$45 million cap poll

Status
Not open for further replies.

alecfromtherock

Registered User
Feb 2, 2004
507
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?
 

Charge_Seven

Registered User
Aug 12, 2003
4,631
0
alecfromtherock said:
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?

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.
 

Lanny MacDonald*

Guest
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%).
 

wazee

Registered User
Feb 27, 2002
1,140
0
Visit site
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...
 

IdiotsPickedMyName*

Guest
Jason MacIsaac said:
NHLPA wouldn't but an NHLPA union vote would.

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.
 

Dave is a killer

Dave's a Mess
Oct 17, 2002
26,507
18
Cumming GA
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?
 

struckmatch

Registered User
Jul 28, 2003
4,224
0
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.
 

IslesRule

Registered User
Feb 27, 2002
309
0
Visit site
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./
 

Trottier

Very Random
Feb 27, 2002
29,232
14
San Diego
Visit site
alecfromtherock said:
Will the PA budge on the word cap?

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.
 

John Flyers Fan

Registered User
Feb 27, 2002
22,416
16
Visit site
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.
 

txomisc

Registered User
Mar 18, 2002
8,348
62
California
Visit site
John Flyers Fan said:
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.

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.
 

John Flyers Fan

Registered User
Feb 27, 2002
22,416
16
Visit site
txomisc said:
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.

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.
 

txomisc

Registered User
Mar 18, 2002
8,348
62
California
Visit site
John Flyers Fan said:
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.
Therein lies the problem. The NHLPA won't accept anything with a cap.
 

Lanny MacDonald*

Guest
John Flyers Fan said:
IMO if the key for the NhL was getting a cap they should start the top end at 70%, which would be $49 million

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:
 

IdiotsPickedMyName*

Guest
The Iconoclast said:
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:

Wow did you even read his post???? :eek:
 

SuperUnknown

Registered User
Mar 14, 2002
4,890
0
Visit site
alecfromtherock said:
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?

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.)
 

Jason MacIsaac

Registered User
Jan 13, 2004
22,221
5,936
Halifax, NS
pjbth said:
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.
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
 

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.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad

-->