Bettman comments 1/8

[LadyStanley]

http://ducks.nhl.com/club/news.htm?id=548924

Bettman was attending Scott Niedermeyer's retirement party, starting visit of the three Californian venues, and made some comments at Sunday's game in Anaheim.

Topics included California team hosting/in Winter Classic, HBO 24/7, prime time Winter Classic, TV negotiations, Fehr, CBA, etc.

And...

On the league’s outlook this season
We are having a good season on all fronts. The game on the ice is good. You look at the races in the West. If you yawn and take the night off, you can drop from fifth to 12th place in the blink of an eye. Colin (Campbell) has been doing a good job with supplemental discipline and the players by and large have handled, for example the new role on blindside hits to the head, well. Revenues are strong and attendance is up. Things are continuing to grow. In a difficult economic environment, we are holding our own and even growing a little bit.

Revenues are up 4-5 percent, maybe. That is an early projection. We seem to be in a good place, in terms of the business. The national business, particularly with sponsors and the like, has been growing big double digits, something like 83 percent over the last three years. That has been in a recessionary environment. We are actually doing okay.

Click to read more...

 

[IndianHead219]

Great news all around!

 

[Jeffrey93]

I'd like to know how these questions were phrased...since the typical Bettman came bursting out when asked about the CBA:

On the CBA:
The system has worked pretty much as anticipated. There have been a few little things I’m sure on both sides that were surprises. My guess is both sides are going to have things that need to be talked about when we get to collective bargaining. I would respectfully urge that focusing on the NHL and collective bargaining is way premature. The three other majors – football, basketball, baseball – all have collective bargaining agreements that expire before ours. We are the caboose on this train. We have a great season going and another one to come. I’m not sure why any attention is being focused on collective bargaining right now. We’re after all those guys. If you’d like, focus on the other three. They are more front and center than we are right now.

Well Gary....the NHL is still 'coming off' a lockout that cost the league an entire season.

I'm not sure what Gary is trying to accomplish by talking like this all the time...but I take it as almost insulting that he is, while answering, telling me that I shouldn't care about it. I should care about the other 3 leagues...and that I really shouldn't even be talking about it.

 

[Buck Aki Berg]

I'm not sure what Gary is trying to accomplish by talking like this all the time...but I take it as almost insulting that he is, while answering, telling me that I shouldn't care about it. I should care about the other 3 leagues...and that I really shouldn't even be talking about it.

If that's how you understood it, then you're going out of your way to take offense to things.

 

[MaskedSonja]

So, I don't the NHL has had a year where Rev's have declined since the end of the lockout. The Cap is already supposedly going up 2-3 mil next year.

Any bets the cap goes another 1-2 Mil the season after next? Which would put the NHL around between 63-65 cap ceiling, correct (speculating), and putting the cap FLOOR, at what, 50 million?

I know it's pure speculation, of course, but if the revenues keep generating, one wonders if the players, coming up to the end of the CBA start saying "Hey, we've had tremendous growth, we want a couple more percents in our favor?"

As great as these numbers are for the NHL-I think what it could say about potential cap ceiling/floor/players wanting more percentage is food for thought.

 

[tarheelhockey]

Cap floor is certainly becoming a problem, ceiling probably less so. I've always been of the mentality that any decent ownership should be able to meet the cap floor, but not if it's going up and up and up and up...

 

[MaskedSonja]

Cap floor is certainly becoming a problem, ceiling probably less so. I've always been of the mentality that any decent ownership should be able to meet the cap floor, but not if it's going up and up and up and up...

Particularly as the cap floor is now higher than the original cap ceiling after the lockout.

Also, max salaries are tied to a percentage of the cap correct (20 percent?)- 62 Million Cap hit: 12 Mil/year? What was Jagr getting Pre-lockout, 11 per?

Wonderful, the NHL may exceed pre lockout salary amounts, while having a cap in place that I think most teams didn't even reach PRE lockout.

For contrast, here's a nice listing of Team Payrolls up to 2003.

http://www.hockeyzoneplus.com/$maseq_e.htm

By the looks of it, 5 teams exceeded 60 Million in team team payroll. 22 Teams were BELOW the (speculative) 2012-13 cap floor of 50 Million.

But the Owners got linkage, so that's all that matters, right?

 

[tarheelhockey]

Would it make sense for the owners to rein in the cap by giving players "alternative" compensation rather than straight salary?

For example, adding to their retirement or profit sharing, that sort of thing?

 

[PitbulI]

I don't like the idea of the floor going up as much as it is.

When you have teams that are facing big issues like Pheonix and Atlanta(Either could be moving soon) and I'm assuming at least 10 teams are facing losses.

Instead of a linkage to revenue, I'm thinking we should have a medium amount instead and then range the floor from there.

You can take the Ceiling and floor amounts, then look at the salary for the medium team in the league. Then base the % for a salary floor from that point. I'm thinking that while the ceiling may be high, it will allow for a lower cap floor by a few million.

 

[Tommy Hawk]

Particularly as the cap floor is now higher than the original cap ceiling after the lockout.

Also, max salaries are tied to a percentage of the cap correct (20 percent?)- 62 Million Cap hit: 12 Mil/year? What was Jagr getting Pre-lockout, 11 per?

Wonderful, the NHL may exceed pre lockout salary amounts, while having a cap in place that I think most teams didn't even reach PRE lockout.

For contrast, here's a nice listing of Team Payrolls up to 2003.

http://www.hockeyzoneplus.com/$maseq_e.htm

By the looks of it, 5 teams exceeded 60 Million in team team payroll. 22 Teams were BELOW the (speculative) 2012-13 cap floor of 50 Million.

But the Owners got linkage, so that's all that matters, right?

The league is also doing revenue sharing, which it did not do before. So teams at the bottom now get money to make up the revenue differences. So if you look at it that a team got 15 million in revenue sharing an the floor was say 48 million, that means their floor was really 35 million.

I don't like the idea of the floor going up as much as it is.

When you have teams that are facing big issues like Pheonix and Atlanta(Either could be moving soon) and I'm assuming at least 10 teams are facing losses.

Instead of a linkage to revenue, I'm thinking we should have a medium amount instead and then range the floor from there.

You can take the Ceiling and floor amounts, then look at the salary for the medium team in the league. Then base the % for a salary floor from that point. I'm thinking that while the ceiling may be high, it will allow for a lower cap floor by a few million.

I am not a big fan of the way they did the ratios either but cest la vie.

 

[La Grosse Tendresse]

Particularly as the cap floor is now higher than the original cap ceiling after the lockout.

Also, max salaries are tied to a percentage of the cap correct (20 percent?)- 62 Million Cap hit: 12 Mil/year? What was Jagr getting Pre-lockout, 11 per?

Wonderful, the NHL may exceed pre lockout salary amounts, while having a cap in place that I think most teams didn't even reach PRE lockout.

But the Owners got linkage, so that's all that matters, right?

Well, yes.

The raw number may be higher, but teams used to pay upwards of 70% of the revenue on player salaries. They now pay around 57%. They are thus paying less of their income in salaries than before.

What is the problem??

 

[mouser]

I don't like the idea of the floor going up as much as it is.

When you have teams that are facing big issues like Pheonix and Atlanta(Either could be moving soon) and I'm assuming at least 10 teams are facing losses.

Instead of a linkage to revenue, I'm thinking we should have a medium amount instead and then range the floor from there.

You can take the Ceiling and floor amounts, then look at the salary for the medium team in the league. Then base the % for a salary floor from that point. I'm thinking that while the ceiling may be high, it will allow for a lower cap floor by a few million.

The simplest idea that's been proposed is to make the cap ceiling and floor percentages, rather than $8m above and belong the midpoint.

In 2005-2006 the cap floor was 55% of the ceiling. Now due to the fixed $16m range it's 73% of the ceiling and set to climb higher next season. Though the changes of earlier free agency and the erosion of the cheap second contract may make it difficult to put the genie back in the bottle where franchises could field reasonably competitive teams at lower than average payrolls.

Worth mentioning also that because the cap floor is set to $8m belong the midpoint, it means the cap floor is actually rising at a faster % rate than overall league revenue is rising.

 

[MaskedSonja]

Well, yes.

The raw number may be higher, but teams used to pay upwards of 70% of the revenue on player salaries. They now pay around 57%. They are thus paying less of their income in salaries than before.

What is the problem??

No problems, unless you're on the side of the fence that will see players possibly being paid ever more than they were prelockout. Also that teams who say they are struggling with being at cap floor NOW are going to really get on the bandwagon when they are paying more than most teams did pre lockout.

And yes, while I will grant they have the revenue sharing now, some teams are crying poor even WITH revenue sharing now-I just see that it's going to be a "have vs have nots" amongst the owners during the next CBA.

But, if you're on the side of the fence that didn't want a cap anyway, or are fan of a "have" team and it means the NHL is slowly getting back to the point where "have" teams are going to be able to put out even bigger salary offers while the "have nots" are struggling with floor-then it's not a problem at all

Depends on which side of the fence you're on. As kdb reminded me-it just means that essentailly the owners got the lower linkage-which is what they wanted.

 

[La Grosse Tendresse]

No problems, unless you're on the side of the fence that will see players possibly being paid ever more than they were prelockout. Also that teams who say they are struggling with being at cap floor NOW are going to really get on the bandwagon when they are paying more than most teams did pre lockout.

And yes, while I will grant they have the revenue sharing now, some teams are crying poor even WITH revenue sharing now-I just see that it's going to be a "have vs have nots" amongst the owners during the next CBA.

But, if you're on the side of the fence that didn't want a cap anyway, or are fan of a "have" team and it means the NHL is slowly getting back to the point where "have" teams are going to be able to put out even bigger salary offers while the "have nots" are struggling with floor-then it's not a problem at all

Depends on which side of the fence you're on. As kdb reminded me-it just means that essentailly the owners got the lower linkage-which is what they wanted.

The whole reason why some teams have a hard time reaching the cap floor is because it is close to the ceiling, so that there isn't as big of a variance between individual teams.

The fact that players are getting salaries that are as big as in 2004 simply means that the league and its teams have much higher income than they used to. As a percentage of income, they are paying a lot less.

Sure, some poor teams are having a hard time being profitable by reaching the salary floor, but there is revenue sharing in order to compensate that. And, also, the higher revenue is not simply due to Montreal and Toronto, the league as a whole is doing very well (at least, according to them). Attendance is up, revenues are up, where is the problem? Yes, some teams like Florida, Atlanta and Phoenix are having problems, but a lot of the other teams aren't.

Also, one can argue that those teams who are struggling at the gate are in this situation due to bad on ice performance and management. If Florida wasn't always a bottom-feeder, if Columbus hadn't been run by an idiot, etc., they might be making money. Why should they be entitled to profits no matter their performance? If I run a restaurant, but I make crap food and nobody comes to eat here, why should I automatically be entitled to profits?

Revenue sharing exists in order to get a competitive balance, to somehow even out the large markets and the small markets. But it shouldn't and isn't a free ride that lets even the most badly run franchises get guaranteed profits. You want a team in Nashville that sells out it's games to be able to compete with Detroit. But you don't want a team with 9,000 fans in attendance, selling $9 tickets, to be guaranteed profits and have no incentive to grow.

I will never understand why people get angry every time the salary cap goes up. It is GOOD news about the league, it means that revenues are up, that teams are doing good. Yet, every time news like that comes out, you always hear people going "oh no, salaries are once again much too high, another lockout is looming, teams can't make money with such a high cap"... Even the media, in place like Montreal where the team is drowning in cash, are being apocalyptic because revenues are up. What the...

 

[Killion]

"Things are growing a bit....." Sounds like hes' channeling Peter Sellers as Chauncey Gardiner in Being There.

 

[LadyStanley]

I'd like to know how these questions were phrased...since the typical Bettman came bursting out when asked about the CBA:

There was a video link at the bottom of the article.

 

[tarheelhockey]

Also, one can argue that those teams who are struggling at the gate are in this situation due to bad on ice performance and management. If Florida wasn't always a bottom-feeder, if Columbus hadn't been run by an idiot, etc., they might be making money. Why should they be entitled to profits no matter their performance? If I run a restaurant, but I make crap food and nobody comes to eat here, why should I automatically be entitled to profits?

This should be considered as an important factor. If I'm the NHLPA, I'm not interested in giving shoddy ownership an easy bailout. Most of the struggling franchises need to be "fixed" in some way before they can rightfully cry poor in CBA negotiations.

 

[Jolli]

Particularly as the cap floor is now higher than the original cap ceiling after the lockout.

Also, max salaries are tied to a percentage of the cap correct (20 percent?)- 62 Million Cap hit: 12 Mil/year? What was Jagr getting Pre-lockout, 11 per?

Wonderful, the NHL may exceed pre lockout salary amounts, while having a cap in place that I think most teams didn't even reach PRE lockout.

For contrast, here's a nice listing of Team Payrolls up to 2003.

http://www.hockeyzoneplus.com/$maseq_e.htm

By the looks of it, 5 teams exceeded 60 Million in team team payroll. 22 Teams were BELOW the (speculative) 2012-13 cap floor of 50 Million.

But the Owners got linkage, so that's all that matters, right?

Inflation?

 

[Kritter471]

The simplest idea that's been proposed is to make the cap ceiling and floor percentages, rather than $8m above and belong the midpoint.

In 2005-2006 the cap floor was 55% of the ceiling. Now due to the fixed $16m range it's 73% of the ceiling and set to climb higher next season. Though the changes of earlier free agency and the erosion of the cheap second contract may make it difficult to put the genie back in the bottle where franchises could field reasonably competitive teams at lower than average payrolls.

Worth mentioning also that because the cap floor is set to $8m belong the midpoint, it means the cap floor is actually rising at a faster % rate than overall league revenue is rising.

This is the best proposed solution I've seen so far.

Players will never agree to lowering the overall percentage of revenues they get, nor should they. Making the floor a fixed percentage would not only help cash-strapped teams that struggle to reach the floor, it would also potentially allow the players to receive more money back from escrow.

Part of the publicly stated rationale for the cap was to help the smaller market teams be competitive, but this was as patently false as the owners' pitch that their savings on player costs would be passed along to fans in cheaper tickets (ha!). There will always be haves and have nots, even in revenue-sharing capped systems. A floor limits that discrepancy to some extent, but it will never take it away.

 

[Jeffrey93]

If that's how you understood it, then you're going out of your way to take offense to things.

How did you understand it? He basically said I shouldn't care about the NHL CBA negotiations and I should focus on the other three.

You don't find that just a tad insulting?

Interesting how you changed my 'almost insulting' to me taking offense to it. I'm not offended, just a little insulted that Gary is telling me I shouldn't care about the CBA negotiations of the NHL. Why shouldn't I?

Anyway...the point was that Gary always talks like that. He always tells people when questioned that they shouldn't even be talking about it. It's how he talks to Ron McLean...it is how he talked to people when he was asked about Phoenix prior to their bankrupcty..it's how he talks to people whenever they bring up attendance.

He changes the subject or uses league wide numbers and then says something that is akin to "It's of no concern to you. Mind your own business and don't ask about that. I'll tell you what you should pay attention to from now on."

He talks down to people and yeah...I find it a tad insulting. Just answer the freakin' question and don't worry about why people are asking it at this time. Feel free to tell us what the NHL is focused on right now...but don't tell me what I should be focused on.

 

[Jeffrey93]

The simplest idea that's been proposed is to make the cap ceiling and floor percentages, rather than $8m above and belong the midpoint.

In 2005-2006 the cap floor was 55% of the ceiling. Now due to the fixed $16m range it's 73% of the ceiling and set to climb higher next season. Though the changes of earlier free agency and the erosion of the cheap second contract may make it difficult to put the genie back in the bottle where franchises could field reasonably competitive teams at lower than average payrolls.

Worth mentioning also that because the cap floor is set to $8m belong the midpoint, it means the cap floor is actually rising at a faster % rate than overall league revenue is rising.

Slightly skewing percentages here aren't we? I mean...I get the cap floor rises more than the % rate of league revenues. That is pretty easy to figure out. A small number's growth is going to be a larger percentage than that of a big number.

If the cap was $32M so the floor is $16M. The next year the cap goes up by 5% to $33.6M....that means the floor would climb to $17.6M..that means it rose by 10%. right? But...the cap only went up by 5% and the floor grew by 10%!!! That's crazy!

Both went up by $1.6M. That is what is important. Not percentages. If the ceiling and floor were a percentage would the floor not always increase by less than the ceiling? And wouldn't that push them further apart...resulting in basically what we had before?

 

[MountainHawk]

The floor is likely to one of the fighting points in a couple of years. The owners are going to want to expand the range ($20M? 65% of cap?) and the players are going to say 'share more revenue so the owners in the low revenue cities can afford the floor. I suspect we'll see some of both ... expanded revenue sharing and a lower floor.

 

[Jeffrey93]

There was a video link at the bottom of the article.

Thanks. I didn't notice that...but I'm not about to get the Ducks Mobile App just to watch it.

 

[Rob]

Going into the next CBA do you think there may be a divide between some of the rich owners, middle class owners, and weaker ownership regarding the salary cap?

 

[tarheelhockey]

Going into the next CBA do you think there may be a divide between some of the rich owners, middle class owners, and weaker ownership regarding the salary cap?

On narrow issues, maybe. On big-scale issues, no. The owners should be able to present a united front against any effort to lift or undermine the cap. The tough questions are going to revolve around revenue sharing and the like, where there are conflicts of interest within the BoG.