit there whining when the other side didn't. And again depending upon what reported you read while the NHL made the formal invitation many believe it was at the request of PA members/executives that the public Olive branch was extended.

Well if that's the case the PA would tell the owners if they had an offer.

if not, there is no reason for the owners to make any formal invitation at anyone's request. If the owners didn't have an offer, they should have said no.

I wouldn't mind seeing a $44M cap with one-time exeptions of no more than $4M.

 

[tantalum]

Well if the PA was ready to accept the $42.5M offer the owners weren't going to move off of, they would have let them know. If the owners showed any willingness not to be morons maybe the PA would have dropped something.


I wouldn't mind seeing a $44M cap with one-time exeptions of no more than $4M.

You wouldn't mind that. But unfortunately for you 15 owners would.

Who are the morons here...the side that rejected linkage because revenues might go down (wouldn't if accepted early and season saved) and then want linkage only when it benefits them (waited 6 months to propose that...might have gotten some insulation earlier but not now), the ones that turned down profit sharing which would guard against money hoarding by the league, the side that held a pair of twos against a royal flush and continue to try to bluff, the side reluctant to divide up the pie equitably (55-60% of revenues is fair), the ones whose livelihood depend on the league?

Or the side that makes it money elsewhere and is losing money hand over fist under the old system that is trying to change it?