Gary Bettman-No team by team caps

Status
Not open for further replies.

John Flyers Fan

Registered User
Feb 27, 2002
22,416
16
Visit site
Thunderstruck said:
IMO the "team by team" is more on the revenue calculation side of the cap.

The PA was concerned with the inability of one formula to catch all the revenue streams in a league with widely ranging ownership structures and financial arrangements, so the NHL agreed to go through the books and modify the formula "team by team".

I'm guessing this is where the confusion is coming from.

If I'm right, the 54% linkage will still be based on league wide revenues, but calculated "team by team".

Agreed, just because one team doesn't get revenue from parking etc., doesn't mean that teams that do generate revenue from parking shouldn't be included in the big pot.
 

ceber

Registered User
Apr 28, 2003
3,497
0
Wyoming, MN
Thunderstruck said:
IMO the "team by team" is more on the revenue calculation side of the cap.

The PA was concerned with the inability of one formula to catch all the revenue streams in a league with widely ranging ownership structures and financial arrangements, so the NHL agreed to go through the books and modify the formula "team by team".

I'm guessing this is where the confusion is coming from.

If I'm right, the 54% linkage will still be based on league wide revenues, but calculated "team by team".

This is how I understood it. Not one formula to calculate revenues for all 30 teams, but 30 formulas for calculating revenues that combine to give you your single cap number.
 

pelts35.com

Registered User
Oct 4, 2004
11,600
2
www.pelts35.com
Hasbro said:
I'm a fan of one of the "haves" but a team by team would just create the same disparity in my opinion. If Calgary only can spend 30 and New York 50 who's going to be able to get more Free Agents.

Yes, but didn't last season teach us anything with Tampa and Calgary in the finals? High payrolls does not necessarily translate into a winning franchise. Spending money wisely, on the other hand, does.

As Herb Brooks said in Miracle, it's not choosing the best players, but choosing the right ones.
 

Hasbro

Family Friend
Sponsor
Apr 1, 2004
52,417
16,384
South Rectangle
pelts35.com said:
Yes, but didn't last season teach us anything with Tampa and Calgary in the finals? High payrolls does not necessarily translate into a winning franchise. Spending money wisely, on the other hand, does.

As Herb Brooks said in Miracle, it's not choosing the best players, but choosing the right ones.
That it doesn't, but once the team starts winning the players want more and the Rangers come sniffing around, believe me I've seen it happen.
 

WC Handy*

Guest
pelts35.com said:
Yes, but didn't last season teach us anything with Tampa and Calgary in the finals? High payrolls does not necessarily translate into a winning franchise. Spending money wisely, on the other hand, does.

As Herb Brooks said in Miracle, it's not choosing the best players, but choosing the right ones.

Yes, last year did teach us something.

If you are a low payroll team, do one of these two things to make it to the finals...

1. Light a fire under your goaltender's ass

or

2. Sign a mediocre player for next to nothing and then develop him into a Hart Trophy winner. Acquire a goalie for next to nothing that hasn't played hockey in a year. Get the #1 overall pick.

The previous 8 years taught us something to....

Spend $60M and you'll have a damn good chance at the Cup.
 

Munchausen

Guest
The only thing that takes a blow here is Shoaltz's (sp?) credibility. He should have double checked instead of pushing for the scoop. His article might not be complete BS, but evidently there is some serious inaccuracies or at least ambiguities that sparked some controversy in the last few days.

Regardless, there is some real reasons for optimism all over the place, be it only some players' comments, the length and frequency of the meetings and the fact they finally agreed to go through revenues together, team by team, to draw a detailed map of the NHL's economics that both sides can agree on.

From there on, the philosophical differences no longer exist and if true that they have agreed on some systemic structure, then it is probably just a matter of weeks, for real this time.

And of course, everything could still collapse, but there's less and less chances of that happening with each passing meeting. At least that's the way I see it.
 

HockeyCritter

Registered User
Dec 10, 2004
5,656
0
Thunderstruck said:
IMO the "team by team" is more on the revenue calculation side of the cap.

The PA was concerned with the inability of one formula to catch all the revenue streams in a league with widely ranging ownership structures and financial arrangements, so the NHL agreed to go through the books and modify the formula "team by team".

I'm guessing this is where the confusion is coming from.

If I'm right, the 54% linkage will still be based on league wide revenues, but calculated "team by team".
That's what I got from the articles . . . . it makes the most sense.
 

HockeyCritter

Registered User
Dec 10, 2004
5,656
0
pelts35.com said:
Yes, but didn't last season teach us anything with Tampa and Calgary in the finals? High payrolls does not necessarily translate into a winning franchise. Spending money wisely, on the other hand, does.

As Herb Brooks said in Miracle, it's not choosing the best players, but choosing the right ones.
Sure they made it to the Final . . . . but how long could they have kept those teams in tact under the old CBA? Tampa deserves a chance to defend their title. That wouldn’t have been possible under the old CBA because the team didn’t/doesn’t have the finances to support $60, $70-million payrolls. Sure they still might lose a player or two, but under a new CBA they should be able to keep the core players together.
 

John Flyers Fan

Registered User
Feb 27, 2002
22,416
16
Visit site
HockeyCritter said:
Sure they made it to the Final . . . . but how long could they have kept those teams in tact under the old CBA? Tampa deserves a chance to defend their title. That wouldn’t have been possible under the old CBA because the team didn’t/doesn’t have the finances to support $60, $70-million payrolls. Sure they still might lose a player or two, but under a new CBA they should be able to keep the core players together.

Under the new CBA Khabibulin and St. Louis could become UFA's immediately, which would make it much tougher to keep their core intact.
 

Sotnos

Registered User
Jul 8, 2002
10,885
1
Not here
www.boltprospects.com
WC Handy said:
Yes, last year did teach us something.

If you are a low payroll team, do one of these two things to make it to the finals...

1. Light a fire under your goaltender's ass

or

2. Sign a mediocre player for next to nothing and then develop him into a Hart Trophy winner. Acquire a goalie for next to nothing that hasn't played hockey in a year. Get the #1 overall pick.

The previous 8 years taught us something to....

Spend $60M and you'll have a damn good chance at the Cup.
Well said :)
 

WC Handy*

Guest
John Flyers Fan said:
Under the new CBA Khabibulin and St. Louis could become UFA's immediately, which would make it much tougher to keep their core intact.

Khabby is 32 so the CBA doesn't change his status.

As for St. Louis, that's really their fault they didn't get him signed before the lockout began... just like it's the Blues fault that Pronger will be a UFA based on the current rumors.
 

MarkZackKarl

Registered User
Jun 29, 2002
2,978
12
Ottawa
Visit site
Wow, do you have any clue about cause and effect relationships?

Its not 'spend 60 million and you have a good chance at the Cup'... its more like

'If you draft, trade and develop properly over several seasons and establish an elite core that begins to make the playoffs consistently and wins their fair share of playoff games, it is possible with the increased revenues to keep them together which will lead to a higher payroll. Most winning teams (not their first win but consecutive seasons afterwards) will have higher payrolls than average because they have better players.

Winning comes first, then your payroll increases accordingly.

Its actually quite easy and logical to understand, its kinda funny how the vast majority of people cannot grasp such a simple concept.
 

WC Handy*

Guest
scaredsensfan said:
Wow, do you have any clue about cause and effect relationships?

Its not 'spend 60 million and you have a good chance at the Cup'... its more like

'If you draft, trade and develop properly over several seasons and establish an elite core that begins to make the playoffs consistently and wins their fair share of playoff games, it is possible with the increased revenues to keep them together which will lead to a higher payroll. Most winning teams (not their first win but consecutive seasons afterwards) will have higher payrolls than average because they have better players.

Winning comes first, then your payroll increases accordingly.

Its actually quite easy and logical to understand, its kinda funny how the vast majority of people cannot grasp such a simple concept.

How many Cups would have Detroit, Colorado, and New Jersey won if they kept their payroll at $35M?

That's what I thought.
 

WC Handy*

Guest
Hey scaredsensfan... I came across this quote from Columbus GM Doug McLean about the cap...

"If I'm spending $30 million and the big-market teams are spending $36 million, I'm thrilled."

Is he just another idiot that doesn't get what cap is going to do to small market teams? Or do you just have no clue what you're talking about?
 

Chaos

And the winner is...
Sep 2, 2003
7,968
18
TX
WC Handy said:
How many Cups would have Detroit, Colorado, and New Jersey won if they kept their payroll at $35M?

That's what I thought.

And why do you think those teams payroll went up? Because they developed players and became a good team, their revenues went up, thus allowing them more money to spend on players. Its kind of like the Stars...when they won the cup in 1999, there payroll was somewhere around $35 million if I remember correctly. After that, they started selling out alot more games, selling jerseys, etc, and had more revenue to work with, and hence their payroll went up.
 

tantalum

Hope for the best. Expect the worst
Sponsor
Apr 2, 2002
25,088
13,876
Missouri
Thunderstruck said:
IMO the "team by team" is more on the revenue calculation side of the cap.

The PA was concerned with the inability of one formula to catch all the revenue streams in a league with widely ranging ownership structures and financial arrangements, so the NHL agreed to go through the books and modify the formula "team by team".

I'm guessing this is where the confusion is coming from.

If I'm right, the 54% linkage will still be based on league wide revenues, but calculated "team by team".

Agreed. This is what I was thinking as well because to what Burke said a couple of weeks ago....each team has different things on the URO's and it was necessary to go team by team. For example he was saying some teams with new buildings do not report suite revenue. Now to the PA sees this as a red flag but in actuality it is the reality of the situation as to get the buildings built they had to promise those revenues go directly to the bank. I'm sure it's more detailed but basically Burke was simply saying no one is hiding money but that each team can indeed be drastically different than the next team. They needed to go through team by team to get a handle on the overall league revenues. I also think what will be found is that the NHL gave an accurate account of the revenues but what will be gained from this is that the PA and players will understand where the numbers are coming from and that nothing is being hidden. It was a trust building and knowledge gaining exercise. Something that should have been done before (something that was offered by the league and refused by the PA).

So where does that leave us I would guess we will see those cap numbers of $22 floor and $38 ceiling. Those numbers will most likely be linked to overall league revenues. That appears to be done. There will most likely be a tax as that is a revenue sharing aspect and to provide higher revenue teams a bit of an advantage over the lower revenue teams (as a range of $15 mil or so would give). What we don't know is if the tax is included (player expenses and bonuses appear to be). We also don't know if the bone the NHL may throw the players is similar to the one the players wanted in February...that team may be able to exceed that cap by $3 mill or so once every 4 years or something. Or that their may be a franchise player designation.
 

Tekneek

Registered User
Nov 28, 2004
4,395
39
Chaos said:
After that, they started selling out alot more games, selling jerseys, etc, and had more revenue to work with, and hence their payroll went up.

With a reduction in on-ice performance... ;)
 

WC Handy*

Guest
Chaos said:
And why do you think those teams payroll went up? Because they developed players and became a good team, their revenues went up, thus allowing them more money to spend on players. Its kind of like the Stars...when they won the cup in 1999, there payroll was somewhere around $35 million if I remember correctly. After that, they started selling out alot more games, selling jerseys, etc, and had more revenue to work with, and hence their payroll went up.

Dallas' payroll was 39.8 in 98-99 and only Detroit had a higher payroll.
 

Chaos

And the winner is...
Sep 2, 2003
7,968
18
TX
Tekneek said:
With a reduction in on-ice performance... ;)

Well they did manage to make the Finals the next year..but yes, overall their performance went down.
 

HockeyCritter

Registered User
Dec 10, 2004
5,656
0
John Flyers Fan said:
Under the new CBA Khabibulin and St. Louis could become UFA's immediately, which would make it much tougher to keep their core intact.
But now they at least have a chance of keeping one of those two as well as LeCavalier and Richards.
 

Chaos

And the winner is...
Sep 2, 2003
7,968
18
TX
WC Handy said:
Dallas' payroll was 39.8 in 98-99 and only Detroit had a higher payroll.

And why do you think they could afford 39.8? Because they had success the previous year, and were a damn good team already. Its not the other way around.
 

WC Handy*

Guest
Chaos said:
And why do you think they could afford 39.8? Because they had success the previous year, and were a damn good team already. Its not the other way around.

Regardless of which way around it is, money helps win the Cup. To suggest otherwise is simply stupid.
 

John Flyers Fan

Registered User
Feb 27, 2002
22,416
16
Visit site
HockeyCritter said:
But now they at least have a chance of keeping one of those two as well as LeCavalier and Richards.

I'll contend they had a better chance under the old system of keeping all 4 than they do now.
 

Pepper

Registered User
Aug 30, 2004
14,693
269
scaredsensfan said:
Wow, do you have any clue about cause and effect relationships?

Its not 'spend 60 million and you have a good chance at the Cup'... its more like

'If you draft, trade and develop properly over several seasons and establish an elite core that begins to make the playoffs consistently and wins their fair share of playoff games, it is possible with the increased revenues to keep them together which will lead to a higher payroll. Most winning teams (not their first win but consecutive seasons afterwards) will have higher payrolls than average because they have better players.

Winning comes first, then your payroll increases accordingly.

Its actually quite easy and logical to understand, its kinda funny how the vast majority of people cannot grasp such a simple concept.

What's funny is the fact that you keep repeating the same PA party-line despite being proven wrong in every single issue over the last 9 months or so.

FACT:

From 92 to 03, *EVERY* Stanley Cup was won by a top15 budget team. SEVEN OF THOSE CUPS, YES, CLOSE TO 60% (for you mathematically challenged) were won by TOP5 budget teams.

So no matter what you did during the last CBA, you were not going to win unless you had a top15 budget and your chances of winning were SERIOUSLY limited if you didn't have a top5 budget.

Thus your claim that "Winning comes first, then your payroll increases accordingly" is total and utter BS.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad

-->