USA Today:Some players would accept a cap

[RangerBoy]

This comes from a story in Monday's USA Today by Kevin Allen

That's when NHL officials and team executives began hearing from some players who suggested a group of players was willing to accept a cap in the range of $47 million if there was no other linkage. Whether the league would accept that is unknown, but logic says if players made that offer it would re-start talks.

However, the NHLPA has steadfastly insisted that it will not give in on a cap, and there has been no indication from union directors, or from any officer, to suggest there has been an official change of heart.

Brian Burke thinks it's too late

"There are players talking, but I think it's too late," said former general manager Brian Burke, who has ties to both the NHL and to players. "And I don't sense (player lobbying for compromise) is as widespread as some would have us believe."

"It's unfathomable," Burke said. "I'm not sure when we come back we will have all 30 teams. It took baseball 10 years to come back in the U.S., and that was with some compelling stories and baseball is America's pastime. I can't imagine we can bring our game back any quicker than that."

http://www.usatoday.com/sports/hockey/nhl/2005-02-13-federal-mediation_x.htm

Burke is right

$47 million hard cap with no linkage

Click to read more...

 

[struckmatch]

Burke is bang on. And it may be too late, it takes a lot out of me to say that, considering that I've been probably one of the most optimistic people throughout this entire thing.

 

[SuperUnknown]

$47 million hard cap with no linkage

Problem is that $47M might have been too high for this year... Imagine what the owners can afford to put the cap to next year when revenues are down to $1.5B (a cap of $47M could encompass easily 70%+ of hockey revenues). And if another year goes by and the revenues drop again (to $1B?), then the cap would be above the total revenues.

$47M hard cap with no linkage will never happen, especially if two years of hockey are gone when they agree. In 2006-2007, with two years of hockey missed, the cap will probably have to be around $25M.

 

[likea]

the players could of gotten a 42-45 million dollar hard cap in August

once the lockout started that number went down to 40-42

now that more than half the season has passed I would guess the league would want a cap at 36-38 million

if the season gets cancels, expect the cap to fall to between 28-32..maybe more

of course this is just my opinion but if the season is canceled...wow, just wow..the players have really lost alot of money

 

[Scoogs]

the players could of gotten a 42-45 million dollar hard cap in August

once the lockout started that number went down to 40-42

now that more than half the season has passed I would guess the league would want a cap at 36-38 million

if the season gets cancels, expect the cap to fall to between 28-32..maybe more

of course this is just my opinion but if the season is canceled...wow, just wow..the players have really lost alot of money

Aside from the numbers, I think the same way. Like Daly said himself, the time for hard cap with no linkage negotiations was 5-6 months ago. The NHL knew what its financial position then. Daly says now they are unsure, with the damage that was done during the lockout. So the numbers could be lower.

F*cking players.....

 

[Bruwinz37]

Problem is that $47M might have been too high for this year... Imagine what the owners can afford to put the cap to next year when revenues are down to $1.5B (a cap of $47M could encompass easily 70%+ of hockey revenues). And if another year goes by and the revenues drop again (to $1B?), then the cap would be above the total revenues.

$47M hard cap with no linkage will never happen, especially if two years of hockey are gone when they agree. In 2006-2007, with two years of hockey missed, the cap will probably have to be around $25M.

Well it is totally unrealistic to think every team will spend to the cap. With a 47m cap and no floor I could not see the average team salary being over 38 million. I think 45m would be perfect, but the league would lose my support if they rejected a 47m cap. It does exactly what is needed, reigns in the huge spenders.

 

[SuperUnknown]

Well it is totally unrealistic to think every team will spend to the cap. With a 47m cap and no floor I could not see the average team salary being over 38 million. I think 45m would be perfect, but the league would lose my support if they rejected a 47m cap. It does exactly what is needed, reigns in the huge spenders.

With $1.5B in revenues, the owners couldn't really afford to have an average payroll over $33M. If the Cap is at $47M, this means that there can be a disparity of over 40% of payroll between the average team and the high budget.

To put things into perspective, a $47M cap over $1.5B in revenues is the equivalent of a $70M cap last year. What good would it have done to hockey? Not much.

The owners will not negociate a max cap that is higher than 67-70% of the current revenues. With $1.5B revenues projected for next year (if there is hockey), that puts an unlinked cap at a max of $35M (70% of revenues). The owners might be willing to make a loss to get hockey back and put the cap a bit higher to $38M, but never the $47M cap. Sadly, the players, had they negociated last year, might have been able to get a $47M at the start of this year, with the current level of revenues.

Unfortunately, like I've been saying all along, the players should compromise, because they're really hurting themselves the longer this game plays. It just doesn't make sense to rationnally make sure you'll get less and less as time goes by, which is what they're doing. Regardless of the CBA they get out of this, if the industry is hurt bad, the revenues will tumble, as they were at the highest they could possibly go before this season. The leadership should have looked at cutting the losses due to this CBA negociation (which were inevitable), but instead they are fighting for principles, which will leave them with a lot less money in their pockets now and in the future. Terrible decision imo.

 

[Stoneburg]

The players have to realize the longer they try to get concessions from the NHL, the less concessions will be available to make. They are negotiating for a peiece of a shrinking pie, the best deal is on the table now, not in September. But even ex-players like Healy don't see that.

 

[Roger's Pancreas*]

Bring back hockey in less than ten years??? Not going to happen, USA would have to sweep every international tournament from now until then just to get the popularity up to snuff.

 

[NewBreed19]

The players have to realize the longer they try to get concessions from the NHL, the less concessions will be available to make. They are negotiating for a peiece of a shrinking pie, the best deal is on the table now, not in September. But even ex-players like Healy don't see that.

The Nhlpa are looking pretty stupid right now. The players even more so for believing that they need to continue to be paid top dollar, when NHL revenues are shrinking as we speak. If I was a player, I would ask Goodenow to resign from his postion and fight for a deal more in line with what the NHL can pay .

 

[chriss_co]

We all know there are players who would accept a cap... heck, just look at the UHL'ers who are willing to play for a salary cap... its ridiculous how two-faced some players can get (or the PA for that matter)

 

[thinkwild]

The players, as far as i can tell, are not asking for top dollar. They have offered to lower their salaries 24%, and are asking for the right to negotiate their value with each employer for whatever they feel they are worth. If they can only afford a $33 mil payroll, then the players only expect to get that much.

It is the owners claiming they are genetically predisposed to pay more they can afford. A laughable claim on the face of it.

The players have proposed they roll back their salaries and put in a soft cap. Why wont the owners negotiate? Are they locked into a process?

 

[CarlRacki]

The players have proposed they roll back their salaries and put in a soft cap. Why wont the owners negotiate? Are they locked into a process?

When did the players propose a soft cap?

 

[thinkwild]

luxury tax- soft cap, same diff. I guess you'll say the numbers were too low as it didnt act like a hard cap. Fine negotiate the levels that achieve the desired market incentives.

But a cap ceiling shouldnt be at a level that every team without playoff sucess can afford. And whether there are 30 equal teams or not, there will still be half in that position.

 

[SuperUnknown]

The players, as far as i can tell, are not asking for top dollar. They have offered to lower their salaries 24%, and are asking for the right to negotiate their value with each employer for whatever they feel they are worth. If they can only afford a $33 mil payroll, then the players only expect to get that much.

The players are asking for top dollar. The league is saying that to be economically healthy, they can't pay more than 55% of the total revenues to the players. The players though, don't think that this 55% is enough, they're asking for more, asking for top dollar.

The current system, where stupid teams like the Blues can lose a ton of money yearly while driving salaries up at the detriment of other more responsible teams, just doesn't cut it. The proof? The league is deep in the red (well not the NHL entity itself, all the teams put together), popularity of the sport is decreasing as payroll disparity increases and there's a whopping 70%+ of revenues going to players.

An MLB like soft cap won't help, just like a temporary current contract reduction won't help either in the long term. If the players weren't in for top dollars instead of offering nothing more than rhetoric. They have a chance to negociate triggers and give a chance to their proposal, but they don't want to.

 

[orcatown]

I might be wrong here but didn't the Edmonton owner say he couldn't live with a cap that exceeded 30 mill.

Really if a team can't pay more than 40 mill. in salaries without going wrong you have to question whether they are a viable franchise.

 

[likea]

I might be wrong here but didn't the Edmonton owner say he couldn't live with a cap that exceeded 30 mill.

Really if a team can't pay more than 40 mill. in salaries without going wrong you have to question whether they are a viable franchise.

no, the Edmonton owner never said that

and my estimates would be 15 teams can't afford to pay over 40 million in salaries...lets fold the whole league

and your going to come back and say well 15 teams paid it last year, and I will then say..yes, and the NHL lost either 120 million dollars (Forbes) before taxes and interest on loans or 225 million (NHL)