The HFBoards Proposal?

Status
Not open for further replies.

two out of three*

Guest
slats432 said:
Again, someone else mentioned this, and I volunteer. Forget discussing specifics unless we are actually going to come up with a proposal.

I am a small market moderate. I don't believe a hard cap is the only way.

Someone needs to take the ball and decide who and what type of people are needed.

I think we should nominate a group of guys who everyone considers great posters on this website. Make a thread w/ a poll and elect like a certain number of guys to try and come up with one.

no13matssundin, vlad the impaler, trottier, buffaloed, are a few that come to my mind.
 

Go Flames Go*

Guest
Lets start it off with

No Arbitration, 53%-58% payroll ranges.
 

two out of three*

Guest
Go Flames Go said:
Lets start it off with

No Arbitration, 53%-58% payroll ranges.

lol.. Slow it down here, eh? Lets try to get more people to agree to do this even with suspect data.
 

garry1221

Registered User
Mar 13, 2003
2,228
0
Walled Lake, Mi
Visit site
i think this would be an interesting concept, as i said in an earlier post at the beginning of the lockout someone mentioned something along these lines, it could have been discostu, but can't remember exactly who. it would be very interesting and the set of number we use would have to be at LEAST fairly accurate. forbes' numbers i have doubts about, levitt's never had me raising my eyebrows in disbelief. if i remember right forbes even had a disclaimer stating that they never saw the books so their numbers could be dead on or completely off, yet another reason i wouldn't trust their numbers.

key to this plan would be to have yes the more knowledgeable posters on this board intricately involved but also having others involved. however the 'others' MUST have shown the rationale and willingness to compromise ( in other words they can't be strictly pa or strictly owner), floating in the middle but leaning towards one side or another is ok as it shows the effort to hear what the other side has to say and debate opinion differences in a civil manner. not just say 'no you're wrong i'm right'. i think most of us who have frequented this board from it's start have drifted into that middleground that i'm speaking of. we didn't start there, but as the lockout has gone on and on everyone just wants hockey and doesn't point fingers anymore as some of the newer posters to this board have done. either way i think it would be interesting to try and see what we can come up with. i'd love to be a part of it

the only thing i could foresee to be troublesome would be finding the time and place (ie thread here or chatroom? or where?)
 
Last edited:

Motown Beatdown

Need a slump buster
Mar 5, 2002
8,572
0
Indianapolis
Visit site
I dont think we need individual team info to come up with a proposal, plus we'll never know the true numbers. Work off the numbers we know. Total revenue is 2.1 billion dollars. Which averages out to 70 million dollars per team. Start from their, and go forward. I'd be willing to lend a hand.

I've put forward several proposals which i think are fair for both sides.
 

Sp5618

Registered User
Nov 26, 2004
7,191
0
JWI19 said:
I dont think we need individual team info to come up with a proposal, plus we'll never know the true numbers. Work off the numbers we know. Total revenue is 2.1 billion dollars. Which averages out to 70 million dollars per team. Start from their, and go forward. I'd be willing to lend a hand.

I've put forward several proposals which i think are fair for both sides.

I thought that the gap between highest and lowest- $76 million - and how revenue is dispersed within the league is the problem! Several teams with under $30 million revenues, several in the $30-50 million category, a batch in the $50-90 million, and then there's Toronto. Throw in the $60 million from the TV contract to share. [Then there is the US$ : Can$ exchange rate.]
 

two out of three*

Guest
garry1221 said:
i think this would be an interesting concept, as i said in an earlier post at the beginning of the lockout someone mentioned something along these lines, it could have been discostu, but can't remember exactly who. it would be very interesting and the set of number we use would have to be at LEAST fairly accurate. forbes' numbers i have doubts about, levitt's never had me raising my eyebrows in disbelief. if i remember right forbes even had a disclaimer stating that they never saw the books so their numbers could be dead on or completely off, yet another reason i wouldn't trust their numbers.

key to this plan would be to have yes the more knowledgeable posters on this board intricately involved but also having others involved. however the 'others' MUST have shown the rationale and willingness to compromise ( in other words they can't be strictly pa or strictly owner), floating in the middle but leaning towards one side or another is ok as it shows the effort to hear what the other side has to say and debate opinion differences in a civil manner. not just say 'no you're wrong i'm right'. i think most of us who have frequented this board from it's start have drifted into that middleground that i'm speaking of. we didn't start there, but as the lockout has gone on and on everyone just wants hockey and doesn't point fingers anymore as some of the newer posters to this board have done. either way i think it would be interesting to try and see what we can come up with. i'd love to be a part of it

the only thing i could foresee to be troublesome would be finding the time and place (ie thread here or chatroom? or where?)

I agree.

The things I had in mind are:

A) Elect 5 Pro-PA Posters, and 5 Pro-Owner posters and try to do it. (Maybe more)

B) Find people who could go both ways.

First and foremost if we were going to "elect" people then they would have to be willing to do this. Everyone has to be willing. Where there is a will there is a way. I think that everybody could meet in a chatroom as that seems like the best way.

Another thing.. If we use the Levitt Report, and Forbes Numbers.. We have to stick with those numbers. And I know that both of those are just suspect data.. But it could work. Why not us? There is still a chance that they could be dead on.

(I posted this thread over a month ago.. Was there somebody else too?)
 

Slats432

Registered User
Jun 2, 2002
14,757
2,778
hockeypedia.com
TiesRLikeWins4Us said:
I agree.

The things I had in mind are:

A) Elect 5 Pro-PA Posters, and 5 Pro-Owner posters and try to do it. (Maybe more)

B) Find people who could go both ways.

First and foremost if we were going to "elect" people then they would have to be willing to do this. Everyone has to be willing. Where there is a will there is a way. I think that everybody could meet in a chatroom as that seems like the best way.

Another thing.. If we use the Levitt Report, and Forbes Numbers.. We have to stick with those numbers. And I know that both of those are just suspect data.. But it could work. Why not us? There is still a chance that they could be dead on.

(I posted this thread over a month ago.. Was there somebody else too?)

HF has a chatroom. Start a volunteer thread and move it on.
 

Motown Beatdown

Need a slump buster
Mar 5, 2002
8,572
0
Indianapolis
Visit site
snafu said:
I thought that the gap between highest and lowest- $76 million - and how revenue is dispersed within the league is the problem! Several teams with under $30 million revenues, several in the $30-50 million category, a batch in the $50-90 million, and then there's Toronto. Throw in the $60 million from the TV contract to share. [Then there is the US$ : Can$ exchange rate.]


I totally agree, the problem is revenue disparity. The owners want to use the NFL model of a salary cap but dont want to use the thing that makes the NFL cap work which is vast revenue sharing.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad

-->