How does a lower UFA age help the "small markets"?

[txomisc]

I'm pretty sure they can afford everyone witht he cap too. The cap is the carrot given to the low revenue teams. It ensures them a profit and still gives them an excuse as to why they can't improve their team.

the league is fighting for a cap under 40 million dollars and you think teams will still be able to afford the best players?
geez the proNHLPA side apparently found some acid today

furthermore if the NHL was so into the idea of getting all the best young players on the big market teams it would go something like this....No Entry Draft....Best young players biggest markets.

 

[hockeytown9321]

How can they afford everyone with a hard cap? That's illogical. It's one thing if it's a 60 million hard cap, but if the league gets the 39 million hard cap...I don't see how that works.

There's a difference between afford and fit. They might not be able to fit everyone under a cap, but they sure as hell could afford to.

 

[txomisc]

There's a difference between afford and fit. They might not be able to fit everyone under a cap, but they sure as hell could afford to.

and how does that make any difference? ok so they can "afford it"
but if they cant "fit it under the cap" how are they gonna get it?

 

[mudcrutch79]

There's a difference between afford and fit. They might not be able to fit everyone under a cap, but they sure as hell could afford to.

But if they can't fit everyone under a cap, this whole scheme is kind of useless, isn't it?

This is all nonsense. It requires 25 owners to sacrifice their interests in the hope that they get a massive TV deal, which they can't actually get for 4 years. It is literally insane to believe that this is the plan. It would essentially guarantee mammoth profits for the big market clubs, regardless of whether a deal ever came along. There is no chance that this is the plan of the owners, unless they've all gone insane.

 

[txomisc]

bingo. So how does the NHL make it so the other big markets don't suck? They devise a system that lets other teams do the work of drafting and developing of superstars, then allows those players to become UFA's in their prime. NHL revenue disparities will ensure that whatever loopholes exist in the hard cap benefit the high revenue teams. And all teams are guaranteed a profit.

You should read Gil Stein's book. He talks about his reasons for expanding the league to Anaheim and Miami. It was to put hockey in big TV markets so that it was attractive to networks. Whats the next logical step?

there are no loopholes in a hard cap
none
not a single one
hence the world hard

 

[hockeytown9321]

and how does that make any difference? ok so they can "afford it"
but if they cant "fit it under the cap" how are they gonna get it?

There's enough big market teams to ensure all s the superstars will fit somewhere.

and how exactly are the poor, oppressed small market teams who draft every talented player int he league now, only to have them stolen away by Detroit and New York, going to fit all of those superstars under their cap? Is there going to be some sort of special rule that allows the oppressed teams to go over if they want?

 

[txomisc]

But if they can't fit everyone under a cap, this whole scheme is kind of useless, isn't it?

This is all nonsense. It requires 25 owners to sacrifice their interests in the hope that they get a massive TV deal, which they can't actually get for 4 years. It is literally insane to believe that this is the plan. It would essentially guarantee mammoth profits for the big market clubs, regardless of whether a deal ever came along. There is no chance that this is the plan of the owners, unless they've all gone insane.

not only that but it requires the owners to believe that the only reason people dont watch hockey on tv is because the bigger markets arent always the best

 

[hockeytown9321]

there are no loopholes in a hard cap
none
not a single one
hence the world hard

Really? You should look at the NFL's "hard cap"

 

[Morbo]

Is that what your Magic 8-Ball tells you?

No, it's what common sense tells me.

A cap would not subjugate the big-market teams' interests to help smaller market teams. A cap, in fact, would force those teams to spend less while taking in roughly the same revenue. Same revenue - fewer expenditures = larger profit.

I see.

So the NHL's hard cap will function effectively without revenue sharing?

How is that going to save the small markets?

 

[hockeytown9321]

This is all nonsense. It requires 25 owners to sacrifice their interests

No, it doesn't. All 30 owners interests are making maximum revenue. A big TV deal is the way to do it. The cap ensures they're profitable.

 

[SENSible1*]

So "hockeytown", since your motivation here has always been the best interests of the Red Wings, I'm assuming you'll now be a big hard cap supporter, right?

It's not like you are just posting this crap in a thinly veiled attempt to convince small market NHL fans to change their minds and stop supporting the NHL, right?

PS Pro-PAers, in future please have Tom start these threads. He carries a much bigger shovel and is far more adept weilding it.

 

[txomisc]

There's enough big market teams to ensure all s the superstars will fit somewhere.

and how exactly are the poor, oppressed small market teams who draft every talented player int he league now, only to have them stolen away by Detroit and New York, going to fit all of those superstars under their cap? Is there going to be some sort of special rule that allows the oppressed teams to go over if they want?

this is easy
lets say we have 30 teams
and we have 30 superstars
if the superstars are spread out among the teams its easier to fit them under a cap now isnt it?
your theory is that those 30 superstars are gonna somehow fit underneath the caps of about 10 teams
and lets say somehow they magically did. well what does that leave under the cap for 3rd and 4th liners? not much huh? and what have we found having a top heavy team results in? thats right..LOSING
and what according to this does losing cause? no friggen tv revenue

 

[Tom_Benjamin]

There's never going to be a TV contract that will equal what an owner can take in in local revenues with an elite team. Period, end of story.

True, but how many teams can achieve elite status at any one time? A handful. And those local revenues include the playoff money. Under the new system, that opportunity disappears. Achieving elite status will not provide nearly the revenues it did under the old CBA.

That Stan Kasten quote is nice, and it's certainly logical from a league point of view. If hockey had the potential in the US for a football or baseball type TV contract, I could maybe understand it, but it just doesn't make sense. The NBA contract is worth $12 million US per team, per season.

Actually according to Fox, it is $25.5 million per team.

If you're a small market owner in the NHL, do you want to encourage your players to walk at 27 for the pie in the sky dream of a $12 million per season annual TV cheque? The revenues from a strong team are worth more than that, and are far more likely to come to pass.

Are far more likely to come to pass? In hockey an elite team gets a ten year run. It is very hard to become elite. Most rebuilding jobs don't carry a team past the middle of the pack.

Conquering the American market may be pie in the sky, but that's where the money is, and 24 of the teams. They could get good teams in the big US markets and still fail, but without good teams in at least one or two big US markets there is no chance to get anywhere in the media or in a TV contract. Suppose they gave a playoff and nobody came. The five top media markets in the US are New York, Los Angeles, and Chicago. How many playoff series have they had in the past seven years?

I think you can make a good argument that hockey should be content to be a regional sport, but Gary Bettman doesn't buy it.

It will be interesting to see if the owners make a final offer to the players this week. If so, I'm betting the cap will get a good boost, entry level salaries fold directly into free agency at age 27 and no revenue sharing for small markets. A big market CBA through and through.

Tom

 

[mudcrutch79]

There's enough big market teams to ensure all s the superstars will fit somewhere.

and how exactly are the poor, oppressed small market teams who draft every talented player int he league now, only to have them stolen away by Detroit and New York, going to fit all of those superstars under their cap? Is there going to be some sort of special rule that allows the oppressed teams to go over if they want?

Hold on...you aren't squirming away from your position so easily. The issue isn't whether small markets can hold onto their stars here, it's whether the big teams
can corner the market on them while working in a system that doesn't let them spend their way to the top. There's no rational reason to think that they can. The Lebron example is a bit ridiculous-there's simply not enough money in hockey advertising to make that big of a difference. The players aren't being used for ads for shaving cream, they're being used for things like skates. I could be wrong, but are there any American tv commercials that aren't selling a hockey related product built around hockey players? I don't think so. A guy like Iginla may well have fewer opportunities if he went down there-he's a CIBC guy up here, which is a pretty big deal.

 

[NYIsles1*]

It is more than just TV ratings. It is the footprint. If hockey is not big in the big US markets, it is not in the national US media unless a Bertuzzi slugs a Steve Moore. If hockey is covered extensively in New York, Chicago, and Los Angeles it sells hockey in Carolina and Nashville.
Tom

Hockey is not a major sports in NYC. It's a huge baseball market and those are the only stars the general public will identify with. Yashin, Brodeur and Jagr play here and the media could care less because they are not interested in selling hockey to the general public. They have Jeter and A-Rod, Pedro and Beltran, Chad and Eli, Herm, Torre, Randolph, Marbury and Kidd.

This is where sports editors send their people and what sports programs discuss.

If Iginla signed with a NY team he would be about the 20th star here on the seventh, eighth or ninth team in a sport that cannot compete with it's competion and only has one small fan demographic watching.

 

[txomisc]

Really? You should look at the NFL's "hard cap"

the nfls situation can clearly be avoided by changing the way the signing bonuses work. Signing bonuses essentially make the nfls "hard cap" into a "soft cap" the nhl does not want a soft cap

 

[Beukeboom Fan]

You should read Gil Stein's book. He talks about his reasons for expanding the league to Anaheim and Miami. It was to put hockey in big TV markets so that it was attractive to networks. Whats the next logical step?

The next logical step is make the game more popular accross the entire country to maximize the TV ratings. Having dominant teams in the major markets does not help if no one is watching accross the other 80% of the country. If you have more teams that are competitive, you have a better chance of getting TV ratings.

If the small market teams can become more competitive, it's easier to grow the fanbase in those areas. Hopefully to the point that the fans in those areas would watch National games that don't involve their local team.

I also think that looking at ratings on ESPN/ABC last year are misleading. Practically EVERY televised game included a major market. You had several teams that were not on TV even once on ESPN last year, which is a major accomplishment considering that ESPN televised something like 150+ regular season games.

Putting the NHL star players in the major markets doesn't help TV ratings, because 90+% of the US population couldn't tell you which team Jarome Iginla played for. I'm not ripping on the US (where I live), but it's just a fact that the NHL is not popular outside the core group of fans. I think those fans are the best in sports for loyalty, but the NHL lacks any sort of "casual" fan, which is where the ratings really come from.

 

[txomisc]

True, but how many teams can achieve elite status at any one time? A handful. And those local revenues include the playoff money. Under the new system, that opportunity disappears. Achieving elite status will not provide nearly the revenues it did under the old CBA.



Actually according to Fox, it is $25.5 million per team.



Are far more likely to come to pass? In hockey an elite team gets a ten year run. It is very hard to become elite. Most rebuilding jobs don't carry a team past the middle of the pack.

Conquering the American market may be pie in the sky, but that's where the money is, and 24 of the teams. They could get good teams in the big US markets and still fail, but without good teams in at least one or two big US markets there is no chance to get anywhere in the media or in a TV contract. Suppose they gave a playoff and nobody came. The five top media markets in the US are New York, Los Angeles, and Chicago. How many playoff series have they had in the past seven years?

I think you can make a good argument that hockey should be content to be a regional sport, but Gary Bettman doesn't buy it.

It will be interesting to see if the owners make a final offer to the players this week. If so, I'm betting the cap will get a good boost, entry level salaries fold directly into free agency at age 27 and no revenue sharing for small markets. A big market CBA through and through.

Tom

why would there be a lockout all this time ruining the attitudes of fans toward hockey in many huge markets all so they nhl owners can trick the players into a higher salary cap and a lower ufa age?
wouldnt they have just come to the table initially and said
"lets lower the ufa age to 26 and lets start playin"

 

[hockeytown9321]

Hold on...you aren't squirming away from your position so easily. The issue isn't whether small markets can hold onto their stars here, it's whether the big teams
can corner the market on them while working in a system that doesn't let them spend their way to the top. There's no rational reason to think that they can. The Lebron example is a bit ridiculous-there's simply not enough money in hockey advertising to make that big of a difference. The players aren't being used for ads for shaving cream, they're being used for things like skates. I could be wrong, but are there any American tv commercials that aren't selling a hockey related product built around hockey players? I don't think so. A guy like Iginla may well have fewer opportunities if he went down there-he's a CIBC guy up here, which is a pretty big deal.

Like I said, there are loopholes in any CBA. If the NHL does want what I beleive they want, those loopholes will be intentional. Just look at the NFL. Teams get around the hard cap all the time. The rich teams will always have an advantage.

You're right, there aren't any major hockey endorsements in the US. Its not an attractive place for sponsors to throw their money. If hockey ever started to get half as popular as thr NBA, endorsements would increase. They acheive that popularity from increased exposure. It starts with better TV deal. Then hockey gets covered more by Sportscenter. If people are told over and over again that iginla is great, they'll belevie it sooner or later, true or not. Its marketing. But it all starts with TV.

 

[Tom_Benjamin]

your theory is that those 30 superstars are gonna somehow fit underneath the caps of about 10 teams

No way. That doesn't work. They want one superstar in each market. The biggest superstar in the biggest market, the smallest in the smallest market. Then they want the best near superstar in the biggest market and the worst near superstar in the smallest market. Then they want the biggest star in the biggest market and the smallest star in the smallest market.

The result will be a league where rosters turn over rapidly, there is an illusion of fairness, the biggest stars are in the biggest media markets. The ideal is if half the legitimate contenders are from a big market and the other half are small market every season.

What is it that small markets get from the last CBA proposed by the owners? The richer markets are prevented from overpaying aging stars. That's it. Period. Otherwise, they get no revenue sharing, they are forced to increase payroll and earlier free agency. What do the big boys get? Much fatter profits and access to the best players in the league.

Sounds great, eh?

Tom

 

[NYIsles1*]

How come Sports Illustrated ran a cover story in 1994 that the NHL was over taking the NBA? Why does Detroit draw double the ratings of any other NHL team on national TV?

In 1994 there was a baseball off-season in NYC. That's over. In 1994 the Yankees had Steve Howe closing games and the Mets had the highest payroll in baseball history at 39 million dollars. There was no Yankee-Mets-Redsox or interleague games.

The sports world changed a lot here.

 

[arnie]

Welcome to Conspiracy Theory 101!

If a system is put in place where big markets can't "hijack" talent from small market teams due to having a bigger checkbook, UFA age becomes less important.

You are not quite right. There are other factors:

1. The Canadians teams will have a big advantage with Canadian players. Toronto stand to gain big time. Toronto can sign players cheaper because many are local products that would prefer to play close to home. Ken Klee said exactly this last year.

2. American teams can have a huge advantage on signing Europeans and Americans. Income taxes are much higher in Canada, so nonCanadians would take home more money on the same salary. Look at Dallas, for example: 0 state income tax. Besides, where would you rather spend your off ice time: Edmonton or Miami.

 

[JohnnyReb]

No, it doesn't. All 30 owners interests are making maximum revenue. A big TV deal is the way to do it. The cap ensures they're profitable.

How?

Nashville Predators payroll: under $25 million.

Nashville Predators claimed losses: $5-10 million.

Nashville Predators gains from the owners proposed revenue sharing: $0

So if they were losing money with a payroll already under the cap, and there is no significant revenue sharing, how does a cap ensure they are profitable?

There are about 8-10 other teams in the same situation as Nashville...

 

[mudcrutch79]

True, but how many teams can achieve elite status at any one time? A handful. And those local revenues include the playoff money. Under the new system, that opportunity disappears. Achieving elite status will not provide nearly the revenues it did under the old CBA.

Assuming that revenue sharing proposal goes into effect. I'm not so sure it will.

Actually according to Fox, it is $25.5 million per team.

Yeah I corrected that in a later post. I didn't realize their deal had separate cable/network components.

Are far more likely to come to pass? In hockey an elite team gets a ten year run. It is very hard to become elite. Most rebuilding jobs don't carry a team past the middle of the pack.

Conquering the American market may be pie in the sky, but that's where the money is, and 24 of the teams. They could get good teams in the big US markets and still fail, but without good teams in at least one or two big US markets there is no chance to get anywhere in the media or in a TV contract. Suppose they gave a playoff and nobody came. The five top media markets in the US are New York, Los Angeles, and Chicago. How many playoff series have they had in the past seven years?

What are the other two in the top five? As much as the top five may be those cities, if the franchises in those cities aren't franchises of national appeal, like they are in baseball, basketball and football, it won't make a lick of difference. It may be hard to become truly elite in hockey, but it's still a better shot at cashing in than hoping for an American TV contract. The payoff from one would be so minimal-I'd be stunned if they ever got $10 million per team, I think that the FOX one was worth $4-5 million per team, and it was laughed at by other networks the day it was signed-that you're better off going for the big win in your own market.

I think you can make a good argument that hockey should be content to be a regional sport, but Gary Bettman doesn't buy it.

Gary Bettman doesn't have to buy it. As long as there are 20+ owners who do get that-and there have to be-they aren't going to sell out their interests for some fanciful TV deal.

It will be interesting to see if the owners make a final offer to the players this week. If so, I'm betting the cap will get a good boost, entry level salaries fold directly into free agency at age 27 and no revenue sharing for small markets. A big market CBA through and through.

Interesting. I'm assuming that they'll drop the cap, maybe consider a luxury tax, demand the 24% cut and look to eliminate arbitration, or something along those lines. At the end of the day, there are a hell of a lot more small market teams than big market teams. Even if the American dream is potentially possible, when have you known a group of 30 owners to exercise vision about the future? It'll be about maximizing what they can get for their teams, and when Gary gets a deal that makes 16 of them happy it will happen.

 

[txomisc]

Like I said, there are loopholes in any CBA. If the NHL does want what I beleive they want, those loopholes will be intentional. Just look at the NFL. Teams get around the hard cap all the time. The rich teams will always have an advantage.

You're right, there aren't any major hockey endorsements in the US. Its not an attractive place for sponsors to throw their money. If hockey ever started to get half as popular as thr NBA, endorsements would increase. They acheive that popularity from increased exposure. It starts with better TV deal. Then hockey gets covered more by Sportscenter. If people are told over and over again that iginla is great, they'll belevie it sooner or later, true or not. Its marketing. But it all starts with TV.

please explain to me why the nhl would do all this fighting for a hard cap only to intentionally put loopholes in it for the big market teams?!?!? i mean hell if they were gonna do that why would they even try to get a cap at all?