eight men out

[likea]

You think that those teams prove that the current system works?? LOL....I hope I am reading this wrong. Carolina made the finals then has not made the playoffs. Calgary missed the playoffs 7 straight seasons before last season. In fact in a "hockey market" they were mired outside the top 20 in in attendance with those losing seasons and were dying on the vine. Washington is the poster child for cost certainty. Under owner Abe Pollin the Capitals made the playoffs 20+ years in a row, but never really threatened to win the Cup. Pollin was frugal(cheap) and carried the league wide rep as a team that wouldn't commit to doing what it takes to win. Ted Leonsis bought the team and promised to change that. They made one finals(4 and out) and missed the playoffs 3 of the next 5 seasons. In the process Leonsis was convinced that you cant win without spending. He spent, lost worse, swimming in red ink he slashed the payroll back to basics. Nashville barely made the playoffs last season...their first time ever and took a first round exit.

These teams are the reason that they need a salary cap, not the proof that they don't.

you read his quote wrong

he said I thought you PAer's

that means he doesn't belond to that group

 

[John Flyers Fan]

I have not seen one owner say any of this

I have seen comments where some owner feel as if there should be no floor at all.

Common sense tells you that the owners disagree on revenue sharing. Who do you think wants more revenue sharing, Illitch/Comcast or Karmonos/Leipold ???

The small market teams aren't pushing for it, because it would splinter the ownership group.

 

[Pepper]

The Eight Man Salary Cap Band - Wirtz, Jacobs, Craig Leipold in Nashville, Peter Karmanos in Carolina, Cal Nichols in Edmonton, Harley Hotchkiss in Calgary, Ted Leonsis in Washington, and Alan Cohen in Florida - wants a system in which the wealthiest teams are reduced to their teams' minimal payroll level - and minimal on-ice success.

http://www.philly.com/mld/philly/sports/hockey/10830353.htm?1c

What a load of crap, they most certainly don't want wealthy teams to have minimal on-ice success!

They want a system where EVERY team can compete for the Stanley Cup, not a system where 70% of SC winners are top10 budget teams.

 

[likea]

I have seen comments where some owner feel as if there should be no floor at all.

Common sense tells you that the owners disagree on revenue sharing. Who do you think wants more revenue sharing, Illitch/Comcast or Karmonos/Leipold ???

The small market teams aren't pushing for it, because it would splinter the ownership group.

I would love to see the comments you speak of....

but they have agreed to revenue share and how much...correct...sounds like they agree to me???

 

[vanlady]

Didn't McCaw sell the team?

.

He only sold half the team. For more than he paid for it I might add, nice return on investment I would say

 

[vanlady]

I don't know as there is a lawsuit that still needs to be settled regarding the sale of part of the Canucks. I have heard that it could get messy and that the NHL would even look at the new ownership group until the lawsuit is settled which could take years. Vancouver has had a few good years but I don't know how well they were doing before that...were they losing money too?

I think it is fair to say that most of the owners want a new deal. Being in a big market and high payroll doesn't mean you made a profit (aka New York Rangers) so it is hard to say how many want to play now no matter what or would play if they had the right system.

I listened to Brian Burke this week and his comment said it all. Dave Cobb ran the business end of this team and drove the success. Brian said if him and Dave Cobb were still with the Canucks, he would be pulling Dave off a ledge right now. Another words this lockout is financial suicide for out team.

 

[likea]

I listened to Brian Burke this week and his comment said it all. Dave Cobb ran the business end of this team and drove the success. Brian said if him and Dave Cobb were still with the Canucks, he would be pulling Dave off a ledge right now. Another words this lockout is financial suicide for out team.

Brian Burke has also stated 40 million times that he would not sign a CBA that does not have cost certainty for the owners

and he wasn't talking about the lockout when he said he would have to pull Cobb off a ledge he was talking about the season being canceled

 

[Gary]

it's amazing that the fate of the nhl is in the hands of 8 owners i believe it should be 15 owners since their are 30 nhl clubs
after all that's more democratic

I don't find that amazing at all. That's called unity-If it's not good enough for 8 of them, it's not good for any of them.

 

[vanlady]

Brian Burke has also stated 40 million times that he would not sign a CBA that does not have cost certainty for the owners

and he wasn't talking about the lockout when he said he would have to pull Cobb off a ledge he was talking about the season being canceled

Exactly, and why would having the season cancelled drive Dave Cobb to the edge, because it would be finacial suicide for the team.

Oh and Why did Burke get fired???? It wasn't Berts contract.

 

[John Flyers Fan]

I would love to see the comments you speak of....

but they have agreed to revenue share and how much...correct...sounds like they agree to me???

Just because they've agreed to share revenue, it doesn't mean that they are 100% in agreement on exactly how much it should be.

If you think all 30 owners share the same mind and want the exact same salary floor, ceiling and amount of revenue sharing, you're beyond delusional.

 

[shakes]

Are you kidding me? Of course every team would like a salary cap, especially the rich ones. I think the difference is to what extent each owner would go for one.

 

[gerbilanium]

Are you kidding me? Of course every team would like a salary cap, especially the rich ones. I think the difference is to what extent each owner would go for one.

Exactly, you think the ontario teachers pension fund doesn't want to make a crapload more money. I know if my pension fund was throwing money around that was not necessary (read: Belfour) I would be some pissed off.

 

[HockeyCritter]

The Eight Man Salary Cap Band - Wirtz, Jacobs, Craig Leipold in Nashville, Peter Karmanos in Carolina, Cal Nichols in Edmonton, Harley Hotchkiss in Calgary, Ted Leonsis in Washington, and Alan Cohen in Florida - wants a system in which the wealthiest teams are reduced to their teams' minimal payroll level - and minimal on-ice success.

http://www.philly.com/mld/philly/sports/hockey/10830353.htm?1c

Might as well add Pittsburgh, Phoenix, Buffalo, Tampa, Anaheim, Atlanta, Islanders, and Los Angelos to that list. Vancouver, Ottawa, Dallas, and Montreal aren't too far behind them.

 

[likea]

Just because they've agreed to share revenue, it doesn't mean that they are 100% in agreement on exactly how much it should be.

If you think all 30 owners share the same mind and want the exact same salary floor, ceiling and amount of revenue sharing, you're beyond delusional.

it still your opinion and you can't come up with any links

while I agree they discussed it at length, they gave GB some numbers he can work with to make a deal

so yes, they all got together, talked about it and came up with things they can live with...thats called agreeing

 

[John Flyers Fan]

it still your opinion and you can't come up with any links

while I agree they discussed it at length, they gave GB some numbers he can work with to make a deal

so yes, they all got together, talked about it and came up with things they can live with...thats called agreeing

Just because the group has come to a conclusion it doesn't mean all are in 100% agreement with everything in it.

At some point the NHL and the NHLPA are going to sign a CBA, and both are going to disagree with some components in it.

 

[Phanuthier*]

All 30 owners would like a salary cap, that isnt' really up for debate.

Well there is one team that sticks out that doesn't want a salary cap: Toronto. It's quite evident in the 2004 off season spending that they don't have the slightest regard for what the NHL wants, and will do things their way.

Other teams I could see being against the cap would include New York (Rangers) and Detriot.

 

[Boomhower]

Imagine if this scenario was applied by the players union aswell...

The NHL comes in with a proposal and the NHLPA decided to take a player vote to decide whether to accept. Terms of the vote: If 26% of the players vote against the proposal, than it is automatically rejected. Seems unreasonable to me.

 

[Boomhower]

Other teams I could see being against the cap would include New York (Rangers) and Detriot.

You would be wrong, Detroit is one of the teams pushing hardest for a salary cap. Detroit would have never played a game under the last CBA had they had things their way. They were one of the 8 teams who voted against the 1994 deal.
And are every bit as determined to get a cap this time around.

I think John Flyers Fan is pretty close in his assesment. They may differ on several other issues, but all of the owners probably want a salary cap.

 

[likea]

Imagine if this scenario was applied by the players union aswell...

The NHL comes in with a proposal and the NHLPA decided to take a player vote to decide whether to accept. Terms of the vote: If 26% of the players vote against the proposal, than it is automatically rejected. Seems unreasonable to me.

what part of all 30 owners gave him this right don't you understand

 

[PecaFan]

The NHL comes in with a proposal and the NHLPA decided to take a player vote to decide whether to accept. Terms of the vote: If 26% of the players vote against the proposal, than it is automatically rejected. Seems unreasonable to me.

It's not unreasonable at all, actually. Contracts don't get put to vote until the head honchos think the deal is good, and they recommend it. And that means the votes are usually slam dunks, the "common man" just votes whatever way was recommended.

With more than half the players making under $900 grand, is it really fair to have that half of the league accept a deal that screws the other half? Not in my mind.

I'd love to see it happen, but that doesn't make it fair.

 

[Boomhower]

It's not unreasonable at all, actually. Contracts don't get put to vote until the head honchos think the deal is good, and they recommend it. And that means the votes are usually slam dunks, the "common man" just votes whatever way was recommended.

With more than half the players making under $900 grand, is it really fair to have that half of the league accept a deal that screws the other half? Not in my mind.

I'd love to see it happen, but that doesn't make it fair.

Who cares who is telling who which way to vote?
If the NHLPA puts a proposal forward for the players to vote on and 70% of the players vote YES and the other 30% vote NO, than it would be completely unreasonable to DECLINE the offer.

 

[Phanuthier*]

You would be wrong, Detroit is one of the teams pushing hardest for a salary cap. Detroit would have never played a game under the last CBA had they had things their way. They were one of the 8 teams who voted against the 1994 deal.
And are every bit as determined to get a cap this time around.

I think John Flyers Fan is pretty close in his assesment. They may differ on several other issues, but all of the owners probably want a salary cap.

Even Toronto?

I should also correct my statement on Vancouver... I vaguly remember Brain Burke coming out a few months ago saying the league coudl work under no salary cap.

 

[Fish on The Sand]

Imagine if this scenario was applied by the players union aswell...

The NHL comes in with a proposal and the NHLPA decided to take a player vote to decide whether to accept. Terms of the vote: If 26% of the players vote against the proposal, than it is automatically rejected. Seems unreasonable to me.

You are looking at it wrong. The whole idea is the nhl needs 23 votes to pass it, not 8 to reject it. Nobody does something like that thinking in order to reject it, it is clearly to make the vast majority in favor of it.

 

[me2]

Even Toronto?

Leafs are in a don't care situation, they make money either way. Still they are due for a rebuild sooner or later. Is it better to rebuiild under a cap or no cap? If they rebuild under a cap they can make a killing milking Leaf fans and paying it to their owners (a pension fund). Ultimately the pension fund will want money.

I should also correct my statement on Vancouver... I vaguly remember Brain Burke coming out a few months ago saying the league coudl work under no salary cap.

Cap or no cap, not that important, but it must have some form of cost certainty seems to be his position.

 

[me2]

You are looking at it wrong. The whole idea is the nhl needs 23 votes to pass it, not 8 to reject it. Nobody does something like that thinking in order to reject it, it is clearly to make the vast majority in favor of it.

Very smart too.

The richest 15 clubs don't want the 15 poorest + Bettman to vote in 100% revenue sharing. A very workable idea, but rather unpalatable to various owners who get their pockets get drained.

On the other side the poorest 15 don't want the richest 15 + Bettman to vote in no caps, no taxes and a removal of the reserve system and draft.