Brooks: NHLPA to make new proposal

Status
Not open for further replies.

AM

Registered User
Nov 22, 2004
8,461
2,512
Edmonton
?

thinkwild said:
Lets hope Larry is right. He is one of the few who usually is on this subject.

He brings up a funny point. The NHL constitution says the NHL is an association that is supposed to be not for profit. So maybe let the league, that is losing somewhere between $90mil and $250mil, depending on how you account for revenues, set all salaries centrally with a salary cap, and then run as its charter states - not for profit.

That would solve a lot of problems.

NHL non-profit.

Teams, for profit.
 

dawgbone

Registered User
Jun 24, 2002
21,104
0
thinkwild said:
Lets hope Larry is right. He is one of the few who usually is on this subject.

Isn't Larry Brooks and right an oxymoron???

He brings up a funny point. The NHL constitution says the NHL is an association that is supposed to be not for profit. So maybe let the league, that is losing somewhere between $90mil and $250mil, depending on how you account for revenues, set all salaries centrally with a salary cap, and then run as its charter states - not for profit.

Ah, there's the idiocy we expect from Brooks. The NHL is not for profit. The individual teams are. There is a huge difference.

That would solve a lot of problems.

What, making the leauge a break even business? Yeah, I'd want to invest my money into that as an owner.
 

NYIsles1*

Guest
Larry Brooks is a life-long Ranger fan who wants his favorite team to come out of a work stoppage with a spending advantage. He could care less about how much revenue the league losses.

He knows how the Rangers acquired 1/3 of the champion Oilers team that won the 94 cup and he wants no part of any system to take away Kovalev-Bure-Jagr type trades in the future. Next time they want a Messier it should cost them the Leetch or Richter of the organization, not cash and low rated prospects as it did in 1990.

Brooks also knows the Rangers with a roster full of All-Stars could not fill the seats and lost revenue.

Unfortunately he does not care the overall product lost revenue or that the spending drove up the market and hurt the league. On top of that his team gets no coverage in New York even with all the star players on the roster. To return from a work-stoppage with only Jagr and a roster of young players with no chance of the weekly rumors he prints of all-stars coming to his team for nothing would be a disaster for him because no one would talk about his work....
 
Last edited by a moderator:

SENSible1*

Guest
xander said:
where have you heard this? I've been saying a soft cap is the way to go for a while now, but everything I here points to the NHL only accepting a hard cap.

I heard it directly from Daly's mouth on the TSN show, "off the record".

He was very specific in stating that an offer of a NBA-style soft cap would have the owners back at the table the next day.

The NHL has been seeking "cost certainty" not necessarily a hard cap.
 

tantalum

Hope for the best. Expect the worst
Sponsor
Apr 2, 2002
25,087
13,874
Missouri
Quite right Daly mentioned it clearly on off the record. Landsberg basically asked him if he had heard that correctly and DAly quite clearly said yes because the NBA cap is tied directly to percentage of revenues.
 

Tom_Benjamin

Registered User
Sep 8, 2003
1,152
0
www.canuckscorner.com
dawgbone said:
Ah, there's the idiocy we expect from Brooks. The NHL is not for profit. The individual teams are. There is a huge difference.

Exactly. So why does Arthur Levitt, Bill Daly and Gary Bettman talk about the league losing $273 million? The league doesn't lose anything. Teams make or lose money.

It is a very big difference. It changes everything when you think of it that way.

Tom
 

Cawz

Registered User
Sep 18, 2003
14,372
3
Oiler fan in Calgary
Visit site
Tom_Benjamin said:
Exactly. So why does Arthur Levitt, Bill Daly and Gary Bettman talk about the league losing $273 million? The league doesn't lose anything. Teams make or lose money.

It is a very big difference. It changes everything when you think of it that way.

Tom

The league sort of loses, since the league is only as strong as the sum of its parts. The teams dont exist in a vaccuum. If 30 healthy teams existed, the entire league would benifit.

I see what youre saying, its a good point, but I think its only a half-truth.
 

Tom_Benjamin

Registered User
Sep 8, 2003
1,152
0
www.canuckscorner.com
Cawz said:
The league sort of loses, since the league is only as strong as the sum of its parts.

This is probably true, but this is a different thing than saying the league is only as strong as its weakest link. The sum is greater if you lose some weak links then, right? I don't even think that is necessarily true either, but if you carry it that far...

To me the critical questions that immediately follow is "Who is losing the money? Why?" That is very different than deciding the league is losing money because salaries are too high which is the tripe that has been peddled by the NHL.

If we are to believe the leaks, four teams are losing a lot of money because they spent too much on players. These four - Detroit, New York, Washington and St. Louis - deserve their fate. Surely nobody believes we are enduring this lockout so that these losses disappear. Surely everyone accepts these teams can and should cut payroll. All four teams are cutting payroll.

Another three teams are losing money because they aren't playing an an NHL rink. New Jersey and the Islanders have new rink approvals, and Pittsburgh will relocate if they don't get a new rink.

Another three teams - Florida, Anaheim and Carolina - are losing money because they can't sell tickets. That's a third of the NHL teams who probably account for 90% of the NHL losses.

What does the sum of the other parts look like? What does any of that have to do with "an unworkable system"? The system is working for the Canadian teams despite an 85 cent dollar. Five of the top six money makers are Canadian.

Tom
 

GKJ

Global Moderator
Feb 27, 2002
185,633
37,428
Spooner said:
The hard cap does force some teams to cut fan favorites, but it also forces teams to sign smart and to have backup plans. It adds a new dynamic to the sport where the owner's mind is more important than his checkbook.

Teams that can properly assess their talent, how much they're paid, how much they're worth, and so on are reworded. Should smarter teams not be rewarded?


that's what GM's and DOP's are for.
 

GKJ

Global Moderator
Feb 27, 2002
185,633
37,428
Tom_Benjamin said:
New Jersey and the Islanders have new rink approvals, and Pittsburgh will relocate if they don't get a new rink.

When did both New Jersey and the Islanders get new rink approvals? I thought Jersey was still up in the air and the Islanders simply had plans to rennovate their arena?
 

thinkwild

Veni Vidi Toga
Jul 29, 2003
10,813
1,464
Ottawa
Gator Mike said:
The NFL has a tremendous TV contract in large part because they have a level playing field in which a team based in Green Bay, Wisconsin has as much chance to be successful as a team based in New York City.

The NFL has an opportunity to have a level playing field ( although they really dont) because of their tremendous tv contract which they split equally. This allows Green Bay to be just as good a TV studio 8 Sundays a year as any other place.

But Baltimore Colts moved. So did the Browns. Oilers moved. LA Rams moved. Oakland moved and then moved back. Cardinals moved. NFL salary cap, does not mean teams wont move. They seem to move even more.
 

Pepper

Registered User
Aug 30, 2004
14,693
269
Yes but you forget 2 very important things:

1) Those NFL teams didn't move because they couldn't survive financially.

2) NFL teams get the huge tv-money regardless of where they play, NHL teams don't have that luxury so they can't move just like that.

So you can't really use the NFL situation as an example.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad

-->