If I was the NHLPA....
- Thread starter CostaTheCrazyGreek
- Start date
- Status
struckmatch
Registered User
cladeas said:
1. No, the owners would go as high as maybe 45, but not 50, and no way in hell would they consider a 60 million dollar cap.
2. If the players give the owners cost certainty, the PA could definetely tweak the rollback, its all in the word "negotiations."
joeminus
Registered User
No.
A $60M payroll per team would equal about 86% of the league's revenues. That's insane.
The league has proposed 54% of revenues to the players. They're flexible on that point, but I find it highly unlikely they would go any higher than 60% at the absolute most -- and even that is a long shot. At 60%, the cap would be around $42M. You're not going to see anything higher than that.
A $60M payroll per team would equal about 86% of the league's revenues. That's insane.
The league has proposed 54% of revenues to the players. They're flexible on that point, but I find it highly unlikely they would go any higher than 60% at the absolute most -- and even that is a long shot. At 60%, the cap would be around $42M. You're not going to see anything higher than that.
joeminus said:
The NFL's is set at 64.75%, and will be 65.5% next year. If its good enough for them, how come its not good enough for hockey?
Who put the NHLPA players into the NHL?.....
A general Manager did....
Who put the General Manager there?
The Owners
The Players should realize where they stand in the pecking order. They talk like they are on the same level as the owners or Gary Bettman. They are levels down from the owners.
A general Manager did....
Who put the General Manager there?
The Owners
The Players should realize where they stand in the pecking order. They talk like they are on the same level as the owners or Gary Bettman. They are levels down from the owners.
The NFL salary cap is equal to each team's share of the Televsision Revenues. The NFLPA accepted that, so my opening offer for the NHLPA from the owner's perspective is each team's televison revenue share --- approximately 3-5 million per team. Do we want to Deal based on works in the NFL Mr Goodenow?hockeytown9321 said:
You can't compare what works in the NFL and try to transfer it over to the NHL. The NFL actually has revenues besides gate, merchandise, and concessions.
txomisc
Registered User
you know ive noticed you ask alot of questions that are very easy to answer and the answers are generally pretty obvioushockeytown9321 said:
i have 100 million revenue
it costs 45 million to run a franchise
i can only give the players 55% or im in debt
i have 200 million revenue
it costs 45 million to run a franchise
i can now give the players 77.5%
obviously these arent factual numbers but they just go to show you that more revenue and similar costs before payroll allow you to give up a bigger percentage
Crosbyfan said:
I'm a regular level headed Joe who just finished University. Someone who will be grateful making between $100 000-$200 000. Someone who will know who my boss is(until I open my own business). Someone who knows how to save and invest money, unlike a lot of players who are going to run out of millions or hundreds of thousands during the lockout. You got to be an idiot if you can't take 1 million dollars, invest it, and be able to use that for a ton of your needs.
In other words..I'm not a typical hockey player
Last edited by a moderator:
SuperUnknown
Registered User
hockeytown9321 said:
Simply because fixed costs weight more in a league that draws less revenues. As revenues increase in the future, so should player salary %.
Hockeyfan02
Registered User
hockeytown9321 said:
Can we stop with the NFL comparison. Completely different leagues with completely different popularity and money to go around.
PecaFan
Registered User
But the point is, the NFL would be successful even if all that revenue dried up.
The NFL system works even with NHL level revenues. The only thing that changes is how much money everyone makes. Both sides still do ok for themselves.
The NFL system works even with NHL level revenues. The only thing that changes is how much money everyone makes. Both sides still do ok for themselves.
PecaFan said:
Part of my point.
the other part was illustrating what hypocrites alot of prople here are, becuase I've read more than once that if the NFL has a cap, why shouldn't hockey. All I did was point out the NFL's cap, and now suddenly, its not good enough for hockey.
Mayor of MacAppolis said:
No, the NFL's cap is set as a percentage of Defined Gross Reveune. It includes ticket sales, merchandise and TV money.
And to illustrate my point of hypocrisy even further, in the last year of the NFL's CBA (2007) there is no salary cap. How bout that for hockey?
Hockeyfan02 said:
I would love to stop, but everybody keeps bringing up how successful the NFL's cap is, and how that success means the NHL should folow suit. All I'm saying is that if the NHL wanted the NFL's system, they'd have to increase the proposed cap % alot.
Why would a big market media/sports conglomerate share local tv revenue with another team in a small market? That would be defrauding the investors.Mayor of MacAppolis said:
It follows that the NHLPA isn't going to get a piece of it either.
CarlRacki
Registered User
- Feb 9, 2004
- 1,442
- 2
hockeytown9321 said:
As a pro-cap person, I'd have no problem with that, or at least a plan that gives a larger percentage of revenues to the players than currently offered. If the debate were over what share of revenues goes to who under a cap, I'd be on the players' side.
Unfortunately, the players refuse to engage in that discussion. They've been convinced (wrongly, IMO) that a cap would be their undoing and have been making assinine comments about rather working at Blockbuster than play pro hockey under a cap. Because of that, I'm reluctantly pro-owner.
Hockey_Nut99 said:
Yeah. Nice pecking order. You can have a league full of commissioners, owners and GMs if you like.
I like watching hockey played by the best players on earth.
http://www.askthecommish.com/salarycap/faq.asp
The above link has the formula for determining the NFL salary cap. From what I heard before, the amount works out roughly to what teams earn from the television deal. Still apply this to the NHL and the amount is closer to 30 million than the 60+mil the original poster suggests. The NHLPA wants no part of determining their cap similarirly to the NFL structure. The players would then realize how little money comparatively the NHL makes.
The above link has the formula for determining the NFL salary cap. From what I heard before, the amount works out roughly to what teams earn from the television deal. Still apply this to the NHL and the amount is closer to 30 million than the 60+mil the original poster suggests. The NHLPA wants no part of determining their cap similarirly to the NFL structure. The players would then realize how little money comparatively the NHL makes.
CarlRacki
Registered User
- Feb 9, 2004
- 1,442
- 2
Newsguyone said:
Cap or no cap, the NHL will continue to have the best players in the world. The players will always go to where the money is, and unless things change beyond all imagination, that's always will be the NHL.
Keep in mind, even under the owners' current proposal the average NHL salary will be four to five times more than most Euro leagues pay their best players. Do you really think a third-line quality player from Finland is going to stay there for $200K a year when he can earn seven times that in the NHL?
John Flyers Fan
Registered User
Mayor of MacAppolis said:
Yes, but the NHL bring in far more dollars from ticket sales than the NFL does.
Philadelphia Eagles - 8 games X 70,000 tickets = 560,000
Philadelphia Flyers - 41 games X 19,000 tickets = 779,000
Plus as a general rule ticktes are more expensive than NFL tickets.
CarlRacki
Registered User
- Feb 9, 2004
- 1,442
- 2
John Flyers Fan said:
Not quite true.
The average NHL ticket last year was $43.57 (see link below for ticket info)
(x 19,000 = $827,830 per game x 41 games = $33,941,030
The average NFL ticket is $54.75.
(x 70,000 = $3,832,500 x 8 = $30,660,000)
That's a $3.3 million difference in favor of the NHL. However, I would argue that the cost of operating a facility, albeit a smaller facility, for 41 games exceeds the cost of operating one for eight games. Add in the additional travel costs associated with the NHL (41 road games as opposed to eight), and that money's gone. Plus, unlike the most NFL teams, very few NHL teams rake in millions of dollars upfront from personal seat license fees.
Average ticket costs:
http://www.teammarketing.com/fci.cfm
Last edited:
If I was the NHLPA I would accept the payroll ranges system right away, and thank Gary Bettman for being so kind as to allowing us to make a average salary of $1.3 Million a season and living a life of luxury. The NHL has been more then fair to these greedy people known as players, they are simply the worst athletes on any sports excluding baseball because thoose people are not athletes.
Mayor of MacAppolis said:
You should read the article at the link you posted, especially question 1.2. It tells you exactly what is included in defined football revenue.
- Status
