It's time for a team leader meating!

[txpd]

Do you really think that any of them are really losing money in the bigger picture? I am not just talking about this little corner(insert hockey team here) of their empire.
These guys dont buy teams to make a profit- they buy them to support their huge egos, they buy them to win, they buy them because they can.
I could just turn this around and ask you to explain to me how they are not greedy, but leave out the Poor Owner bunk, cause I dont buy it.

You dont get to that level of monetary success wihout being greedy, plain & simple..not that there is anything wrong with that..IMO

I think that fully depends on who the owner/owners are now doesn't it. I dont know who owns all the teams, but some of the owners are publicaly traded companies. Maybe Atlanta has been sold, but they were owned by Time/Life. Anaheim was owned by Disney. The Rangers are owned by a publically traded company. any team that is owned by a company, like say the Maple Leafs, are not in it for the ego boost.

While its true there may be a few teams like the Detroit Red Wings that have ownership that can lose any amount of money to get a win, there are teams like St. Louis and Washington that are getting bled dry by those teams. After a time their ego isn't worth it anymore.

I have a friend that is pretty successful. He bought a Ferrari for his ego. He could afford it, so he bought it and loved it. UNTIL....he found out that an oil change and basic maintainance was about $2,500 every 3,000 miles. After a couple of years of that he couldn't stand it anymore and sold it. Same thing with the hockey teams.

Ted Leonsis was willing to lose some money so that the Capitals could win more and make a bigger/better place for themselves in the local sports market. The loses were an investment in the long term growth of the team. Instead it became just a money pit and he stopped with the spending.

I think too many posters lump ALL these owners into the same catagory when there are a wide variety of personalities, motivations, and companies at play.

The guy that bought Buffalo and the guy that bought Ottawa did it to save the teams. Not to lose millions of dollars. Mario owns his team because he would lose money that the team owed him. He didnt buy for ego. Some people have hockey teams because they came with the arena and the basketball team. You think they are all in it for personal ego?

For every Ilitch, Snyder, and Hicks there is a Lemieux or Comcast that has the team for a different reason.

 

[nyr7andcounting]

Theoretically, would it not be better for Toronto, Philadelphia, NYR, Vancouver, Detroit, and Colorado if some teams were to fold, thus increasing the talent pool? The lowest attendance figures are going to be when Nashville comes to town anyways.

What is Toronto's incentive to see a 30-team league, and therefore what is the incentive to share revenues? They thrived in a six-team league before, and would again as well.

The Torontos, on the other hand, aren't making it easier, because they aren't going to get into revenue sharing unless forced to.

Yes....which is why I don't think it is right for the NHL to have 30 teams. Low to mid 20's would be perfect. I never said I think the NHL needs revenue sharing to sustain 30 teams, but this is what the NHL says they want to do...and in that case they need to share revenues. It was a huge mistake, if the NHL had fewer teams the weakest teams would be healthier and it would probably be easier for the NHL to convince the big markets to share revenues. But that's another story and there's nothing you can do about it now. There is 30 teams and this lockout is about sustaining all of them. Unfortunate, but true. Because of that, Toronto has to suck it up and share revenues. Sucks for them and New York and Philly, but it's what they have to do. All though it may not be to their benefit, at least not in the short term, it's something the big markets need to be forced to do. The rest of the league has forced them in to this lockout, they would be able to force them to share revenues. Besides, they'll get that money back because overall the league will be better and eventually the big markets will take in more revenues.

So two questions. What about the rest of my post, you agree?

And in terms of Toronto....If there is a $42 million cap why is it okay for the Leafs to cut over $20 million from what they would be spending on player salaries but keep all of their revenues? If Leafs players are going to have to give away their revenue to help the rest of the league, why should it not be the same for the Leafs owners?

 

[nyr7andcounting]

Actually, Linden said the players are the product, and therefore cannot be compared to an autoworker's union, who create products.

Actually, he said he was insulted.

And did I ever say I agreed with Linden? They players are not the product, but they are close to it. In the end the game is the product. The players play it to win and the owners need to make sure that playing to win results in an exciting product.

 

[txpd]

Originally Posted by Cawz
They are both blaming a system, but if they showed restraint, the problems would dissapear.

A player could show restraint, but if he's the only one not clutchin, he'll be left behind.

An owner could show restriant, but if he's the only one staying within a budget, he'll be left behind.

Both are simplfied solutions that wont work in the real world.
................................................................................................................

Restraint??? LOL, this is sports where people want to win. where everyone is competitive and looking for an advantage. those that don't are screwed. those with restraint are called all kinds of horrible things. for instance.....

1. the boston bruins are not willing to over pay for players. the result is a reputation as a cheap team that is not interested in winning. in the 7th largest US market and a huge original 6 hockey market, they were 23rd and 22nd in attendance the last two seasons. showing restraint has done well for them.

2. a player that shows restraint and doesn't hit back is a weak link...a loser...not a team player if he shows restraint when a teammate takes a hit.

are you saying that when team A's major competition raises the ante by overspending for a player that gives them the advantage that team B should show restraint and let them win?? how well do you think the fans of team B would would take that?

 

[ResidentAlien*]

I think that fully depends on who the owner/owners are now doesn't it. I dont know who owns all the teams, but some of the owners are publicaly traded companies. Maybe Atlanta has been sold, but they were owned by Time/Life. Anaheim was owned by Disney. The Rangers are owned by a publically traded company. any team that is owned by a company, like say the Maple Leafs, are not in it for the ego boost.

While its true there may be a few teams like the Detroit Red Wings that have ownership that can lose any amount of money to get a win, there are teams like St. Louis and Washington that are getting bled dry by those teams. After a time their ego isn't worth it anymore.

I have a friend that is pretty successful. He bought a Ferrari for his ego. He could afford it, so he bought it and loved it. UNTIL....he found out that an oil change and basic maintainance was about $2,500 every 3,000 miles. After a couple of years of that he couldn't stand it anymore and sold it. Same thing with the hockey teams.

Ted Leonsis was willing to lose some money so that the Capitals could win more and make a bigger/better place for themselves in the local sports market. The loses were an investment in the long term growth of the team. Instead it became just a money pit and he stopped with the spending.

I think too many posters lump ALL these owners into the same catagory when there are a wide variety of personalities, motivations, and companies at play.

The guy that bought Buffalo and the guy that bought Ottawa did it to save the teams. Not to lose millions of dollars. Mario owns his team because he would lose money that the team owed him. He didnt buy for ego. Some people have hockey teams because they came with the arena and the basketball team. You think they are all in it for personal ego?

For every Ilitch, Snyder, and Hicks there is a Lemieux or Comcast that has the team for a different reason.

Excellent points all of them.But still
If you expect to make money from a NHL team in any market besides a few you mentioned, youd be crazee..no?
I have a friend who just bought a 90ft power sailor, the maintanence on that thing is astronomical, he however, knew that going in.He wouldnt have bought it if he couldnt afford the upkeep. If you buy a white elephant, be ready to feed it, cuz they get hungry and crap all over the place.

For your friend with the Ferrari-if there comes a time when your ego isnt worth the cash you dump, then you sell, or fold.
That's life.

 

[Timmy]

So two questions. What about the rest of my post, you agree?

And in terms of Toronto....If there is a $42 million cap why is it okay for the Leafs to cut over $20 million from what they would be spending on player salaries but keep all of their revenues? If Leafs players are going to have to give away their revenue to help the rest of the league, why should it not be the same for the Leafs owners?

I sort of agree, but I don't really like the analogy, so I'm not commenting on it. Sports metaphors work better in baseball and football.

The Leafs deserve to make more money because they have successfully marketed their product in their demographic area, and exanded that area nationally and internationally. Philedelphia, a relative newbie, has great fan support in North America. What did they do right?

A cap isn't a guarantee of success - you still have to have revenues, ie bums in the seats.

Team profits do not disappear into the ether - they are paid out as dividends to shareholders of parent companies, expand product lines, etc.

If you own a mutual fund, you own Disney. You own the Ducks. You want your mutual fund to do well in your IRA or RRSP, do you not? Or would you sacrifice your portfolio so that players are not further exploited by an unjust system?

So, a question for you. Bettman comes to you, Bob, and says, the BOG has talked it over. Complete free agency, no salary cap, and we're getting rid of the 14 weakest teams that are the reasons for all these caps and restrictions on free agency. They'll go bankrupt anyways over the next few years under your last proposal, and we'd rather not prolong the agony.

Do you put it to a vote?

EDIT: Or 10 teams, whatever. You know what I mean.

 

[Timmy]

Originally Posted by Cawz
1. the boston bruins are not willing to over pay for players. the result is a reputation as a cheap team that is not interested in winning. in the 7th largest US market and a huge original 6 hockey market, they were 23rd and 22nd in attendance the last two seasons. showing restraint has done well for them.

And Strachan, players, and agents absolutely shred the cheap bastards while the game is on, but during these little lockout tiffs, they're all suddenly stupid, wild drunken spending sailors.

We've got a writer here called Gallagher who would just rip Burke as a cheap ******* who didn't treat players with respect.

This about a guy who'll probably wind up being commissioner one day, vastly improved the product on and off the ice, and didn't overpay players.

But when he doesn't go out and sign Hasek or Cujo, he's a cheap ******* too.

 

[nyr7andcounting]

The Leafs deserve to make more money because they have successfully marketed their product in their demographic area, and exanded that area nationally and internationally. Philedelphia, a relative newbie, has great fan support in North America. What did they do right?

I agree they deserve it, but if the league wants to sustain 30 teams there is nothing else they can do but share revenues. If you support the NHL in this than that means you support wanting to sustain all 30 franchises. If you support doing that, than it makes no sense to not support revenue sharing. Personally I don't support either, but if the owners want all the teams they currently have they are going to have to share revenues to make it work.

A cap isn't a guarantee of success - you still have to have revenues, ie bums in the seats.

EXACTLY! A cap isn't a guarantee of success...you need to have the revenues in order to have success. Problem is some markets in the NHL will NEVER have those revenues. Cap or no cap they will NEVER be able to compete consistently. So how can people support the NHL wanting to sustain 30 teams if their solution to the problems of those 30 teams is a cap which won't guarantee an success?

You have said that the only way they succeed is if they all have the revenues...knowing some teams will never have the revenues by themselves than how can you support the fact that Bettman has almost completely ignored the real solution, revenue sharing, during this lockout?

So, a question for you. Bettman comes to you, Bob, and says, the BOG has talked it over. Complete free agency, no salary cap, and we're getting rid of the 14 weakest teams that are the reasons for all these caps and restrictions on free agency. They'll go bankrupt anyways over the next few years under your last proposal, and we'd rather not prolong the agony.

Do you put it to a vote?

14 no. If Bettman came to me and said we will get rid of 8 or 10 of the weakest teams and give you free agency and free market without a cap I would put it to a vote in a second (I would even put it to a vote if there were a cap or a luxury tax). I'm not saying it would pass when the players voted, but I would put it to a vote yes.

But now you are dealing with the idea of contraction...I agree it is a good idea but it's all hypothetical. Everything the owners and Bettman have said so far is that they will have 30 NHL teams. Because of that the solution isn't to take away teams to create a better league, all though it could work. The solution is to create the healthiest league with the 30 teams that we have now and the best way to do that is revenue sharing.

 

[VinnyVinnyVici]

Because really, if they really wanted to, they [the owners] could solve their problems by themselves by sharing revenues and restraining themselves from paying huge payrolls. Unfortunetly they don't want to do either by themselves so now they want to fix the system at the expense of the players. I would call the owners greedy.

Forgive me if I'm wrong, but wouldn't this be collusion?

And, how, in a CBA environment tilted totally in the players' favor in terms of inflationary pressures on salaries (110% minimum qualifying offers to RFAs, one-way arbitration, etc) can an owner possibly "restrain" salaries anyway?

Not to mention that it only takes one owner out of 30 making a ridiculously stupid FA signing (Lapointe, Yashin, Holik) to blow to smithereens the salary scale for the entire LEAGUE at their respective positions.

Please, nyr7andcounting, explain this to me. I'm not trying to be a smart-a$$ or anything, but I'd like to know how under the old CBA, the owners could have "restrained" themselves and not gutted their own teams in the process (in the case of Edmonton and others, over and over and over again)...

-----
Bulin Wall

P.S.: My team, the Bolts, are a "small market" team who happened to get very good and very lucky all at once and won the whole freakin' thing last year. Yes, their payroll last season was $34 million, and they showed quite a bit of "restraint." Their payroll next season, just as the result of re-signing their own players, was estimated to balloon to over $46 million under the terms of the old CBA. How, nyr7andcounting, were the Bolts supposed to show "restraint?" Let Martin St. Louis venture out onto the open market for the Ranger$$$ to sign to a 7-year, $50 million contract (as they have done with other players time and time and time again)?

And you want MY team to show "restraint???"

 

[Cawz]

Originally Posted by Cawz
They are both blaming a system, but if they showed restraint, the problems would dissapear.

A player could show restraint, but if he's the only one not clutchin, he'll be left behind.

An owner could show restriant, but if he's the only one staying within a budget, he'll be left behind.

Both are simplfied solutions that wont work in the real world.
................................................................................................................

Restraint??? LOL, this is sports where people want to win. where everyone is competitive and looking for an advantage. those that don't are screwed. those with restraint are called all kinds of horrible things. for instance.....

1. the boston bruins are not willing to over pay for players. the result is a reputation as a cheap team that is not interested in winning. in the 7th largest US market and a huge original 6 hockey market, they were 23rd and 22nd in attendance the last two seasons. showing restraint has done well for them.

2. a player that shows restraint and doesn't hit back is a weak link...a loser...not a team player if he shows restraint when a teammate takes a hit.

are you saying that when team A's major competition raises the ante by overspending for a player that gives them the advantage that team B should show restraint and let them win?? how well do you think the fans of team B would would take that?

Now you got me confused as to which side I’m arguing…

I was responding to the person who said the owners should just show restraint and not spend, and I compared that to saying that the players should just show restraint and not clutch. Neither scenario will work in the real world because of the system they are involved in. If you go back a few pages, you’ll see where I’m arguing from.

 

[nyr7andcounting]

Forgive me if I'm wrong, but wouldn't this be collusion?)

No it would not be collusion. There is a difference between 30 owners agreeing to set a limit on the market place and each individual owner setting a budget. Caps and budgets are two completely different things. If each owner set a budget for themselves depending on their revenues each teams would be different, it would not be collusion.

And, how, in a CBA environment tilted totally in the players' favor in terms of inflationary pressures on salaries (110% minimum qualifying offers to RFAs, one-way arbitration, etc) can an owner possibly "restrain" salaries anyway?

Not to mention that it only takes one owner out of 30 making a ridiculously stupid FA signing (Lapointe, Yashin, Holik) to blow to smithereens the salary scale for the entire LEAGUE at their respective positions.

I didn't say the last CBA worked. But let's say those inflationary pressures were fixed. Qualifiers, entry level salaries, arbitration is all changed so they are not purely inflationary and they work both ways. A major part of the problem would be solved wouldn't it? Owners would be able to restrain salaries because automatic raises would be throw out the window...throw a little common sense in there and salary inflation is nearly dead, atleast aggregate inflation. Those players that deserve raises would get them, but that's ok.

As for FA signings, revenue sharing can solve this problem as well. Extensive revenue sharing could act as a cap...I'm not saying that's the best thing but it's possible. I'm also not saying there shouldn't be a cap....there should be one to prevent the Yanks of MLB and the Rangers or Wings of the NHL. But the cap does not need to be so low that it's unagreeable with the union. Between revenue sharing and a spending deterent at some point salaries would basically hit a wall at a certain point.

Obviously there is an area where it is up to the owners to spend. They can restrain themselves by forming budgets, something all business do. When you have revenue sharing, everyone's budget would be pretty close and it's up to each owner to show some common sense.

Please, nyr7andcounting, explain this to me. I'm not trying to be a smart-a$$ or anything, but I'd like to know how under the old CBA, the owners could have "restrained" themselves and not gutted their own teams in the process (in the case of Edmonton and others, over and over and over again)...

Aside from common sense and easy mathematics they couldn't...but I can understand it. Owners will be competative, the problem with the last CBA was that it was inflationary in almost every way.

But I never said it worked. I agree they need a new CBA, but I just don't think that the league has even come close to solving the problems that exist. Revenue sharing is the best way and the owners refuse to do it.


The bottom line is nothing, not even a cap, solves the NHL's biggest problems. They need revenue sharing just as baseball needed it and the NFL needed it many years ago.

 

[Cawz]

And how will staying within a budget will leave owners behind? Just as the players goal is to win, the owners goal is to make money...setting a budget would help them achieve their goal, wouldn't it? And if you look at it in the NHL, the teams who are losing the most who need a budget the most certainly would not be "left behind" if they do so. If the Rangers stopped spending $70 million a year on salaries and set their budget at $50 million, I certainly wouldn't say they are being left behind with that payroll.

Owners goal is to win. They make more money that way and it also is the reason for having a sports team. If they set a budget, it wont help them achieve their goal if other teams dont have the same budget. This has been pointed out numerous times and doesnt need to be rehashed any more.

And dont use the Rangers to illustate a point. Using an anomaly to back up your argument lessens your stance.

 

[VinnyVinnyVici]

Owners goal is to win. They make more money that way and it also is the reason for having a sports team. If they set a budget, it wont help them achieve their goal if other teams dont have the same budget. This has been pointed out numerous times and doesnt need to be rehashed any more.

Exactly, Cawz - and if you don't mind, I'll rehash it one more time...

If one team out of 30 decides to say, "screw it, I'm gonna sign all of the best players out there and make a run at the Cup, to hell with a budget," then that one team will blow the salary scales for all FAs on the "open" market and drive up costs for all the teams in the league for all future years - "budget" or no "budget."

Agents are sophisticated and cunning enough to use all of these signings as leverage in future negotiations for all their current (and future) clients...

And dont use the Rangers to illustate a point. Using an anomaly to back up your argument lessens your stance.

 

[Icey]

And you think a cap is going to mean that all 30 teams have the same budget?? Think again. The Nashville Predators and the Toronto Maple Leafs are NOT going to have the same budget, not even close. Nashville will continue to have one of the lowest payrolls regardless of what the cap is. For the sake of arguments lets say the cap is set at $40M and like the last NHL offer has no floor, Nashville will probably have a payroll of around $18M and yet Toronto will push the cap to the limit. So how does Nashville and Toronto have the same budget?

Problem is people who are pro-owner think a cap is going to solve all the problems in the league and all the sudden all 30 teams are going to be making money. Nothing could be further from the truth. If Nashville can't afford a $23M payroll and make money how are they going to ice a $40M payroll and make money?

 

[Timmy]

And you think a cap is going to mean that all 30 teams have the same budget?? Think again. The Nashville Predators and the Toronto Maple Leafs are NOT going to have the same budget, not even close. Nashville will continue to have one of the lowest payrolls regardless of what the cap is. For the sake of arguments lets say the cap is set at $40M and like the last NHL offer has no floor, Nashville will probably have a payroll of around $18M and yet Toronto will push the cap to the limit. So how does Nashville and Toronto have the same budget?

Problem is people who are pro-owner think a cap is going to solve all the problems in the league and all the sudden all 30 teams are going to be making money. Nothing could be further from the truth. If Nashville can't afford a $23M payroll and make money how are they going to ice a $40M payroll and make money?

They're not going to.

But at least they can tell their lenders that they won't have a 46m payroll in three years just because they made the playoffs (see Tampa).

It's about the future.

 

[nyr7andcounting]

Owners goal is to win. They make more money that way and it also is the reason for having a sports team. If they set a budget, it wont help them achieve their goal if other teams dont have the same budget. This has been pointed out numerous times and doesnt need to be rehashed any more.

Sure but making money is an even bigger goal. Why do you invest hundreds of millions in a team if you aren't looking to make money on it? What is this lockout about? Owners want to make money on their investment before anything else...setting a budget would help them do that, not hurt them.

Your argument against setting a budget is based on the last CBA. That is history. We are talking about a new CBA where teams are going to be on a more level playing field. Revenue sharing is the best way to accomplish what needs to be done in this CBA. The biggest problem is disparities in revenues which results in disparities in payrolls. Meaningful revenue sharing would solve both of these problems in a reasonable way. If it happened and every team made a budget for themselves at which they could make money or break even on the year almost all of the budgets would be very close to each other. No team would not be able to compete because their budget is $10 million lower than another team.

And dont use the Rangers to illustate a point. Using an anomaly to back up your argument lessens your stance.

Than you missed my point. My point was that there are teams out there who could easily make a budget based on their revenues and still be spending a very high amount. Just because you set a budget doesn't mean you fall behind. If you now understand my point, replace the Rangers with any team in the top 8 or 10 in revenues if you want.

 

[nyr7andcounting]

Exactly, Cawz - and if you don't mind, I'll rehash it one more time...

If one team out of 30 decides to say, "screw it, I'm gonna sign all of the best players out there and make a run at the Cup, to hell with a budget," then that one team will blow the salary scales for all FAs on the "open" market and drive up costs for all the teams in the league for all future years - "budget" or no "budget."QUOTE]

Again, you have missed the point I have been making this whole thread. With meaningful revenue sharing all teams would be on the same planet in terms of what they can spend on salaries. Most teams would have a similar budget. A cap is needed to prevent a Yankee type team in the NHL, but that cap doesn't have to be at 42 million.

You asked me to explain a bunch of things to you, but I get no response to my last post?

 

[thinkwild]

given that the current economic situation is not viable, the choices become replacement players or no nhl for another year. I guess I am going to choose to watch replacement players.

It always amazes me that people accept these as the ONLY 2 options.

Of course the owners could take the rollback to the levels they said they needed, and then NOT run their businesses into the ground with the lame excuse, the Devil made me do it. Yes i know, that is way too radical. No option there.

 

[me2]

They are the product.

All those other schlepps in the SEL etc were just being watched by European fans who didn't know any better until now. Now, they can enjoy real hockey and those bums they were watching before can just get on back to the meatball factory where they belong.

And the NHL players can enjoy real market wages playing in the SEL.

 

[Timmy]

And the NHL players can enjoy real market wages playing in the SEL.

:lol

Exactly.

 

[SENSible1*]

And you think a cap is going to mean that all 30 teams have the same budget?? Think again. The Nashville Predators and the Toronto Maple Leafs are NOT going to have the same budget, not even close. Nashville will continue to have one of the lowest payrolls regardless of what the cap is. For the sake of arguments lets say the cap is set at $40M and like the last NHL offer has no floor, Nashville will probably have a payroll of around $18M and yet Toronto will push the cap to the limit. So how does Nashville and Toronto have the same budget?

Problem is people who are pro-owner think a cap is going to solve all the problems in the league and all the sudden all 30 teams are going to be making money. Nothing could be further from the truth. If Nashville can't afford a $23M payroll and make money how are they going to ice a $40M payroll and make money?

The NHL offered a deal which had a payroll range of $10 M.

The NHL offered revenue sharing to ensure all teams could meet the minimum cap.

 

[Icey]

The NHL offered a deal which had a payroll range of $10 M.

The NHL offered revenue sharing to ensure all teams could meet the minimum cap.

The last NHL proposal has no payroll floor, so I am not sure where you are pulling that $10M range from, but there was a maximum of $42M but not minimum.

The NHL revenue sharing is a joke. They themselves have said many times they do not feel revenue sharing needs to be addressed or think it is an important part of the process. And their great revenue sharing used mostly playoff money so teams like Nashville, Calgary, San Jose, Tampa Bay all of whom would RECEIVE it under the NHLPA proposal actually PAY it under the NHL's proposal. And a team like NY Rangers who don't make the playoffs keep most of their revenue because they have no playoff revenue. Yeah, thats great revenue sharing, drink some more of that kool-aid.

 

[mooseOAK*]

The last NHL proposal has no payroll floor, so I am not sure where you are pulling that $10M range from, but there was a maximum of $42M but not minimum.

The NHL revenue sharing is a joke. They themselves have said many times they do not feel revenue sharing needs to be addressed or think it is an important part of the process. And their great revenue sharing used mostly playoff money so teams like Nashville, Calgary, San Jose, Tampa Bay all of whom would RECEIVE it under the NHLPA proposal actually PAY it under the NHL's proposal. And a team like NY Rangers who don't make the playoffs keep most of their revenue because they have no playoff revenue. Yeah, thats great revenue sharing, drink some more of that kool-aid.

Nashville, San Jose, and Calgary and up to lately TB were hardly perennial playoff teams. The high revenue teams have always had the best chances of making the playoffs year after year and if one of the smaller market teams by virtue of revenue sharing manages to make the playoffs and has to pay some of it back, then that's all right.

 

[SENSible1*]

The last NHL proposal has no payroll floor, so I am not sure where you are pulling that $10M range from, but there was a maximum of $42M but not minimum.

Linkage came off the table at the PA's request. With it the PA had minimum gaurantees.

The NHL revenue sharing is a joke. They themselves have said many times they do not feel revenue sharing needs to be addressed or think it is an important part of the process. And their great revenue sharing used mostly playoff money so teams like Nashville, Calgary, San Jose, Tampa Bay all of whom would RECEIVE it under the NHLPA proposal actually PAY it under the NHL's proposal. And a team like NY Rangers who don't make the playoffs keep most of their revenue because they have no playoff revenue. Yeah, thats great revenue sharing, drink some more of that kool-aid.

The joke is people who fail to understand that revenue sharing is 100% the owners business. How they get all teams to the 53-55% range is their business, just as long as they do. Let the PA write in penalty clauses or have the CBA voided if the owners fail to fulfill their end of the bargain or lose any franchises.

 

[VinnyVinnyVici]

Exactly, Cawz - and if you don't mind, I'll rehash it one more time...

If one team out of 30 decides to say, "screw it, I'm gonna sign all of the best players out there and make a run at the Cup, to hell with a budget," then that one team will blow the salary scales for all FAs on the "open" market and drive up costs for all the teams in the league for all future years - "budget" or no "budget."

Again, you have missed the point I have been making this whole thread. With meaningful revenue sharing all teams would be on the same planet in terms of what they can spend on salaries. Most teams would have a similar budget. A cap is needed to prevent a Yankee type team in the NHL, but that cap doesn't have to be at 42 million.

You asked me to explain a bunch of things to you, but I get no response to my last post?

Okay, nyr7andcounting, I'll bite.

I do believe that meaningful revenue sharing is needed in the NHL - the 9-11% that the NHL types have been bandying about is an absolute joke, and making any revenue sharing plan a 50-50 split between regular-season and postseason only serves to penalize those teams that were good enough to make the playoffs in the first place. HOWEVER, revenue sharing, quite frankly, is not the players association's business. Why should they care whether Toronto shares its league-high revenues (due to their market and their hockey demographics which are unparalleled) with a market like Florida or Carolina?

Okay, I'll answer that.... it's because they naturally want Florida's and Carolina's payrolls to approach that of Toronto's, and, as a result, drive up salaries for all teams across the board. In other words, another inflationary trigger that the PA can exploit. In that sense, any cap paired with revenue sharing would indeed act as a "magnet," driving all teams toward that number.

Now, answer me this, nyr7andcounting: if the PA were to get their 100% revenue sharing and the owners paired that with a hard cap tied to a set percentage of hockey-related revenues, set by an independent auditor (say, 55-60%), do you really think that the PA would accept this? My thinking is: HELL NO they wouldn't, because what they would REALLY like to see is 100% revenue sharing with NO CAP AT ALL so that they can inflate salaries with no ceiling - and in even more markets than they are able to now.

Do you think Toronto, Detroit, Colorado, Philadelphia, etc. would like to see all of their marginal revenues going straight into the hands of the PA???