$45 million cap poll

Discussion in 'Fugu's Business of Hockey Forum' started by alecfromtherock, Jan 30, 2005.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
View Users: View Users
  1. alecfromtherock

    alecfromtherock Registered User

    Joined:
    Feb 2, 2004
    Messages:
    507
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    While this number might seem quite high compared to the NHL’s initial cap offer of $32 million (40% higher) the PA could not easily dismiss this offer.

    The salary floor should be $15 million in the difference, therefor the floor would be $30 million.

    18/30 teams last season were under the $45 million cap(60%)

    Will the PA budge on the word cap? Or will they come back with a counter offer with meaning and substance in it?
     
  2. Charge_Seven

    Charge_Seven Registered User

    Joined:
    Aug 12, 2003
    Messages:
    4,631
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I think the key here would be implementing a meaningful luxury tax as well. Tax teams that go over $38,000,000. Or whatever number they decide to choose, redistribute this money among the poorer teams, and give a break on a franchise player, and I don't see any way that this would be a deal that would not be doable. Even drop the idea of a salary floor altogether.
     
  3. No, the PA will not accept a cap.. They're too freaking stupid to see the benefits of a guaranteed amount of revenues and potential escalation of salaries tied to it.

    BTW... that's 65% of revenues. That's too high IMO. I think $40 to $42 million is more realistic (57 to 60%).
     
  4. wazee

    wazee Registered User

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2002
    Messages:
    1,140
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Home Page:
    I voted 'NO' because I do not think Goodenow would allow the players to vote on it. If the players were allowed to vote, I believe they would accept that offer. 45M is too high, but you have to start somewhere...
     
  5. Jason MacIsaac

    Jason MacIsaac Registered User

    Joined:
    Jan 13, 2004
    Messages:
    18,099
    Likes Received:
    298
    Trophy Points:
    154
    Gender:
    Male
    Occupation:
    NWO RCN
    Location:
    Halifax, NS
    NHLPA wouldn't but an NHLPA union vote would.
     
  6. Hello Jason the Admirals suck :lol

    But i believe the nhlpa shouldn't have to accept a cap of any kind so i dont think they would without some major changes.
     
  7. Dave is a killer

    Dave is a killer Dave's a Mess

    Joined:
    Oct 17, 2002
    Messages:
    26,479
    Likes Received:
    9
    Trophy Points:
    171
    Location:
    Mount Juliet
    Home Page:
    2.1 bn /30 /2 = 35,000,000

    I say give it a plus 10 million and a minus 10 million...

    for teams that are rebuilding and teams that are making the playoffs

    45 mil hard cap with a 25 mil hard floor ... what else could the union ask for?
     
  8. struckmatch

    struckmatch Registered User

    Joined:
    Jul 28, 2003
    Messages:
    4,224
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Vancouver
    This goes back to what a lot of us have been saying for a while now, where does the PA think they will be a year from now? 2 years from now?

    What kind of deal can they get a year from now?

    The point is, the NHL is not going to budge, and the PA holding out for a year or two doesn't do anything but lose them revenue in which they will never recover.
     
  9. IslesRule

    IslesRule Registered User

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2002
    Messages:
    309
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Home Page:
    The cap has to be a percentage of revenues, about 54% in my estimation. If the revenues support it it could be $45 million, but thats a long way away. The union will accept a cap, eventually, or their rank and file will rebel. I cant see this lasting all of next season without a revolt by the players. 54% of revenues is better than playing in eirope ar in some cases nothing./
     
  10. Trottier

    Trottier Very Random

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2002
    Messages:
    29,232
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Occupation:
    Marketing Executive
    Location:
    San Diego
    Home Page:
    What kind of a "cap"?

    What other kinds of concessions (on either side) will be made in concert with such a cap?

    I understand the spirit of this poll, but honestly, you are presenting the question nearly entirely out of context.

    It's akin to asking: Do you want a Lambourghini?

    Sure!...but what is insurance going to be, hourly repair and maintenance, etc.? Not small side-items.

    Not as black and white, as simple, as some would like to make it seem.
     
  11. John Flyers Fan

    John Flyers Fan Registered User

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2002
    Messages:
    22,416
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Home Page:
    IMO if the key for the NhL was getting a cap they should start the top end at 70%, which would be $49 million


    Yes, that's higher than the NFL. Why ??? In the NFL, almost every team spends right to the cap limit or to within $1 million of it each year.

    That would not be the case in the NHL, there are plenty of teams that wouldn't spend to the cap.

    If that left the NHL with the following:

    10 teams spending to the cap $49 million

    10 teams that would average $41 million

    10 teams that average $31 million

    (obviously how much each team would spend is pure speculation, but so is everything else)

    That would come to 57.6% ... something I think the NHL could live with, and it is also something that might start getting the NHLPA membership questioning things, depending on how the other key items are dealt with.
     
  12. txomisc

    txomisc Registered User

    Joined:
    Mar 18, 2002
    Messages:
    8,249
    Likes Received:
    17
    Trophy Points:
    141
    Occupation:
    self-employed
    Location:
    California
    Home Page:
    Toss a couple luxury tax thresholds in there (maybe one at 50 cents and one at 75 cents to a dollar) and I would think that kind of deal looks very fair.
     
  13. PeterSidorkiewicz

    PeterSidorkiewicz HFWF Tourney Undisputed Champion

    Joined:
    Apr 30, 2004
    Messages:
    27,345
    Likes Received:
    3,338
    Trophy Points:
    186
    Location:
    Lansing, MI
    The way the NHL is going right now, I probably wouldnt want my salary tied to their revenue either.
     
  14. John Flyers Fan

    John Flyers Fan Registered User

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2002
    Messages:
    22,416
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Home Page:
    If there is a hard cap at $49 million or 70%, AND you add some luxury taxes on top of that, there is no chance the NHLPA accepts the offer.
     
  15. txomisc

    txomisc Registered User

    Joined:
    Mar 18, 2002
    Messages:
    8,249
    Likes Received:
    17
    Trophy Points:
    141
    Occupation:
    self-employed
    Location:
    California
    Home Page:
    Therein lies the problem. The NHLPA won't accept anything with a cap.
     
  16. hockeytown9321

    hockeytown9321 Registered User

    Joined:
    Jun 18, 2004
    Messages:
    2,358
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Didn't they agree to a cap after 3 years if a stiff tax doesn't work?
     
  17. 70% of revenues? Are you on crack? Seriously. A 70/30 split without assuming a freaking bit of risk? That my friend is a joke. When you consider that there are professions where you risk their life daily and they don't make $100K a year (working for likely 30% of a business' revenues), it is insulting to hear anyone suggest the players deserve 70% of revenues. What the hell do the players bring to the table that demands that type of investment?

    :amazed:
     
  18. Wow did you even read his post???? :eek:
     
  19. SuperUnknown

    SuperUnknown Registered User

    Joined:
    Mar 14, 2002
    Messages:
    4,890
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Home Page:
    I could see a sliding salary cap of $45 million if the lower treshold is low enough. A $32M-$45M that has the objective of granting players up to 56% of the league revenues could work. (It would "slide" down if the salaries paid were higher than 56%. It could also provide for a lower sliding too, if salaries were to constitute 52%-56% of the total revenues, meaning the $32M could go up.)
     
  20. Jason MacIsaac

    Jason MacIsaac Registered User

    Joined:
    Jan 13, 2004
    Messages:
    18,099
    Likes Received:
    298
    Trophy Points:
    154
    Gender:
    Male
    Occupation:
    NWO RCN
    Location:
    Halifax, NS
    I had the most useless players signed to crazy contracts.

    To Everyone else: Kastitsyn, Sagat, Valabik, Olesz, Upshall, Sakic (15 million), Damphouse (5 million) and Linden (4million)

    To Admirals : Lindros, Malone, Reichel, Suglobov, Perezhogin, Wharton, 5th, Chistov, Zajac, Taffe, Tarkir, Segal

    I think I won overall for the future
     
  21. Wetcoaster

    Wetcoaster Guest

    If the owners were

    1. to be able to provide complete open and transparent books for the teams and all related companies with verifiable numbers resulting in agreement of what consituted hockey related revenues for each individual team

    AND

    2. they agreed to share revenues at an NFL percentage level then you could have a deal.

    Otherwise no go.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page

monitoring_string = "358c248ada348a047a4b9bb27a146148"