Doug McLean on the FAN590

[Juni]

He's not happy with the $45m cap, saying 63% of revenues for him last year went on costs amongst lots of other things. He sounds extremely livid actually.

Click to read more...

 

[think-blue-]

You want to talk about livid? Listen to Burke on TSN

 

[Greschner4]

He's not happy with the $45m cap, saying 63% of revenues for him last year went on costs amongst lots of other things. He sounds extremely livid actually.

As I said on another thread, if the owners can't agree on a cap at $45M, the league is doomed in its present format. You can't expect teams that can afford almost double that to stay in a league with so many businesses that clearly aren't economically similar.

At least half the league would have no economic problem with a $45M cap. Maybe they should just break away at this point.

 

[SerbianEagle]

As well he should be. This may actually help those people who are calling for Edmonton, Boston,Chicago,Washington,Calgary... to be throw out of the league see that there are more teams who don't like it.

 

[SuperUnknown]

As I said on another thread, if the owners can't agree on a cap at $45M, the league is doomed in its present format. You can't expect teams that can afford almost double that to stay in a league with so many businesses that clearly aren't economically similar.

At least half the league would have no economic problem with a $45M cap. Maybe they should just break away at this point.

I don't agree with that assessment. If half the league could live with a $45M cap, then there would be an agreement at that amount. The fact that there isn't means that more than half the league think they CAN'T live with a $45M cap.

Imo, less than 10 teams would be happy with a $45M cap.

 

[SerbianEagle]

At least half the league would have no economic problem with a $45M cap. Maybe they should just break away at this point.

What a stupid thing to say? Break away and do what? Play for a Stanley cup? I don't think so.

Look at Baseball and see a league that doesn't work. Look at NFL and see a league that does work. Man oh man where have all these "experts" come out of. If NHL looses hockey markets in order to allow teams like Dallas, Detroit, Aves,Flyers... to buy cups then that league is dead. A league that has a mix of small, medium and large market teams who are all competitive is a league that is alive and well.

What do you wanna watch? MLB NHL or NFL NHL.

 

[Greschner4]

I don't agree with that assessment. If half the league could live with a $45M cap, then there would be an agreement at that amount. The fact that there isn't means that more than half the league think they CAN'T live with a $45M cap.

Imo, less than 10 teams would be happy with a $45M cap.

Or maybe the small markets are being piggish and standing in the way of hockey being played.

 

[SerbianEagle]

Or maybe the small markets are being piggish and standing in the way of hockey being played.

You know who you can blame for no hockey?

Blame whatever team you support, and then add Dallas, NYR, Flyers, Detroit,Avs,Leafs,Canes and whoever else paid 3rd line pluggers 3-4 million a year or offered someone a 30mill siging bonus. Leave "small-markets" alone, because only they sell out their arenas and cover the behinds of those in NYR so at least some of the televised games appear sold out.

 

[futurcorerock]

He makes so much sense. Give them hell!

 

[acr*]

There's no real solution

There are teams like Toronto, Montreal, The Rangers, Philly, and maybe ten others who could still make money and compete to the best of their ability without a salary cap, there's a middle class of the teams that would be best suited for the cap presented, and then there's the 8 or so teams who could barely make it with a $35 million cap.

We might as well split into three leagues and be like English Soccer and have promotions and relegations.

 

[mooseOAK*]

I don't agree with that assessment. If half the league could live with a $45M cap, then there would be an agreement at that amount. The fact that there isn't means that more than half the league think they CAN'T live with a $45M cap.

Imo, less than 10 teams would be happy with a $45M cap.

Sure, that represents 50% of the revenues of the Leafs who are #2 there so that percentage is higher as you go down the list. It isn't as insignificant as some people try to make out.

 

[Icey]

You know who you can blame for no hockey?

Blame whatever team you support, and then add Dallas, NYR, Flyers, Detroit,Avs,Leafs,Canes and whoever else paid 3rd line pluggers 3-4 million a year or offered someone a 30mill siging bonus. Leave "small-markets" alone, because only they sell out their arenas and cover the behinds of those in NYR so at least some of the televised games appear sold out.

You might want to check some attendance records before you spew off about small market teams being the only ones who sell their arenas out. Ofcourse you would have to stop crying about poor edmonton and how you can't keep any of your players long enough to do that.

 

[SuperUnknown]

Or maybe the small markets are being piggish and standing in the way of hockey being played.

The small markets can't if Bettman agreed to the proposal. Since Bettman implied he'd really look at a $45M offer, I would be surprised if he used his veto power.

Besides, I haven't heard many teams say they would be happy with a $45M cap.

 

[Riddarn]

We might as well split into three leagues and be like English Soccer and have promotions and relegations.

Having a tier system changes nothing. The english premier league has 20 teams and the differences in economics between the best teams and the worst are gigantic. Also, the world of soccer uses an even more free market place which is why half of the better clubs in Europe are up to their ears in debts.

 

[A Good Flying Bird*]

I don't agree with that assessment. If half the league could live with a $45M cap, then there would be an agreement at that amount. The fact that there isn't means that more than half the league think they CAN'T live with a $45M cap.

Imo, less than 10 teams would be happy with a $45M cap.

Right.
But the can live with 42.5 Million??????

You're talking an extra $2.5 million payroll advantage for those few teams that choose to use it?

Get real.

 

[not quite yoda]

There's no real solution

There are teams like Toronto, Montreal, The Rangers, Philly, and maybe ten others who could still make money and compete to the best of their ability without a salary cap,

Dude, you have no idea what you are talking about. Up to now there has been no Cap, and up to now Montreal has been losing money every year.

Playing at the limit of the 42.5 cap, Montreal would still be losing money.

The Habs have far greater operating expenses than you seem to know about.

 

[A Good Flying Bird*]

Dude, you have no idea what you are talking about. Up to now there has been no Cap, and up to now Montreal has been losing money every year.

Playing at the limit of the 42.5 cap, Montreal would still be losing money.

The Habs have far greater operating expenses than you seem to know about.

Montreal doesn't have to play at the limit.

Why would they, if they don't have the money.

Why do you people think that everyone has to max out to the cap?

Those that can afford to or who are willing to risk it should pay, the rest should stick to budget.

Does that give Detroit a big advantage? Yes.
But it's nowhere near the advantage they had last year.
And it's nowhere near as inflationary as it was last year.

 

[not quite yoda]

Montreal doesn't have to play at the limit.

Why would they, if they don't have the money.

Why do you people think that everyone has to max out to the cap?

Those that can afford to or who are willing to risk it should pay, the rest should stick to budget.

Does that give Detroit a big advantage? Yes.
But it's nowhere near the advantage they had last year.
And it's nowhere near as inflationary as it was last year.

The belief is that all teams that want to compete and possibly can spend up to 42.5 (even if it means losing money) will. Detroit couldn't afford last year's payroll, thjey lost money yet they still did. When the year started WSH had a big payroll and planned onlosing money. Last year MTL had a big payroll and lost money.

All owners believe that the cap will pull almost all teams' salaries to the maximum number. Why? NFL has a cap, that s what happens there. NBA has a cap, that s what happens there. It is only logical to believe that it would also happen in the NHL. Maybe EDM wouldn't... but others who would be losing money still would.... because they can't control themselves... which is why there's a need for a hard cap in the 1st place.

 

[A Good Flying Bird*]

The belief is that all teams that want to compete and possibly can spend up to 42.5 (even if it means losing money) will. Detroit couldn't afford last year's payroll, thjey lost money yet they still did. When the year started WSH had a big payroll and planned onlosing money. Last year MTL had a big payroll and lost money.

All owners believe that the cap will pull almost all teams' salaries to the maximum number. Why? NFL has a cap, that s what happens there. NBA has a cap, that s what happens there. It is only logical to believe that it would also happen in the NHL. Maybe EDM wouldn't... but others who would be losing money still would.... because they can't control themselves... which is why there's a need for a hard cap in the 1st place.

The NFL also has more revenue than they know what to do with.

I personally think it's foolish to max out to the cap unless you really think you've got a winning team.
It won't happen in the NHL because it doesn't happen now.
There is no cap now, and teams aren't spending as much as Detroit and New York.
Give me one logical reason why it would start now.

By your logic, a $42.5 Million cap is worse than what currently exists?

Using your logic again, the NHL should take the lowest team budget ($22.5 Million, Nashville) and make that the salary cap.

That way, everything is fair and Nashville won't be forced to spend more than they can afford.

 

[PeterSidorkiewicz]

HOW MUCH do the owners need to be protected from themselves? DONT LET THE CAP BECOME A MAGNET. Are the owners really THAT Stupid they cant stop themselves from spending the cap limit? SERIOUSLY are the owners like 8 years old? The "Salary cap magnet" is the lamest excuse ive ever HEARD. These are fricken Grown men with billions yet the "allure" of a salary cap limit will suck them in to spending more? Give me a fricken break.

 

[SENSible1*]

Right.
But the can live with 42.5 Million??????

You're talking an extra $2.5 million payroll advantage for those few teams that choose to use it?

Get real.

Simple logic should tell you that at some point the owners will reach a figure that the majority won't support.

Who is to say that point isn't $42.5?

For all those citing the ESPN deal as huge leverage for the NHL to move up to 45; the ESPN deal is for $60 M, moving the cap up to 45 could cost $75M

 

[SENSible1*]

HOW MUCH do the owners need to be protected from themselves? DONT LET THE CAP BECOME A MAGNET. Are the owners really THAT Stupid they cant stop themselves from spending the cap limit? SERIOUSLY are the owners like 8 years old? The "Salary cap magnet" is the lamest excuse ive ever HEARD. These are fricken Grown men with billions yet the "allure" of a salary cap limit will suck them in to spending more? Give me a fricken break.

Maybe you should just accept the fact that the owners are serious about addressing payroll disparity.

 

[GKJ]

Right.
But the can live with 42.5 Million??????

You're talking an extra $2.5 million payroll advantage for those few teams that choose to use it?

Get real.

Well put.


If these guys can't live with $2.5M in payroll, they aren't here to play the game.

 

[A Good Flying Bird*]

Simple logic should tell you that at some point the owners will reach a figure that the majority won't support.

Who is to say that point isn't $42.5?

For all those citing the ESPN deal as huge leverage for the NHL to move up to 45; the ESPN deal is for $60 M, moving the cap up to 45 could cost $75M

It's not the money.
It's the exposure. Regular exposure on national television (even if it is sports). Exposure for NHL games, teams, players and sponsors.

If ESPN carries hockey, they play it a little better during sportscenter, giving it a little more weight.

If ESPN comes out and says we're taking women's billiards over NHL hockey, what kind of message does that send to corporate sponsors?

 

[bcrt2000]

the only way this gets done in the next 8-10 months is if rich owners conceed that they need to share more revenue, or more likely, the players capitulate