Terrific column:Nowadays, Outrage Is as Quiet as a Zamboni

[Titanium]

#1. Well if they're going to re-spend that money, obviously their moeny situaion isn't as dire as they are trying to portray it.

#2. A 24% roll back, plus changes to arbitration, qualifying offers, rookie payscale, and a significant luxury tax, would put a significant drag on salaries.

#1: Individual teams aren't in dire straits, the league as a whole is! It only takes one owner to start throwing large sums around for players to turn round and demand higher amounts from every team!

#2: It doesn't stop salaries going back up in the future, though! This situation could easily reoccur 5-10 years down the road!

Luxury tax: There's one thing I've never understood about the viability of a luxury tax! With a luxury tax, I'm guessing it is simply going to be a redistribution of money! If the league as a whole is losing money, how does this system stop it from continuing to lose money? There is no new money generated, so surely there is no way the league could possibly accept such a system? Forgive my lack of knowledge on this aspect of the discussions!

(Note: There were three new posts between my starting and finishing this, so I apologise for going over similar ground again!)

 

[John Flyers Fan]

the NHLPA would call a significant luxury tax a cap...

that is pure speculation ....

 

[jcpenny]

I can't believe some people still think that the old system was working. Ok th owners have some of the blame but the system is the reason for the old mess. No restraints lead to problems. The NFL,NBA and MLB understood that. No league can manage themselves it is proven.

 

[Steve L*]

The owners could give a **** about the game. They're looking to line their own pockets, just like the players are. None of this has anything to do with the "game". It's all a cash grab.

Yes they do, the owners cant make a profit if there isnt a game, cant they?

This is something the players fail to realise.

 

[likea]

#1. Well if they're going to re-spend that money, obviously their moeny situaion isn't as dire as they are trying to portray it.

#2. A 24% roll back, plus changes to arbitration, qualifying offers, rookie payscale, and a significant luxury tax, would put a significant drag on salaries.

that is pure speculation ....

and at the very least my specualtion is backed by the owners who know what they need to survive

 

[John Flyers Fan]

#1: Individual teams aren't in dire straits, the league as a whole is! It only takes one owner to start throwing large sums around for players to turn round and demand higher amounts from every team!

That surely isn't what the NHL would have you to believe. Sounds as if individual teams are on the brink (see Cal Nichols)

#2: It doesn't stop salaries going back up in the future, though! This situation could easily reoccur 5-10 years down the road!

The rollback itself doesn't stop salaries from going back up, but combined with a luxury tax, changes to arbitration, qualifying offers and entry level contacts, it would put a huge drag on salaries

Luxury tax: There's one thing I've never understood about the viability of a luxury tax! With a luxury tax, I'm guessing it is simply going to be a redistribution of money! If the league as a whole is losing money, how does this system stop it from continuing to lose money? There is no new money generated, so surely there is no way the league could possibly accept such a system? Forgive my lack of knowledge on this aspect of the discussions!

What a luxury tax is designed to do is to

#1. Act as a salary drag:

Example: If the Flyers are at the limit ($40 million & $1 for $1) and they were looking to sign Alexei Zhamnov to a $5 million contract, he would actually cost them $10 million per year. The Flyers or Leafs etc. would think twice about paying
$10 million a year for a player like Zhamnov.

#2. Re-distibute players:

Since teams at the limit will have to think two or three times about signing players, it will make it easier for the smaller revenue teams to sign players.

#3. Revnue generation:

This money generated from the luxury tax can be used in a number of ways, depending upon what the NHL wants:

a. Revenue could go to smaller revenue NHL clubs.
b. Money could go into a central fund, that could be used for National marketing initiatives
c. Money could be used to give out low interest loans to NHL clubs looking to privately build new areans
d. etc.
e. etc.
f. etc

 

[John Flyers Fan]

I can't believe some people still think that the old system was working. Ok th owners have some of the blame but the system is the reason for the old mess. No restraints lead to problems. The NFL,NBA and MLB understood that. No league can manage themselves it is proven.

Nobody is trying to keep the old system in place.

 

[BLONG7]

Nobody is trying to keep the old system in place.

The PA has certainly tried though...their 24% give back and keep the SYSTEM the same was what they tried...

 

[RangerBoy]

I edited the 1st post cause of copyright rights.

Copyrights?Are you kidding?A source was provided with the link to the story

When articles are posted with links plus the source,you are allowed to post some of the key elements of the article

In this case,the LA Times requires readers to be members.It's free but it is a hassle to sign up for it

 

[likea]

Nobody is trying to keep the old system in place.

the players last offer did just that

.20 cents on 50 million...come on...

 

[Bruwinz37]

When talking about blame, I wasn't talking about who got us into this place, that is obviously the owners.

I'm talking about blame as to why the lockout hasn't ended, and IMO both sides share the blame equally. Don't give me this crap that the players are stubborn to change. Their the onles willing to take significant paycuts, and some sort of luxury tax/soft cap system. That is significant change.

Hi John, until this thing is over we really cant say who is being the stubborn ones, but from all indications it is the players. When they say things like: "We will NEVER play if there is a cap", and "I dont care if the cap is 100 million we wont go for it" tells me its the players who might be the ones holding this up. The two quotes (although the wording may be a bit off) are from Joe Thornton and Robert Esche.....I am sure I can find equally stupid comments if it is needed to prove my point.

The owners are looking for one thing, cost certainty. Simply put the revenues arent there to support whats going on and there is too much of a gap between the haves and have nots. This is not a complex issue, the owners are doing what they have to in order to run their businesses without losing millions of dollars. I would be just as sympathetic to players if some of them lost money by playing hockey.

The players would be wise to negotiate the best cap possible or else I am afraid they will find themselves in a much, much worse situation next year. Just my 2 cents.

 

[Lanny MacDonald*]

The owners could give a **** about the game.

Yup, owners plop down $250 million for something they don't care about. They could get a better return on their investment in a back and not have to worry about dealing with a bunch of whiny primmadonnas. Its obvious that the majority of the owners care about the game, otherwise they never would have got involved.

 

[Lanny MacDonald*]

#1. The 24% rollback re-sets the market and establishes a new base. That in and of itself doesn't do anything, but it does take salaries back to a level the owners are looking for. If owners aren't smart enough to base contracts for current UFA's & RFA's, than they don't deserve hockey teams.

That is a load of garbage. Nothing resets the market the way the NHLPA proposal was laid out. There was no mechanism to add any risk to a player holding out on his team and starting the inflationary spiral again. The roll back was nice, but all it did was to insure that the owners had a gob of money the players knew was there to drive up salaries immediately. Its a gamble to hold out when you are unsure of the money situation of a team, but when you are 100% certain they they have a cunk of coin just sitting there it is a certain that you can hold out and get the fans screaming in protest the minute the team starts to suffer. Its brilliant strategy on Goodenow's part, but pretty transparent when you read between the lines.

#2. I agree that the luxury tax system that the NHL proposes doesn't go far enough. The percentages must be increased.

The NHL didn't promote a luxury tax system, the players did. And you are right, 20% is a joke. But let me guess, this was the players attempting to "negotiate" by not tabling an offer that the NHL would consider as being serious or addressing the financial problems that plague the game.

#3. Owners haven't been willing to bugde "on everything else". That is where IMO the owners have made their biggest mistake. They should be willing to trade everything for a hard cap. Yes so far they want a hard cap, very restricted rookie cap, major changes to or abolition of the arbitration system, individual player salary cap, and changes to qualifying offers.

The owners are taking the steps required to place inflationary controls on the game. These are the key areas where inflation happens. Frankly I think the NHL is willing to give on two of individual player cap, qualifiying offers and arbitration, but that is where negotiation comes in. Until the players step up and come up with something of their own its not negotiating. Negotiating happens when one side gives an offer and the other side comes back with something. The players have sat there and had offer after offer presented and just said no. That is not negotiation.

#4. MLB is a complete disaster, the NHL is nowhere close to that, and any changes made will bring the NHL even further from MLB.

We finally agree on something! The NHL is much better off than baseball, but has the potential to continue down that road. The NHL is doing its best to fix what is killing the game. Unfortunately the NHLPA sees it as an insult rather than as a solution. Until the NHLPA can get past the "insult" factor this will not get resolved.

 

[Bruwinz37]

The owners are taking the steps required to place inflationary controls on the game. These are the key areas where inflation happens. Frankly I think the NHL is willing to give on two of individual player cap, qualifiying offers and arbitration, but that is where negotiation comes in. Until the players step up and come up with something of their own its not negotiating. Negotiating happens when one side gives an offer and the other side comes back with something. The players have sat there and had offer after offer presented and just said no. That is not negotiation.

Key point right here. The 24% rollback does a lot to solve past problems, but does nothing to stem the rise in contracts and does nothing to close the gap between the haves and have nots.

 

[John Flyers Fan]

The players would be wise to negotiate the best cap possible or else I am afraid they will find themselves in a much, much worse situation next year. Just my 2 cents.

I think both players and owners will be in a much worse position next year. If the season is cancelled it will become a lose/lose situation ... if it hasn't reached that point already.

 

[John Flyers Fan]

That is a load of garbage. Nothing resets the market the way the NHLPA proposal was laid out. There was no mechanism to add any risk to a player holding out on his team and starting the inflationary spiral again. The roll back was nice, but all it did was to insure that the owners had a gob of money the players knew was there to drive up salaries immediately. Its a gamble to hold out when you are unsure of the money situation of a team, but when you are 100% certain they they have a cunk of coin just sitting there it is a certain that you can hold out and get the fans screaming in protest the minute the team starts to suffer. Its brilliant strategy on Goodenow's part, but pretty transparent when you read between the lines. .

So you're saying that owners are too dumb to actually hold onto the money ??? They might act dumb, but very few of the men or companies that own NHL teams actually are. You rarely become rich by not having a sense of business sense.

The NHL didn't promote a luxury tax system, the players did. And you are right, 20% is a joke. But let me guess, this was the players attempting to "negotiate" by not tabling an offer that the NHL would consider as being serious or addressing the financial problems that plague the game. .

I said that the players offer didn't go far enough, and that the tax needs to be made steeper, and the thresholds dropped a bit. But the idea that a luxury tax or soft capped based system CAN'T work is completely false.

The owners are taking the steps required to place inflationary controls on the game. These are the key areas where inflation happens. Frankly I think the NHL is willing to give on two of individual player cap, qualifiying offers and arbitration, but that is where negotiation comes in. Until the players step up and come up with something of their own its not negotiating. Negotiating happens when one side gives an offer and the other side comes back with something. The players have sat there and had offer after offer presented and just said no. That is not negotiation.

If the owners DO get a hard cap, there shold be no need for any of the other controls. If teams are capped at $42 million or 54%, the NHL shouldn't even be concerned with arbitration, qualifying offers, or individual player caps.

The NFL, which has the hard cap, has none of those other mechanisms. now if a soft cap or luxury tax system is put into place, than yes, those systems must be addressed.

 

[John Flyers Fan]

Key point right here. The 24% rollback does a lot to solve past problems, but does nothing to stem the rise in contracts and does nothing to close the gap between the haves and have nots.

Nobody is saying that the 24% rollback by itself cures anything.

If however you combine the following:

24% rollback

Stricter entry level deals

Changes that allow the NHL to take players to arbitration

Changes to qualifying offers

A luxury tax


Combine the above things together and you re-set the market, and give the owners/GM's tools to keep salaries at a level acceptable to the NHL.

Add in revenue sharing and that would also help to narrow the disparity between the haves and the have nots.

 

[CarlRacki]

So you're saying that owners are too dumb to actually hold onto the money ??? They might act dumb, but very few of the men or companies that own NHL teams actually are. You rarely become rich by not having a sense of business sense.

The problem is that some teams can spend that money and still turn a profit, and it's those teams (i.e. Toronto, NY Rangers, Philly, Colorado) who will set the market, as they have for the past decade.

Toronto, for example, has an operating income of $94.3 million since 1998, despite also having one of the highest payrolls in the league for much of that time. The NHLPA's proposal would lower their payroll by roughly $15 million (based on '04 salaries). Now, if the Leafs have proven they can make a profit with $64 million payroll, why wouldn't they continue to do so? Now all the rollback has done is given them another $15 million with which they will buy more high-priced players while remaining extremely profitable.

 

[John Flyers Fan]

The problem is that some teams can spend that money and still turn a profit, and it's those teams (i.e. Toronto, NY Rangers, Philly, Colorado) who will set the market, as they have for the past decade.

Toronto, for example, has an operating income of $94.3 million since 1998, despite also having one of the highest payrolls in the league for much of that time. The NHLPA's proposal would lower their payroll by roughly $15 million (based on '04 salaries). Now, if the Leafs have proven they can make a profit with $64 million payroll, why wouldn't they continue to do so? Now all the rollback has done is given them another $15 million with which they will buy more high-priced players while remaining extremely profitable. [/QUOTE]

If you believe that Leavitt report, the Rangers lost $40 million last year :lol . (and I've got a bridge to sell you). The Flyers also claim to have lost money.

The Leafs are the one team that has a big payroll that claims to still have big profits. Have the Leafs cause major problems in the NHL ??? They haven't been to a Cup Finals in nearly 40 years.

 

[CantHaveTkachev]

Toronto, for example, has an operating income of $94.3 million since 1998, despite also having one of the highest payrolls in the league for much of that time. The NHLPA's proposal would lower their payroll by roughly $15 million (based on '04 salaries). Now, if the Leafs have proven they can make a profit with $64 million payroll, why wouldn't they continue to do so? Now all the rollback has done is given them another $15 million with which they will buy more high-priced players while remaining extremely profitable.

If you believe that Leavitt report, the Rangers lost $40 million last year :lol . (and I've got a bridge to sell you). The Flyers also claim to have lost money.

The Leafs are the one team that has a big payroll that claims to still have big profits. Have the Leafs cause major problems in the NHL ??? They haven't been to a Cup Finals in nearly 40 years.[/QUOTE]

just because the Leafs havent been to the final since '67 doesn't mean they havent caused major problems...signing Sundin for 9 mil/year does though...

 

[John Flyers Fan]

just because the Leafs havent been to the final since '67 doesn't mean they havent caused major problems...signing Sundin for 9 mil/year does though...

How has that signing had a dramatic negative effect on any other team ???

 

[jcpenny]

Nobody is trying to keep the old system in place.

Many times ive heard players saying that the old system was working and the owners were at fault. Some players and Ignorance...

 

[CarlRacki]

If you believe that Leavitt report, the Rangers lost $40 million last year :lol . (and I've got a bridge to sell you). The Flyers also claim to have lost money.

The Leafs are the one team that has a big payroll that claims to still have big profits. Have the Leafs cause major problems in the NHL ??? They haven't been to a Cup Finals in nearly 40 years.

C'mon John, you're smarter than that. I'd expect a better response from you.

First, my numbers are from the Forbes report. On the day the report was released, Ted Saskin said this: “Forbes is a highly respected publication by everyone in business, including NHL owners and their investment bankers who use Forbes’ analysis and valuations when they buy and sell teams. The independence and the integrity of Forbes is unquestionable."

So, let's try not to besmirch their reputation rather than deal with the facts. The report also cites Colorado, Dallas and Philly as high-payroll teams that made money between 1998 and 2004. Philly, according to the report, lost money only in '04.

Whether a teams wins the Cup has nothing to do with whether its signings cause problems for the rest of the league. Look no further than the Rangers. But I suspect you already know this.

 

[John Flyers Fan]

Many times ive heard players saying that the old system was working and the owners were at fault. Some players and Ignorance...

The old system could have worked if the owners/Gm's used their heads. However look at the propsal the NHLPA submitted and you'll see that it wasn't the same old system.

 

[John Flyers Fan]

So, let's try not to besmirch their reputation rather than deal with the facts. The report also cites Colorado, Dallas and Philly as high-payroll teams that made money between 1998 and 2004. Philly, according to the report, lost money only in '04.

Whether a teams wins the Cup has nothing to do with whether its signings cause problems for the rest of the league. Look no further than the Rangers. But I suspect you already know this.

I'll agree that the Leavitt report was a joke, and that yes I even doubt that the Flyers lost money this past year.

The above comment though leads directly into what the heart of the problem it. TRUST. Players don't trust the owners, and owners don't trust owners.


Yes, signings by one team cause problems for other teams, but if you look at all the bad signings in recent years, just as many were made by so-called small market teams than the Flyers, Leafs, etc.

Boston: Thornton, Lapointe, Ellett
New York: Sakic, Kamensky, Lefebvre
Philly: Lindros
Carolina: Fedorov
Tampa: Richards
Ottawa: Daigle
Islanders: Yashin

etc. etc. etc. ... it's not just the big market owners driving the bus making offers that raise the bar