Ideal CBA

[PecaFan]

its your turn now.

<mikey>I don't want it. YOU deal with it</mikey>

 

[A Good Flying Bird*]

Not only would the players not want anything to do with this, just like the owners, but it's unneccessary. Attendance across the league shows that, for the most part, tickets aren't overpriced. Maybe the NHL could use something like the NBA where a certain number of tickets must be available at every arena for a certain price, but you can't put a cap on them. If you put a cap on prices all that would do is increase the prices of the cheaper tickets.

Look, I was telling a guy why I don't believe in the owner's stance.
I know the players don't want to cap ticket prices.
But the players aren't the ones who are asking for artificial caps.

Okay... we can do that just as soon as they all recoup what they've lost over the last decade. So what do we cap the profits at? I'd suggest something along the lines of $20M. Certainly an owner deserves as much as what a couple players make. Too bad not a dime would ever make it into this fund...especially with your cap on ticket prices.

Why does an owner deserve what a player makes? In five years, is the player going to be able to sell the franchise for a 100 percent profit?
Is the player going to use the franchise as leverage to bilk 10s of Millions from local taxpayers?
Some of you pro-owner people have really missed the point.
How about we cap the value of the NHL franchise at $110 Million.
How about that?
What's that? The Mapleleafs ownership believes they can sell for $300 Million?
No. That's not fair to the other owners.
$110 Million is the limit.

The owners have said over and over again that there will be revenue sharing..

The owners are full of crap. Revenue sharing as been a joke and only recently have there been any indications at all that the league might consider meaningful revenue sharing.

Why would the owners want to move teams or expand to markets that they'd have to support once the revenue sharing you proposed is in place?

My belief is that if you are going to have bullcrap franchises, you may as well have them in franchises where people like the sport.

 

[A Good Flying Bird*]

Unlike salaries, ticket prices in each market are set independently. A cap on salaries at least provides the opportunity for teams to cut ticket prices and certainly provides the opportunity for fans in big markets to demand this concession as profits rise

In addition, the PA has ZERO interest in seeing ticket prices (revenues) drop and have done nothing to support fans in this area.

At best an issue that should leave you equally pissed at both sides..

Right. But I'm not 100 percent pro-PA. In fact, I think the PA has done some incredibly bone-headed things. (I was against the rollback offer, instead I expected an offer of a very strict luxury tax. Although I do not fault the players for wanting to play, I believe it was wrong to take jobs in Europe during the lockout. I don't remember the players honoring picket lines during the officials work stoppage. And I doubt they'd honor a picket line if the concession employees were to unionize and go on strike)

That said. I am just a lot more anti-owner than I am anti-PA. And I'd support the owners if I believed they were doing anything else but trying to bust the players union.

As to the issue of ticket caps, I think they'd be a great gesture of good faith toward the fans. We'd sit through their lockout, if they were fighting for the fans.
But they are not.
They don't believe in the market place when it comes to paying players salaries. But they do believe in it when it comes to setting ticket prices, beer prices, popcorn prices, franchise value prices, etc.

The owners have offered to share profits with the players. Neither side has suggested they be funneled to marketing or building the sport. At best an issue that should leave you equally pissed at both sides.
The NHL has offered revenue sharing sufficient to allow all team to meet the cap minimum.
The PA has asked for more revenue sharing and an unlinked system in order to increase their take.
The owners should increase revenue sharing, but only if the PA agrees to linkage.
The stands taken by both sides to this point should leave you equally pissed at both sides..

I appreciate you telling me how I should think, but I must disagree with your assessment.
Again, if the league were to agree on a real revenue sharing plan, then I'd say "Hey, see the rich owners are doing their fair share of the work here to fix the league. The owners aren't just putting the entire onus on the league's players."

But I'm not stupid. I've got some idea of what is happening.
The league's rich owners are supporting this lockout ON CONDITION that league doesn't install a massive revenue sharing plan.
See, without a massive national tv deal, revenue sharing means that the league takes money from Illitch and gives it Karmanos.
You think Illitch wants to help Karmanos in any way, shape or form? Hell no.
So here's the deal. In exchange for staying the hell away from revenue sharing, the rich owners promise not to bust ranks on the salary cap issue.
Illitch probably doesn't think a salary cap is worth a two year lockout. But he certainly won't mind capping salaries at $38 Million. That means he gets about $30 Million a year in GAURANTEED profit.
Sure beats sharing your money with the deadbeat franchises of the league.

The NHL's position and a low linked cap is the only scenario where this is even a remote possibilty.
The PA's position is that small markets should die.
The only possible reaction to the two sides postions on this issue is your 100% support for the league.
Glad to know that the NHL will have another passionate hockey fan in their corner after you examine these issues.

And this is what I am saying.
The PA's position is, essentially, that teams that can't afford it shouldn't be in the league.

I don't agree with such a stance, on its own.

But again, nothing about the owners position tells me they are for it.
To have a team in Winnipeg, we'd need REAL revenue sharing AND major salary drag.
But the owners are only interested in the latter.

After months and months of arguing, NOBODY on HFBOARDS has been able to articulate why a cap is better than luxury tax/revenuesharing.
NOBODY.

Take the following examples.

1) a hard cap at $40 Million
2) A luxury cap at $40 Million, with dollar for dollar revenue sharing to $45 Million. $1.50 penalty to $50 Million. $2 penalty to $60 Million. $3 above 60 Million

#1 blocks everyone at $40 Million. Big Whoop.
#2 will stop many teams at $40 Million. It will really penalize the teams that go over.
The penalties go to the small teams, like a Winnipeg, for example.

Now, we can say the threshold should be at $32, or $36 or $40 M, but that can be negotiated rather easily.
To me, this is much more advantageous than a blind cap. It acts as a major salary drag and would really bring down the salaries of free agents. And it provides revenue sharing.
At the same time, it doesn't absolutely force teams to get ripped apart by salary cap concerns. And, to me, that is a major concern with salary caps.

Does the PA like this kind of offer?
No.
Do the owners?
No.

But that's where I stand on it.
Call me crazy. But I think it works.
The players give back. The rich owners give back. The small teams get a little bit of money to help keep their team together.

 

[AXN]

Right. But I'm not 100 percent pro-PA. In fact, I think the PA has done some incredibly bone-headed things. (I was against the rollback offer, instead I expected an offer of a very strict luxury tax. Although I do not fault the players for wanting to play, I believe it was wrong to take jobs in Europe during the lockout. I don't remember the players honoring picket lines during the officials work stoppage. And I doubt they'd honor a picket line if the concession employees were to unionize and go on strike)

That said. I am just a lot more anti-owner than I am anti-PA. And I'd support the owners if I believed they were doing anything else but trying to bust the players union.

As to the issue of ticket caps, I think they'd be a great gesture of good faith toward the fans. We'd sit through their lockout, if they were fighting for the fans.
But they are not.
They don't believe in the market place when it comes to paying players salaries. But they do believe in it when it comes to setting ticket prices, beer prices, popcorn prices, franchise value prices, etc.



I appreciate you telling me how I should think, but I must disagree with your assessment.
Again, if the league were to agree on a real revenue sharing plan, then I'd say "Hey, see the rich owners are doing their fair share of the work here to fix the league. The owners aren't just putting the entire onus on the league's players."

But I'm not stupid. I've got some idea of what is happening.
The league's rich owners are supporting this lockout ON CONDITION that league doesn't install a massive revenue sharing plan.
See, without a massive national tv deal, revenue sharing means that the league takes money from Illitch and gives it Karmanos.
You think Illitch wants to help Karmanos in any way, shape or form? Hell no.
So here's the deal. In exchange for staying the hell away from revenue sharing, the rich owners promise not to bust ranks on the salary cap issue.
Illitch probably doesn't think a salary cap is worth a two year lockout. But he certainly won't mind capping salaries at $38 Million. That means he gets about $30 Million a year in GAURANTEED profit.
Sure beats sharing your money with the deadbeat franchises of the league.



And this is what I am saying.
The PA's position is, essentially, that teams that can't afford it shouldn't be in the league.

I don't agree with such a stance, on its own.

But again, nothing about the owners position tells me they are for it.
To have a team in Winnipeg, we'd need REAL revenue sharing AND major salary drag.
But the owners are only interested in the latter.

After months and months of arguing, NOBODY on HFBOARDS has been able to articulate why a cap is better than luxury tax/revenuesharing.
NOBODY.

Take the following examples.

1) a hard cap at $40 Million
2) A luxury cap at $40 Million, with dollar for dollar revenue sharing to $45 Million. $1.50 penalty to $50 Million. $2 penalty to $60 Million. $3 above 60 Million

#1 blocks everyone at $40 Million. Big Whoop.
#2 will stop many teams at $40 Million. It will really penalize the teams that go over.
The penalties go to the small teams, like a Winnipeg, for example.

Now, we can say the threshold should be at $32, or $36 or $40 M, but that can be negotiated rather easily.
To me, this is much more advantageous than a blind cap. It acts as a major salary drag and would really bring down the salaries of free agents. And it provides revenue sharing.
At the same time, it doesn't absolutely force teams to get ripped apart by salary cap concerns. And, to me, that is a major concern with salary caps.

Does the PA like this kind of offer?
No.
Do the owners?
No.

But that's where I stand on it.
Call me crazy. But I think it works.
The players give back. The rich owners give back. The small teams get a little bit of money to help keep their team together.

I like #2 but remember by the time you reach 50 million you pay 12.5 million tax.
That means your total salay is 62.5 million. Most teams cannot afford it. If you tax less then more teams can go up to 50. With more teams going up to 50 you get more tax revenue to smaller clubs. With less tax everybody is more equal and maybe a lot more can afford to go up to 50 and pay tax to 55 million. More teams can afford 55 million and keep their free agents then to 62.5 million. You also cannot go past 50 million.