Why only the cap on the maximum?

[PecaFan]

I'd hardly say that's even the case. Philly tends to roll over and die when they play Ottawa, just as Ottawa does against Toronto, and Toronto does (to a lesser extent) against Philly. That 4-1 Ottawa series win, where Philly only scored 2 goals and only got a win in a 1-0 shutout, was one of the easiest series victories I've ever seen. Ottawa could have gotten a better workout going golfing, and there probably would have been more physical contact as well.

Just losing a series doesn't mean it was a rollover. Only scoring two goals tells you nothing about how physical a series was. I've seen amazingly rough 4 game sweeps, and 7 game series that weren't physical at all. And btw, they've played more than that one series.

But fine, you think playing Philly was easy, mere creampuffs that hardly even deserved to be on the ice.

Gee, that only leaves *two* big spending teams the Senators have repeatedly lost to year after year. Ooh, my argument has been shredded beyong recognition.

 

[Epsilon]

Just losing a series doesn't mean it was a rollover. Only scoring two goals tells you nothing about how physical a series was. I've seen amazingly rough 4 game sweeps, and 7 game series that weren't physical at all. And btw, they've played more than that one series.

But fine, you think playing Philly was easy, mere creampuffs that hardly even deserved to be on the ice.

Gee, that only leaves *two* big spending teams the Senators have repeatedly lost to year after year. Ooh, my argument has been shredded beyong recognition.

The fact that the Senators lose repeatedly to the Leafs has little to do with money; if you watched those series you would be able to see that. Ottawa is 1-1 in playoff series with the Devils, and lost to them by one goal in game seven. Ottawa is 0-2 in the playoffs against small spending Buffalo.

 

[misterjaggers]

How would it help well managed organizations? Why would fans continue to invest in a product when they see no return on it? If theres a cap, theres only a certain point (LEVEL) at team can attain.

Why should Sens fans continue to pay ticket price increases every 2 years if the product is stagnant? The great thing about a non-cap league is you can look forward to the tweaking and development of your team and players over several seasons.

In a capped league, the sport would be destroyed. Looks like Bettman is out to destroy the game to get more profits. Makes you wonder if its worth it... If only the owners understood hockey, the team building concepts and the trials and tribulations whcih are the things that make teams stronger. Why would you want a league that doesnt reward anything but luck. I have season tickets now for the Sens, but if they impose any type of hard cap I will surely cut the games I go to into at least half, if not more.

I do not wish to support a randomized league where the good are punished and the poor are rewarded. Its just illogical, and I dont want my money going to support the owners cartel.

Gee, the salary-capped NFL doesn't look destroyed. In fact, it looks like a huge success.

 

[Morbo]

Can people please stop bringing up the NFL?

 

[s7ark]

Can people please stop bringing up the NFL?

No we can't. It is exactly the system that bettman is trying to impliment. why would we stop talking about it?

Or is it that is shoots down a lot of NHLPA arguements?

 

[Blind Gardien]

No we can't. It is exactly the system that bettman is trying to impliment. why would we stop talking about it?

Well, because the NFL has mega-revenue streams outside of their gate receipts, and therefore should have less need of a salary cap or cost certainty system than the NHL does. The businesses are quite fundamentally different in that respect, so it's not fair to compare them.

 

[YellHockey*]

It is exactly the system that bettman is trying to impliment. why would we stop talking about it?

Because the NFL system has over 70% of revenues shared. The system that Bettman is trying to implement has less then 10% of revenues shared.

Bettman is not trying to implement the NFL's system.

 

[OlTimeHockey]

The league said it wants to distribute talent more equally. THis means = punish the talent rich clubs).

Where are you getting this stuff from? The league has said no such thing. The league wants to *prevent* teams from having to move players for money reasons. Just like what happened to Ottawa in the past.

From the NHL's Counter Proposal itself:

Under Section 7: Payroll Range System

"...as we have consistently maintained, the League is committed to significantly reducing or eliminating payroll disparities and distributing Player talent more equitably among Clubs, so that fans in each of our Clubs' 30 markets can rightly feel that their team has the legitimate ability to compete on a regular basis. A system that promotes increased competitiveness on the ice will result in a more attractive entertainment product."

Seems pretty clear to me.

 

[OlTimeHockey]

Also interesting to note that the first point under Section 7 reads:

"Player Compensation (including benefits) will initially equal 54.0%"

What "benefits" are to be included?

That 54.0% of "Player Compensation" could mean a DRASTIC reduction in annual "salary" depending upon what the Leauge wants to consider a "benefit".

If I'm not mistaken, the Levitt Report lists the following items "Benefits and Other Payments":

* Player Pension Benefits
* Medical and Dental Insurance Benefits
* Disability Insurance Benefits
* Player per diems and Training Camp Allowances
* Employer Payroll Taxes
* Other Miscellaneous Costs


I've bolded "Employer Payroll Taxes" because I have a VERY hard time figuring out how the League, or any other business for that matter, can even come close to considering "Payroll Taxes" as either a "payment" OR a "benefit" to ANY employee.

If that "54.0%" includes "Employer Payroll Taxes", doesn't that mean that the "employees", (players), will be paying not only their own taxes, but their "Employers", (owners), taxes as well.

Is that even legal?

 

[PecaFan]

"...as we have consistently maintained, the League is committed to significantly reducing or eliminating payroll disparities and distributing Player talent more equitably among Clubs, so that fans in each of our Clubs' 30 markets can rightly feel that their team has the legitimate ability to compete on a regular basis. A system that promotes increased competitiveness on the ice will result in a more attractive entertainment product."

Good find. I shouldn't have spoken in absolute terms. I should have said they rarely talk about competitiveness.

This is clearly a bone they're tossing to clubs like Edmonton etc.

 

[Hockey_Nut99]

Someone said the NFL has an 80 Million US cap and how easy it is to make a dynasty? Did you ever consider that the NFL roster is HUGE. They don't pay the amount of players they pay on an NHL roster. The number is bigger!

If sens fans agree that they will probbaly lose it's players in the current system then what's the difference with a cap? Under the current system there will be teams willing to dish out money Ottawa cannot afford. Under a cap less teams can dish money out. The Sens would probbaly lose less players under a cap.

NHL players don't understand that the game needs to get bigger. The NFL thrives becasue it has more parity and, as a result, more pople watch it in more cities. That gives them huge tv deals. The players know that they get more money as the game gets bigger.

Even if some owners ruined it for the rest of the league, why isn't that an argument for the owners to fix it? It's there money. They are finally being responsible and said they can't run under the current system. I didn't see players foul mouthing the owners b4 the lockout. Why is that? Becasue they are greedy and they didn't want to piss them off. Now that the owners say no, the players are like little kids crying b/c they can't have that one toy in the store.

The players attitude is "Why should we reach out and hold their hand and help them, when they are the ones who screwed it up?"..That attitude is not going to make this league thrive. Well guess what Players. That hand that feeds your families, and allows you to live the lap of luxury, won't be coming out anytime soon. Have a Merry Christmas

 

[me2]

Someone said the NFL has an 80 Million US cap and how easy it is to make a dynasty? Did you ever consider that the NFL roster is HUGE. They don't pay the amount of players they pay on an NHL roster. The number is bigger!

If sens fans agree that they will probbaly lose it's players in the current system then what's the difference with a cap? Under the current system there will be teams willing to dish out money Ottawa cannot afford. Under a cap less teams can dish money out. The Sens would probbaly lose less players under a cap.

A lot of Sens fans don't agree. They think Melnyk shouldn't expect to make a profit, they expect Melnyk to soak up a loss to keep their team together. Maybe Melnyk doesn't think the same way.

 

[shveik]

This is exactly what the owners have offered. A cap on both ends. How did you miss that with all the information out there on the latest offer?

For the record, I posted this "proposal" only to show how absurd a hard cap is, especially if it is brought further to a more logical bracket hard cap. I admit I have not read the latest league offer, and had no idea it had been proposed for real.

 

[me2]

Here's a funny idea: what if teams were allowed to trade/sell salary cap space like a commodity? So if a team wants to blow up and rebuild, they have the choice of either signing players they don't really want to get themselves up to the minimum, or letting other teams compete to acquire that cap space which they can then use for their own rosters.

Carbon credits cap tax equivalent. I think that is a very interesting idea. You'd need a minimum price $1 fee to buy $1 of cap space.

ie Nashville could sell $10m in cap space to Detroit for $10m. Nasville makes $10m in money, Detroit can then spend an extra $10m on salary ($20m total expense, $10m for cap transfer AND $10m for salary). Works like a $1 for $1 luxury tax.

That $1:$1 fee could go up if there is shortage and teams are forced into a bidding war for it (a team might be able to get $1.50 or $2). Fairer at $1 for $1 so the rich teams can't outbid the poorer ones.

I think a maximum should set to stop teams over purchasing (no more than $10-15m per team in a given year).

Not sure how teams would arrange deals, probably through a centralised market rather than team to team. All sellers would pool cap space and buying teams would submit bids on the pool. Teams are paid out on their percentage of the pool.


Maximum that can be sold in a year should be set around $10-15m. Make it the opposite of the what can be bought in a year.

Its interesting. Wonder what happens when the teams at the bottom decide to grow during one year and there is less cap space. Then they run out before all buyers get their bit then the buyers run into cap problem ($2:1 luxury tax on credits not purchased).

The Pengiuns could be picking up $15m/y with their payroll and squirelling it away for later.

---------------------------------------------

It keeps the NHLs desire for 54% of revenues to go to players roughly intact.

Keeps salaries around $1.3m average

Allows teams to expand when successful (but not too much) and contract when not.

Gives money to the lesser teams. Because the bigger spenders are actually buying something it isn't charity case revenue sharing.

Quick somebody send it to the Knob & Fairy show.