Where's the Money Coming From?

Status
Not open for further replies.

BigE

Registered User
Mar 12, 2004
4,476
0
New York, NY
Even with Edmonton's acquisitions they'll still only be spending around $25-28 million in salary. The money isn't coming from anywhere.

It all seems to be a case of people forgetting how much money was tied up in existing contracts. Teams like Pittsburgh had $7 tied up in 8 players, of course they're going to have cash to spend. Edmonton, Calgary and some of these other former "have-nots" are no different.
 

Strangelove

HFBoards Sponsor
Sponsor
Feb 27, 2002
2,047
1,016
ScottyBowman said:
You guys bought all the talk of all this money being lost by the bottom feeders.

Personally, I always believed it was greatly exaggerated.

I never said anything because I was hoping they could pull off their little scam.

Make that: huge scam.

I figured if they could pull off the scam, then the Wings, Avs, Leaves, and Rags would have to finally play fair.

I figured if they could pull off the scam, we would all be treated to an off-season of whining & moaning from fans of said teams as the fat cats finally experienced the pain of fat-trimming.

I figured if they could pull off the scam, jubilation would echo throughout the hockey world as those who for so long sowed to the wind finally reaped the whirlwind of justice.



ScottyBowman said:
Yeah I know a few people will come to the aid of the billionaires and defend their lies.

Well you got that one right.

:)
 

reckoning

Registered User
Jan 4, 2005
7,012
1,251
BigE said:
Even with Edmonton's acquisitions they'll still only be spending around $25-28 million in salary. The money isn't coming from anywhere.

It all seems to be a case of people forgetting how much money was tied up in existing contracts. Teams like Pittsburgh had $7 tied up in 8 players, of course they're going to have cash to spend. Edmonton, Calgary and some of these other former "have-nots" are no different.

I`m surprised that you`re the only one that clued in to that here; everyone else is running around screaming about how their team has all this money to spend because of the new CBA. It`s only because so many contracts expired that many of these teams are rebuilding their rosters from scratch. The money that Edmonton is spending on Pronger and Peca is the same money they spent in `03 and `04 on guys no longer there. They won`t have that opportunity next year.

All these teams spending now will look stupid next year when the free agent crop is even better and they don`t have any money/space to spend. The teams sitting back watching this (i.e. New Jersey, Detroit, Buffalo, Minnesota) will have the last laugh while Clarke and Milbury will realize they`ve been outwitted. Again.
 

nyr7andcounting

Registered User
Feb 24, 2004
1,919
0
BigE said:
Even with Edmonton's acquisitions they'll still only be spending around $25-28 million in salary. The money isn't coming from anywhere.

It all seems to be a case of people forgetting how much money was tied up in existing contracts. Teams like Pittsburgh had $7 tied up in 8 players, of course they're going to have cash to spend. Edmonton, Calgary and some of these other former "have-nots" are no different.
I was just about to post that. So many people are saying wow, look how much these small markets are spending.

Out of the list in the original post, how many of those teams are actually at or above what they spent in the last full season? Teams with 8 players under contract for 12 million have 20 million to spend...just because they spend it doesn't mean that they are spending more than under the old CBA, it just means they happened to have a lot of contracts wiped out by the lockout
 

GKJ

Global Moderator
Feb 27, 2002
185,657
37,449
shekki said:
Simple.. 24% rollback. And Edmonton was one of the few teams to make a profit in the last NHL season.



After Cal Nicholls basicilly said he was going broke :biglaugh:
 

Cloned

Begging for Bega
Aug 25, 2003
78,946
64,127
reckoning said:
The money that Edmonton is spending on Pronger and Peca is the same money they spent in `03 and `04 on guys no longer there. They won`t have that opportunity next year.

All these teams spending now will look stupid next year when the free agent crop is even better and they don`t have any money/space to spend. The teams sitting back watching this (i.e. New Jersey, Detroit, Buffalo, Minnesota) will have the last laugh while Clarke and Milbury will realize they`ve been outwitted. Again.
That's not entirely true from an Oilers standpoint. The only players that we have locked up long-term for sizeable dollars are Pronger, Smith, and possibly Ryan Smyth (depending on his new contract). We've speculated on the Oilers board that Peca is either a one-year temporary thing or that he will re-sign for much less next year. Either way, look for his salary to be either completely off the books or much reduced in the future.

http://oilfans.com/salary.php
 

iagreewithidiots

Registered User
Mar 2, 2002
1,524
0
Visit site
I got news for you. Pittsburgh is very excited about hockey this year. Between the cap and Crosby the Pens will sellout their fair share of games this year.

Pens attendance figures will sky rocket this year.
 

GSC2k2*

Guest
ScottyBowman said:
I suggest you read the rules of this message board.

1) Flaming: Do not post any messages that harrass, insult, belittle, threaten or flame another member or guest. Debates are fine, but argue with the point, not the person.

If nobody wants to answer my question then its fine. I just want to have a civil conversation.
Well, WITH THE GREATEST RESPECT, I do not think I have read a response like yours in quite a while.

To have a "civil conversation", one does not post an inflammatory, baiting post such as this:


You guys bought all the talk of all this money being lost by the bottom feeders.

Nashville claimed to have lost $10 mil on a 22 mil payroll HA! Now they have all this money for Kariya.

Carolina made the most ridiculous claim of all time that they lost 22 mil on a 39 mil payroll
http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/20...nes.lockout.ap/

Yeah I know a few people will come to the aid of the billionaires and defend their lies but where is this money coming from as op said? It can't be revenue sharing because it won't be much and Carolina is going to have to be under $17 mil payroll to make a profit according to Karmanos LOL.

"you guys bought all this talk"

"Defend their lies".

"LOL"

So your suggestion of wanting to have a "civil conversation" is pretty far from the truth.

Here is a posting rule for you to consider:
2) Trolling: Do not post topics with the sole purpose of starting a dispute.

I might suggest you look at your own reply post, where such rule clearly states that posters should not insult or belittle other posters. As indicated above, your initial post (in addition to being a trolling post) clearly is nothing short of you patting the heads of pro-league posters and saying "Poor little deluded souls. You poor saps. How can you be so dumb."

I RESPECTFULLY ask that you get off your high horse.

THe issue of the owners' losses is over. The players accepted the fact. Maybe you should as well. I know you are CLOSE to an engineering degree and all (as if that is a big deal and is not dwarfed by the educational accomplishments of a host of posters here), but your lack of knowledge of business as evidenced by your posts is not contributing anything to this discussion.

To answer your question, I suggest you read the article you posted. It contains some reasons which can lead one to reason how some spending in a capped world can make you more competitive and lead you to more revenue, as opposed to that same spending in a non-capped world not making you more competitive and being money down the drain. with a cap, investments in players have an exponentially greater chance of being good investments, particularly in a market like Carolina that has supported hockey in the past far better than it currently did and that will conceivably return to that support (or even better) with a better hockey team.
 

skippyx

Registered User
Jun 24, 2005
27
0
The overpaying theory is just plain wrong.

Kariya signed for 9 million to stay with Anaheim a few years ago.
He got 4.5 million this year.

5 million used to get you Lapointe or Lang.
Now 3.5 million gets you Hatcher or Zhitnik.

The 25th-35th best player (Roenick) makes 4.95 million after a roll back (old money)
The 1st-5th best player now makes 5.75 million in this system.

Look at the Rangers signings:
Martin Straka UFA (Los Angeles) $3 million
Marek Malik UFA (Vancouver) $2.5 million
Ville Nieminen UFA (Calgary) $700,000
Would you see them signing 3 players for 6.2 million in the old system or 1 player for 9 million?

Do you think Kovalev at 4.5 million is too much money?

You will always have some head scratchers like Malakov at 3.6 million but for the most part the system is working just fine.

Don't forget the other end of this. You get Crosby, Malkin, Ovechkin, Carter etc. at less than a million.

Compare Cujo's last UFA deal with Khabibulin's current deal.
 

syc

Registered User
Aug 25, 2003
3,062
1
Not Europe
Visit site
iagreewithidiots said:
I got news for you. Pittsburgh is very excited about hockey this year. Between the cap and Crosby the Pens will sellout their fair share of games this year.

Pens attendance figures will sky rocket this year.

Then they will plumet in 7 years when he signs with the Habs. Just another bandwagon hockey city and most of us know it.
 

BigE

Registered User
Mar 12, 2004
4,476
0
New York, NY
syc said:
Then they will plumet in 7 years when he signs with the Habs. Just another bandwagon hockey city and most of us know it.

Who's to say that he'll sign with the Habs. Nobody can honestly say what's going to happen in a month from now, let alone seven years.

Another thing people have to remember is that their is a new ownership group ready to take over in Pittsburgh. Not only did they have very little money tied up in existing contracts but they've probably added $5 million through new ownership investments. And why shouldn't that be allowed? The NHL market is vastly improving with franchise values looking to take a turn for the better. It may be foolish to invest money in a sinking ship but that was the OLD NHL. We're no longer in that situation.
 

ClosetOilersFan

Registered User
Aug 4, 2005
1,202
0
Toronto, ON
Zopust said:
The fairly widely held assumption that players would be taking massive pay cuts to stay where they were was neatly destroyed when around ten teams with formerly low payrolls starting racking up free agent signings for fair to high market value.

So my question is, with the expectation of potentially less revenue this season than usual, given the potential backlash against the sport, lower ticket prices in many occasions, and a lack of a universal TV deal in the US, where is the money coming from to support such inflated payrolls among the league's low spenders?

I'm asking about:

-Edmonton
-Calgary
-Pittsburgh
-Colombus
-Chicago
-Boston
-Columbus
-Florida
etc.

1) Many of these teams planned and saved for this year
2) If league revenues are lower than expected, the players have to give back that percentage. [hence the escrow section of the CBA]
3) It's now worth it for small teams to pay 39million, as they are on equal ground with the big-shots; higher likelihood of making the playoffs if you have smart management [i.e. Calgary, Edmonton, Tampa, etc.]
 

Jaded-Fan

Registered User
Mar 18, 2004
52,446
14,304
Pittsburgh
syc said:
Then they will plumet in 7 years when he signs with the Habs. Just another bandwagon hockey city and most of us know it.

:biglaugh:

You said that about LeCavilier too didn't you? Seems that he wants a long term deal with TB now though doesn't it? I am not counting on Crosby signing long term 7 years from now, my crystal ball gets a bit fuzzy that far out, but you are counting chickens that are far less likely to hatch than you think.
 

jacketracket*

Guest
gscarpenter2002 said:
They sell out. Frequently.
I'm a season ticket holder.;)

I was just funnin' the thread starter because he had Columbus (correct) and Colombus (obviously incorrect) both mentioned in his short list of 7 or 8 cities ...
 

jacketracket*

Guest
nomorekids said:
It's going to be nice for teams like Columbus and Nashville to look at their schedules and consider Detroit "feisty underdogs, but mostly likely a W" :yo:
:D
 

GSC2k2*

Guest
jacketracket said:
I'm a season ticket holder.;)

I was just funnin' the thread starter because he had Columbus (correct) and Colombus (obviously incorrect) both mentioned in his short list of 7 or 8 cities ...
Missed that ... :propeller
 

ProctorSilex

Guest
BigE said:
Even with Edmonton's acquisitions they'll still only be spending around $25-28 million in salary. The money isn't coming from anywhere.

It all seems to be a case of people forgetting how much money was tied up in existing contracts. Teams like Pittsburgh had $7 tied up in 8 players, of course they're going to have cash to spend. Edmonton, Calgary and some of these other former "have-nots" are no different.

Best poster on this forum, always speaks the real.
 

Epsilon

#basta
Oct 26, 2002
48,464
369
South Cackalacky
nomorekids said:
It's okay. You had a nice run at the top, throwing money at any and every available big name for years...

Name them all. Aside from Hatcher and Joseph (neither of which were there when the Wings were winning) the only free agents the Wings have signed have been lower priced, second tier guys like Hull and Robataille.

now suck it up,

There's no sucking up needed right now. Our team is still one of the best in the division, if not the conference, and has lost far less core players than traditional opponents like Colorado and St. Louis. I'll take losing a bum like Derian Hatcher any day if that helps get Peter Forsberg out of the conference.

re-build, and accept a few years of being a marginal team.

What's great about this CBA and the market it has created is that isn't even necessary. Once all the big contracts run out and guys like Shanahan and Yzerman ride off into the sunset, the Wings will simply be able to do what everyone did this offseason. And they might have less competitors for players if teams keep giving multi-year deals to marginal guys. Re-building is not necessary, only re-loading is.

It's going to be nice for teams like Columbus and Nashville to look at their schedules and consider Detroit "feisty underdogs, but mostly likely a W" :yo:

It's easy to talk big about the future when your team has never won anything. You still have to play the games and then manage the roster every offseason. And it Columbus' plan is to spend 5.5 million to lock up 60 point scorers then I'm not too worried about them in the future.
 

Stephen

Moderator
Feb 28, 2002
77,850
51,520
ScottyBowman said:
You guys bought all the talk of all this money being lost by the bottom feeders.

Nashville claimed to have lost $10 mil on a 22 mil payroll HA! Now they have all this money for Kariya.

Carolina made the most ridiculous claim of all time that they lost 22 mil on a 39 mil payroll
http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2004/hockey/nhl/09/16/bc.hkn.hurricanes.lockout.ap/

Yeah I know a few people will come to the aid of the billionaires and defend their lies but where is this money coming from as op said? It can't be revenue sharing because it won't be much and Carolina is going to have to be under $17 mil payroll to make a profit according to Karmanos LOL.

I completely agree with everything you've said.

The owner's claims of huge losses was a huge lie. Simple arithmetic shows that there's no way NHL teams were really losing money in the first place.
 

GSC2k2*

Guest
Stephen said:
I completely agree with everything you've said.

The owner's claims of huge losses was a huge lie. Simple arithmetic shows that there's no way NHL teams were really losing money in the first place.
Please DO share your simple arithmetic with the rest of us.

Since the PA seemed to buy into the owner's claims of losses, perhaps you will next share it with the PA.

But first us. Please share. I implore you.
 

Timmy

Registered User
Feb 2, 2005
10,691
26
gscarpenter2002 said:
Please DO share your simple arithmetic with the rest of us.

Since the PA seemed to buy into the owner's claims of losses, perhaps you will next share it with the PA.

But first us. Please share. I implore you.


Forbes noted that the league was losing money as well.

But what do they know?

I, too, eagerly await your arithmetic explanations...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad

-->