Whats the idea behind a salary "floor"?

[John Flyers Fan]

Any reason you chose hard numbers duing a period that saw over 20% inflation?
Any reason you chose just the last 3 years?

Couldn't be that it helped your case, right?

Hmmm how about that it could be done in 20 minutes.

Nobody is saying that having more money isn't an advantage. It those that think having money is a guaruntee of success and not having a big bankroll dooms you to failure, that don't have a clue.

 

[copperandblue]

http://www.canada.com/montreal/mont....html?id=720048d3-a562-4b90-b4d1-121b128a8ddd

In a memo sent to the 30 teams yesterday, the NHL said it envisions a revenue-sharing plan that would be funded by a "portion of revenues generated in the Stanley Cup playoffs."


http://www.tsn.ca/nhl/news_story.asp?ID=107996&hubName=nhl

On the NHLPA-proposed revenue redistribution plan which would see high revenue teams provide funds for lower revenue teams, the NHL reaction is: "we envision a revenue sharing pool that will be funded primarily by a portion of revenues generated in the Stanley Cup playoffs," as opposed to revenue sharing on the basis of regular-season revenues.

Yeah so?

Both sides are going to want to offer up what they see is the minimum as starters.

Does anyone actually believe that the PA figured they would get away with 10% over 45 mil (or what ever it was) or does anyone believe that the NHL figure that the PA would quickly sign on to the 38 mil cap?

No its all starting points.

From the NHL proposal;

8. Revenue Sharing. In connection with our new economic system, as we have previously explained to you, we intend to implement meaningful revenue sharing by and between the Clubs. As you know, we previously provided you with an extensive description of concepts for enhanced revenue sharing -- including over 30 different models of potential revenue sharing scenarios. We reiterate our willingness to implement, in conjunction with a new economic system, an enhanced revenue sharing program that will allow the new system to operate as intended. Under our proposed approach, all 30 of our Clubs (assuming an appropriate level of business performance within their respective markets), would be provided the ability to spend within the prescribed payroll range.

http://nhlcbanews.com/news/nhlresponse121404.html

At the very minimum, the league has offered an olive branch to the PA in regards to this specific issue. For Goodenow or anyone else hanging on this issue as being one of the most important items of the impass, it simply can't be considered anything more than an attempt to deflect from the real issues.

As I said, just like the red herring that was the gauranteed contract issue.

 

[John Flyers Fan]

Yeah so?

Both sides are going to want to offer up what they see is the minimum as starters.

At the very minimum, the league has offered an olive branch to the PA in regards to this specific issue. For Goodenow or anyone else hanging on this issue as being one of the most important items of the impass, it simply can't be considered anything more than an attempt to deflect from the real issues.

As I said, just like the red herring that was the gauranteed contract issue.

If there is a hard cap with a maximum and minimum it wouldn't matter to the players at all if there is any revenue sharing. Revenue sharing would only matter to players if there is a soft cap/luxury tax system with no significant minimum.

It's the small market owners than need revenue shaing much more than the players need them to have it.

 

[Motown Beatdown]

As I said, just like the red herring that was the gauranteed contract issue.

No it's nothing like the gauranteed contracts that came DIRECTLY from Bettman's memo. Go ahread and spin it anyway you want. But those are his words not the players.

 

[txomisc]

i am not sure why revenue sharing is even a cba issue? what business is it of the players how the owners share their money with eachother?

The NHL proposal doesn't spell out how they will share revenue or how much, but when the NHLPA has indicated amount of revenue to be shared and how they would like the money to move from the top 10 revenue teams to the bottom 13 teams, the NHL came back saying "that's more revenue sharing than we want"

I;m not saying that the NHL won't have any revenue sharing, but they have not wanted to share as much as was in the original NHLPA proposal.

 

[copperandblue]

No it's nothing like the gauranteed contracts that came DIRECTLY from Bettman's memo. Go ahread and spin it anyway you want. But those are his words not the players.

Link?

The memo I saw initially when this came out made no such specific allegation.

As I recall, the PA presented it with their own interpretation....

 

[Motown Beatdown]

Link?

The memo I saw initially when this came out made no such specific allegation.

As I recall, the PA presented it with their own interpretation....

It's in the tsn.ca article about the leak i linked.

 

[copperandblue]

It's in the tsn.ca article about the leak i linked.

My apologies, I thought you were refering to the guaranteed contract thing, not the revenue sharing thing.

I aknowledge that the NHL may very well prefer (likely even) revenue sharing from playoff revenue only.

My point was that in this case, that specific option wasn't even tabled in the proposal. Only the aknowledgment to negotiate enhanced revenue sharing was actually tabled.

The leaked memo is interesting but it can't be lumped into the official proposal... I am sure that somewhere there is a peice of paper from the PA that suggests a luxury tax of 75% (like what Doan was commenting on) could be doable. It doesn't mean it can be counted on though.....

 

[Epsilon]

I personally think revenue sharing (beyond TV money) is a joke. So fans in Detroit and Toronto are supposed to pay a good chunk of their ticket prices so teams like Edmonton and Pittsburgh can simply take a pile of that money and spend it to sign players? Personally if I were an owner of a successful market I would consider dropping my ticket prices significantly in the face of revenue sharing: the fans would love it, and I wouldn't be helping my rivals improve their teams at my club's expense and out of the pocket of my fans.

 

[Winger98]

From looking through this thread, I've yet to see how the salary floor will help small market/Canadian teams. Forcing Nashville, Pittsburgh, etc. to up their team payrolls by $10+ million stands a good chance at simply pushing them into debt, or further into debt.

Meanwhile, Canadian teams won't be spending any less than they were before and will still have the exchange rate to contend with. While a (massive) boost in attendance might help offset the added expenditures for a team like Nashville or Pittsburgh, teams with low attendance rates as it is, Canadian teams can't look towards that for help because many of them already have more than solid fan support. Calgary filled nearly 97% of their home seats last season, and I think Edmonton has to be right around the same percentage.

I said it in another thread: this deal makes me question the claims of so many teams losing so much money because this deal doesn't appear to help them in the slightest.

 

[copperandblue]

From looking through this thread, I've yet to see how the salary floor will help small market/Canadian teams. Forcing Nashville, Pittsburgh, etc. to up their team payrolls by $10+ million stands a good chance at simply pushing them into debt, or further into debt.

My take on it.

A salary floor is not supposed to help any team. It is supposed to be the "give" portion on a "give and take" proposal.

The league wants a cap and the premise of the floor is to ensure that the players will still retain a certain portion of the revenues.

No matter what side of the debate you sit....everyone knows that there are owners that will take advantage of whatever loopholes they can....same way the players do.

A salary floor ensures that a guy like Wirtz won't ice a 10 mil team simply because he can, when the players are going to be restricted to salaries refelcted in a 40 mil cap....

 

[Winger98]

My take on it.

A salary floor is not supposed to help any team. It is supposed to be the "give" portion on a "give and take" proposal.

The league wants a cap and the premise of the floor is to ensure that the players will still retain a certain portion of the revenues.

No matter what side of the debate you sit....everyone knows that there are owners that will take advantage of whatever loopholes they can....same way the players do.

A salary floor ensures that a guy like Wirtz won't ice a 10 mil team simply because he can, when the players are going to be restricted to salaries refelcted in a 40 mil cap....

I agree with your take entirely on why the floor is a necessity. Without it and lower player costs, I think it is very easy to see the possibility for an owner to just screw it and plunge his costs to under $20 million while icing a team similar to the one he spent $40 million for.

However, one of the main threads of this lockout has been helping the "little guy" and having a healthy league where everyone can succceed, on the ice and in the accountant's office. But forcing teams to spend $35 million a year when they either don't need to (a lot of young players, building a team) or just can't afford to (Pittsburgh) doesn't seem like a way to have a healthy league, to me. In the end, teams losing money with $35 million payrolls last season will still likely be losing money on $35 million payrolls next season.

I see one of four things floating in the shadows with an agreement set up with this clause:

1. Revenue sharing will be at a far larger level than the NHL has led us to believe.
2. there's an expectation for an as yet unknown source of outside revenue
3. some teams aren't losing as much money as they claim and can in fact afford payrolls in the mid-$30 millions
4. Some franchises would continue to pile up debt and implode.

I've tried to remain neutral in this, but this part of the NHL's deal just doesn't make sense with their argument so far.

 

[copperandblue]

However, one of the main threads of this lockout has been helping the "little guy" and having a healthy league where everyone can succceed, on the ice and in the accountant's office. But forcing teams to spend $35 million a year when they either don't need to (a lot of young players, building a team) or just can't afford to (Pittsburgh) doesn't seem like a way to have a healthy league, to me. In the end, teams losing money with $35 million payrolls last season will still likely be losing money on $35 million payrolls next season.

Usually it seems that threads degrade down to the same 2-3 arguments and they get picked over to the finest detail. It doesn't seem as cut and dry for me(Although I would be considered pro owner as far as sides go).

I don't see this being simply a helping the "little guy" situation but instead it is more so legislating a phylosophy that every owner must operate by and the players must live within.

There are too many things that distinguish each market from one another to simply make general statements.

Now as far as a team possibly still losing money with a salary floor. Absolutely it's possible. As I said, I lean towards the owners in this case but I truly want a fair system where each team CAN operate on more of a level plain but also one where each team still has to be smart in their decisions. The worst outcome would be that the owners walk away with a license to print money under any situation.

I don't want to see contraction and I certainly don't want to see teams lose money hand over fist because the competetiveness of owning a sports franchise drives you into a "keeping up with the Jones's" mind set. That said, if the NHL determines that in a 2.1 billion dollar industry, every team should be able to carry it's minimual weight at 31 mil payroll, then it will force some of the markets to fish or cut bait...

Don't know if that makes sense or not... it's just my opinion.

I see one of four things floating in the shadows with an agreement set up with this clause:

1. Revenue sharing will be at a far larger level than the NHL has led us to believe.
2. there's an expectation for an as yet unknown source of outside revenue
3. some teams aren't losing as much money as they claim and can in fact afford payrolls in the mid-$30 millions
4. Some franchises would continue to pile up debt and implode.

Perhaps any of those or as I suggested above, perhaps the NHL is trying to establish what the minimal team responsibility is in order to belong to this league. It's an effective way to cut away the dead weight, if there actually is any.

As far as rebuilding and dipping under the cap, its also possible but in the long run it should even out right? Give a little extra now, recieve alittle extra when the team is older but not costing 9 mil a player. It doesn't mean you can't still develop a team the traditional way, it just means that your not icing a team that reflects your expenses.

Mind you when I say that, I should qualify by saying that I don't particularily subscribe to the "fair weather fan" theaory than when the team sucks people don't go and when they win you fill the house.

There may be examples out there but I think generally speaking you either go or you don't irregardless of how the team is doing.

 

[Winger98]

Usually it seems that threads degrade down to the same 2-3 arguments and they get picked over to the finest detail. It doesn't seem as cut and dry for me(Although I would be considered pro owner as far as sides go).

I don't see this being simply a helping the "little guy" situation but instead it is more so legislating a phylosophy that every owner must operate by and the players must live within.

There are too many things that distinguish each market from one another to simply make general statements.

Now as far as a team possibly still losing money with a salary floor. Absolutely it's possible. As I said, I lean towards the owners in this case but I truly want a fair system where each team CAN operate on more of a level plain but also one where each team still has to be smart in their decisions. The worst outcome would be that the owners walk away with a license to print money under any situation.

I don't want to see contraction and I certainly don't want to see teams lose money hand over fist because the competetiveness of owning a sports franchise drives you into a "keeping up with the Jones's" mind set. That said, if the NHL determines that in a 2.1 billion dollar industry, every team should be able to carry it's minimual weight at 31 mil payroll, then it will force some of the markets to fish or cut bait...

Don't know if that makes sense or not... it's just my opinion.

I've noticed that trend with how threads tend to get bogged down with a couple of arguments, also. It's almost as bad as the politics board I was more fervently pro-player, but any more I'm pulling for whatever side I think is working hardest towards a deal. I figure they'll most likely end up near the middle at some point, I just want it to be sooner rather than later.

I personally don't mind the idea of finally just letting some teams sink if they can't pull their weight. It's one thing if a team falls a couple million short, but if you have a payroll in the $30 million range and still lose a ton of cash...well, maybe you're in the wrong business.

Perhaps any of those or as I suggested above, perhaps the NHL is trying to establish what the minimal team responsibility is in order to belong to this league. It's an effective way to cut away the dead weight, if there actually is any.

As far as rebuilding and dipping under the cap, its also possible but in the long run it should even out right? Give a little extra now, recieve alittle extra when the team is older but not costing 9 mil a player. It doesn't mean you can't still develop a team the traditional way, it just means that your not icing a team that reflects your expenses.

Mind you when I say that, I should qualify by saying that I don't particularily subscribe to the "fair weather fan" theaory than when the team sucks people don't go and when they win you fill the house.

There may be examples out there but I think generally speaking you either go or you don't irregardless of how the team is doing.

My biggest concern with this CBA mess has been a team's ability to simply build itself through a draft and smart acquisitions, and then keeping those players together. If it can be accomplished with a cap, fine. If it needs a lux tax, fine. I just don't want to see a revolving door on rosters.

I would assume the costs for tearing down-rebuilding-competing would even out over time, but with the artificial floor/ceiling, I wonder how drastically teams are built will be affected. The one thing I do not want is for the NHL to be like the NFL and have so much roster turnover with only a handful of players on a single team year to year. A lot of factors go into it, but I'm just leery of the whole thing. And there is something about forcing a team to spend more than they need that just doesn't seem right. It would be needed, I agree, but it doesn't seem right.

I'm not sure I'd buy into the "fair weather fan" argument any more, either. What I think would have to worry teams is losing all of the corporate ticket holders. I don't know how it is in other towns, but with the Wings, the majority of good seats are owned by businesses. I'm not sure what you'd have to do to piss them off enough to pull out, but they could be a major bloodline for teams.

 

[Malefic74]

"The system will permit flexibility in spending among the individual Clubs, with each Club obligated to spend no less than 51% and no more than 57% of its 1/30th share of the League's Hockey-Related Revenues on Player Compensation (the "Payroll Range")."

If you go by that statement the league is clearly not forcing teams to spend more than they can afford. If the league tried to do that those owners would sell so fast Gary's head would spin.

What a lot of this does is discourage the player raids that have cost teams like Edmonton their marquee stars. It is a lot easier to create excitement and put butts in the seats when your team has a couple of familiar faces, not just a bunch of guys named Steve. Teams can keep or even acquire star players which increases the excitement about the team and raising attendance. Case in point: Calgary.

Attendance was brutal only a few years ago when alums like Lanny Macdonald went door-to-door selling tickets. Then Iginla has his big season, but is up for a contract. If Iginla had left it isn't outside the realm of possibility to suggest that attendance would've tanked again. Instead they sign him and build every stick of marketing the team around him. Presto! Fan excitement and good attendance. More revenue and they can surround him with complimentary players.

Pittsburgh is a case unto itself. Yes they have Mario, but the fans there know all about the situation of the team. Nobody wants to pour money down a sinkhole. If the Pens had a stable rink deal and were able to start to slowly spend money again, the fans would come back I think. It's not like all those people who filled the place in the early 90s went off and died.

The whole "floor" concept was born out of the joke that is revenue sharing in the MLB. Teams like the Brewers, Tigers, Twins and Padres have owners who simply pocket their revenue sharing money and have been for a while now. The floor is a concept that is best for fans, because it gives some accountability to the teams management. If you spend your money on the wrong guys, it's the GMs neck on the line. If you screw up you can't throw money at it like they do in Colorado, or sit back and point the blame at the fact that you're a "small market" like Edmonton does. The buck would finally stop at the GMs desk.

Consistent winning teams (as opposed to flashes in the pan like Carolina or Anaheim) will be the ones with good management and scouting, not deep pockets. As a fan that's ALL I'm asking for.

 

[copperandblue]

"The system will permit flexibility in spending among the individual Clubs, with each Club obligated to spend no less than 51% and no more than 57% of its 1/30th share of the League's Hockey-Related Revenues on Player Compensation (the "Payroll Range")."

If you go by that statement the league is clearly not forcing teams to spend more than they can afford. If the league tried to do that those owners would sell so fast Gary's head would spin.

I don't know if I agree. Based on the proposal, 51% of an equal 1/30th share in revenues still equals 34 mil (or what ever it is).

That's a pretty hefty sum for some teams.

If it was min 51% based on the individual clubs revenue, then I would agree but it's not.

But as an opening volley for the NHL to negotiate off of it's simply a jumping off point, if this system was ever explored I would imagine the PA would look for the cap figure to go up... in which case the league would respond by lowering the floor...with an end result of 42(?)high - 30(?) low or there abouts

The buck would finally stop at the GMs desk.

Consistent winning teams (as opposed to flashes in the pan like Carolina or Anaheim) will be the ones with good management and scouting, not deep pockets. As a fan that's ALL I'm asking for.

I agree whole heartedly, as a sports fan I feel like I am way too much in tune with what teams generate, spend, can't spend, who the owners are and so on and so on....

 

[thinkwild]

revenue floor screams to me that you have constructed some really wacky system. Imagine forcing Wirtz to spend $8mil to come up to a floor with his young develpoing team of rookies. So he signs Rob Ray for that amount to sit on the bench. How on earth can you think your team has any chance whatsoever if you have to fiorce your owner to meet the minimum spending requirement, whether its a good hockey move or not. As fans, seeing the owner forced to meet spending floors wouldnt be an enticement to buy seasons tickets that year.

But then, thats in a market I guess. You assume the owners will do the bets they can for their team to give it success. Because although we like to claim that any team not constantly sold out is a failure, that is just ludicrous. Winning generates excitement in every sport and increases attendance. Not to mention playoff revenue. Unless you have a sell out market with a waiting list for tickets, you have to count on attendance fluctuating relative to success. Thats natural.

 

[Malefic74]

revenue floor screams to me that you have constructed some really wacky system. Imagine forcing Wirtz to spend $8mil to come up to a floor with his young develpoing team of rookies. So he signs Rob Ray for that amount to sit on the bench. How on earth can you think your team has any chance whatsoever if you have to fiorce your owner to meet the minimum spending requirement, whether its a good hockey move or not. As fans, seeing the owner forced to meet spending floors wouldnt be an enticement to buy seasons tickets that year.

But then, thats in a market I guess. You assume the owners will do the bets they can for their team to give it success. Because although we like to claim that any team not constantly sold out is a failure, that is just ludicrous. Winning generates excitement in every sport and increases attendance. Not to mention playoff revenue. Unless you have a sell out market with a waiting list for tickets, you have to count on attendance fluctuating relative to success. Thats natural.

With competitive balance and healthy pay structures you shouldn't see fire sales that result in teams full of rookies necessitating the scenario you pointed out. If you DO see that, the root cause is a bad GM, not a salary system. Accountability. Sometimes you'll have more veterans than rookies and other times vice versa. Over the long haul it should even out.

 

[HckyFght*]

I know that Ed Snider and Mike Illitch certainly agree with you, as they'll pocket HUGE profits from this salary cap.

The NFL shares far more than just the National TV money.

The NFL also shares 40% of all gate receipts, among other things.

True, and they had that all in place while they were growing up...after already being a league for something like 50 years. Where is the SOn of Pete Rozelle to step in and save this poor pitiful league? The Bettman era, coming after the Zeigler era, has held hockey back probably 20 years...sigh...
-HckyFght!

 

[SENSible1*]

Hmmm how about that it could be done in 20 minutes.

Nobody is saying that having more money isn't an advantage. It those that think having money is a guaruntee of success and not having a big bankroll dooms you to failure, that don't have a clue.

No one said money guaranteed succes.

Money is an advantage that you don't want to see the Flyers lose. Just be honest about this fact.

 

[John Flyers Fan]

Money is an advantage that you don't want to see the Flyers lose. Just be honest about this fact.

Nope what i wanted was hockey in October. I could careless what the deal is, the only thing I don't want is something that will cause heavy roster turnover on a regular basis, and would prefer something along the lines of what the NBA currently has in place.

 

[SENSible1*]

Nope what i wanted was hockey in October. I could careless what the deal is, the only thing I don't want is something that will cause heavy roster turnover on a regular basis, and would prefer something along the lines of what the NBA currently has in place.

Then you should be 100% behind the owners as they have made it crystal clear that they will negotiate any linkage between salaries and revenues, including a direct reference by Daly to the NBA styled soft cap.