Conway:Experts agree: Replace Bettman, Goodenow

[NYIsles1*]

If Sather's team brings in a lot of revenue, why shouldn't they be allowed to spend it?

Hockey revenue or Hockey profit? Big difference.

When your spending more than you generate in revenue your not spending based on profit, all that's happening is your doubling your bets and losing even more by spending more and your creating a market that esculates salary.

According to the prospoal submitted in Feb by the league the Rangers brought in 85.5m in revenue and were the fifth highest revenue producing team. They had a payroll near 80m. They claimed 40.9 million in losses.

Montreal also had revenue equal to 85m. George Gillete in THN claims Montreal has lost over 220m the last five years roughly and would have had a very difficult time living with the 42.5m cap.

 

[Weary]

Hockey revenue or Hockey profit? Big difference.

I'm talking hockey revenue. If the NHL wants a salary cap linked to revenue, why shouldn't teams have individual caps based on revenue?

If the answer is because that's unfair to the smaller revenue teams, then I ask why not revenue share until it is fair to those teams?

 

[NYIsles1*]

I'm talking hockey revenue. If the NHL wants a salary cap linked to revenue, why shouldn't teams have individual caps based on revenue?

You cannot have a cap based on teams that mismanage themselves. It has to be based on teams spending and making a profit operating.

Outside of Toronto, most of the teams that make the most revenue lose money operating. (Philadelphia, Colorado, Dallas, Detroit) That solves nothing.

If the answer is because that's unfair to the smaller revenue teams, then I ask why not revenue share until it is fair to those teams?

How do you ask teams losing tens of millions to lose more by sharing revenue they only made because they overspent in the first place?

 

[tantalum]

NFL: 64%
MLB: 63%
NBA: 58%
NHL: 75%

NHL with the 24% rollback: 57%

It does indeed seem that the rollback "will come close to knocking the players salaries down to a percentage of overall revenues similar to football or basketball, or even baseball." Heck, it would even reduce it below all those.

Except that's wrong. Why? Because in NFL and NBA all the players are signed and there is no mechanism for the players to get a disproportionate amount of the revenues. In the NHL it is simply speculation that the 75 % becomes 57 % after the rollback. Speculation because over half the players are unsigned. One or two inflationary signings that may not even be viewed as "bad" at the time of the signing ups the anti for all similar players....with no mechanism to bring that salary bar down once the signings are done. Put in a system that can act as a check and balance against these inflationary aspects and guarantee that the money can not be put back into the salary market and then you have something to tie that 24 % to. But all the players December offer did was temporarily take money out of the system it did not in any way shape or form come even close to being able to guarantee that the money wouldn't go back into the system. It was simply putting a band-aid on the skinned knee while the real problem was/is the decapitation.

 

[Weary]

You cannot have a cap based on teams that mismanage themselves. It has to be based on teams spending and making a profit operating.

Outside of Toronto, most of the teams that make the most revenue lose money operating. (Philadelphia, Colorado, Dallas, Detroit) That solves nothing.

If the highest revenue teams are the ones that are mismanaged, the league has no chance to survive anyway. At least individual teams caps would give lower revenue teams a reason to attempt to increase revenues rather than depending on a cap that's set low enough for their current situation.

 

[Weary]

Except that's wrong. Why? Because in NFL and NBA all the players are signed and there is no mechanism for the players to get a disproportionate amount of the revenues. In the NHL it is simply speculation that the 75 % becomes 57 % after the rollback. Speculation because over half the players are unsigned. One or two inflationary signings that may not even be viewed as "bad" at the time of the signing ups the anti for all similar players....with no mechanism to bring that salary bar down once the signings are done. Put in a system that can act as a check and balance against these inflationary aspects and guarantee that the money can not be put back into the salary market and then you have something to tie that 24 % to. But all the players December offer did was temporarily take money out of the system it did not in any way shape or form come even close to being able to guarantee that the money wouldn't go back into the system. It was simply putting a band-aid on the skinned knee while the real problem was/is the decapitation.

I was responding to the point that "none of the players proposals, especially the 24% rollback, will come close to knocking the players salaries down to a percentage of overall revenues similar to football or basketball, or even baseball." The rollback does do that. Whether the salaries would inflate over time is another matter. But it can't be said that the rollback wasn't good enough to bring NHL spending into line with other leagues.

 

[Timmy]

I was responding to the point that "none of the players proposals, especially the 24% rollback, will come close to knocking the players salaries down to a percentage of overall revenues similar to football or basketball, or even baseball." The rollback does do that. Whether the salaries would inflate over time is another matter. But it can't be said that the rollback wasn't good enough to bring NHL spending into line with other leagues.

It is the only matter.

 

[Weary]

It is the only matter.

So the players should've forgone a rollback and agreed to a cap based on the old salaries? I'm sure the players would've agreed to salaries not inflating over the next four to six years in that case.

 

[Timmy]

So the players should've forgone a rollback and agreed to a cap based on the old salaries? I'm sure the players would've agreed to salaries not inflating over the next four to six years in that case.

They knew the rollback was window dressing.

The owners are looking for a system in which expenses do not outstrip growth.

Under the 42.5m cap, the owners would probably have still lost money for the first couple of years, until revenue growth caught up with now-stable expenses.

When that was rejected, they've basically said, "Give us a cap that will stop the bleeding now, then."

Sorry, but I firmly believe the PA should have taken the 42.5, or simply come out and state, "We don't care if half or all the teams go bankrupt in the next ten years, as long as our members have made as much as we can. It is the owners fault for paying our members, and there should be no artificial restrictions limiting owners' stupidity. If this bankrupts the factory, it's not our fault, and the juniors coming up are just going to have to find something else to do."

Just be honest, and say you don't give a rat's tail if the league survives, as long as your paycheque doesn't bounce. Just ask Mario how that felt.

 

[Weary]

Sorry, but I firmly believe the PA should have taken the 42.5, or simply come out and state, "We don't care if half or all the teams go bankrupt in the next ten years, as long as our members have made as much as we can. It is the owners fault for paying our members, and there should be no artificial restrictions limiting owners' stupidity. If this bankrupts the factory, it's not our fault, and the juniors coming up are just going to have to find something else to do."

Just be honest, and say you don't give a rat's tail if the league survives, as long as your paycheque doesn't bounce. Just ask Mario how that felt.

The league will survive, but some franchises might not. It's hard to criticize the players for preferring to maximize revenues rather than keeping marginal franchises afloat. The owners were maximizing their own revenues with expansion fees for placing teams in suspect markets. Those same fees led them to pass on the chance to reopen CBA negotiations much earlier. Is it any surprise that teams are in trouble?

Shouldn't the owners sacrifice something to fix the mess they made?

 

[Timmy]

The league will survive, but some franchises might not. It's hard to criticize the players for preferring to maximize revenues rather than keeping marginal franchises afloat. The owners were maximizing their own revenues with expansion fees for placing teams in suspect markets. Those same fees led them to pass on the chance to reopen CBA negotiations much earlier. Is it any surprise that teams are in trouble?

Shouldn't the owners sacrifice something to fix the mess they made?

Those expansion fees are what drove up the players' salaries. The owners have already sacrificed in the form of covering losses and reduced franchise values since then.

Business owners sacrifice by not getting as much money from their company at the end of the day to pay off their own mortgages. Employees sacrifice by taking wage rollbacks, reduced raises, and being laid off.

Pilots sacrifice a portion of their paycheque to keep planes in the sky.

Millworkers take a paycut to keep the only employer in town in business.

If players don't care that a bunch of teams go bankrupt, thereby reducing the number of jobs and prematurely ending the careers of fringe and not-so-fringe players and reducing salaries to the inevitable level of the nineties again due to disinterested fans, media, and owners, then they're doing all the right things.