Jackets swing pair of deals with Edmonton

[kasper11]

Someone can correct me if I am wrong, but don't we also add in some amount (10% of the cap I think) as television revenue at the end of the season?

That is about $5M per team or $150M total added in.

I think we should allow teams to go negative so long as they stay above -5M, maybe with a penalty.

 

[SPG]

Quite true - ideally, this would have been raised at the time Josh was negotiating the trade. Since it wasn't, should Josh be on the hook for this?

As for the endorsement dollars, ouch! I thought they'd already been deducted, so yeah, maybe the Jackets *will* be looking for a new GM sooner than later...

The Jackets aren't the only team that may be looking for a new GM... looks like our Commish, Asst Commish, Sim manger, and backup sim manager/webmaster among others are also all in jeopardy.

 

[SPG]

...also, from what i'm hearing, there could be some major bombshells dropping tomorrow from one team in particular as a result of the financial situation.

 

[Canuck09]

I agree. But for the poor teams it doesn't work. For one, I can't afford the hit at the start of the season. Last season I didn't do ANY. The season before I did two, and got one, pulled out of the other. This season I did two for a total of two million and my max return is only 6 million (4 because I'll have to pull out of the Backstrom one because of poor performance).

Also - I have a high salary and if I move all the salary I could never hit any of the endorsements anyway (except for Mountain Dew) so even if I manage to stay alive by waiving all my players, I still won't ever be able qualify for the endorsements because they are structured to reward success (and rightly so.) and even with players I have (one of the best G and two top 10 scoring forwards in the NHL (who have made my team the lowest scoring in the entire HF btw)) I still can't get success.

You and Brock both make very good points, I agree. I don't think endorsements should be counted on as a source of income for teams, especially when they can't give all teams equal opportunities. I find the idea fun in general and wonder what Brock had in mind when he meant they counted towards year end goals. It would be interesting to hear other ideas of how they can reward/penalize teams, but with everyone having the same chance at them. Endorsements aren't really the issue though, just a side portion of the revenue issue that's been brought up.

 

[Canuck09]

...also, from what i'm hearing, there could be some major bombshells dropping tomorrow from one team in particular as a result of the financial situation.

Which is horrible to hear, hopefully it doesn't come to that.

 

[MatthewFlames]

Here's some numbers (I did this a couple of weeks ago for the admin team...)

Average revenue/gp as of the end of 2008 was $693K while our current average revenue is $671K.

The average attendance/gp at the end of 2008 was 14602 while the our current average attendance is 14053.

I will say another factor that hasn't really been taken into consideration is that the vast majority of teams have lowered their ticket prices as the season has gone on because of the lower attendance. From what I see this has had little effect, certainly on the handful of teams I've been watching, so the revenue in the league may actually be dropping every week.

 

[Canuck09]

I will say another factor that hasn't really been taken into consideration is that the vast majority of teams have lowered their ticket prices as the season has gone on because of the lower attendance. From what I see this has had little effect, certainly on the handful of teams I've been watching, so the revenue in the league may actually be dropping every week.

I agree with this as well, and think it was touched on in another thread. It seems that whether you lower or increase your ticket prices within a certain range, the game to game revenue will be very similar. The variable to this seems to be whether you or your opponent has a very strong team, lots of 80+ players, or on a hot streak. I've already changed my prices 2 or 3 times this year (rookie mistake of not knowing there was a limit) and noticed that my revenue hasn't changed a whole lot, definitely not enough to not lose lots of money.

 

[Toronto_AGM_Adil]

The problem isn't with revenue, it's with payrolls... average payrolls have gone up an average of 5M from last season; equivalent to the salary cap increase. There have been no significant revenue increases to warrent GM's increasing their payroll spending... unless ofcourse they were willing to dip into their cash reserves.

I know everyone's going to look to blame the agents on the increase in payroll but befor we all point the finger in their direction keep in mind how much we all over-spent in free-agency and UFA signings the last couple of years... I'm not sure why we are all surprised this has happened.

I don't want to play the bad guy here but I'm sorry someone has to bring this up. I think though that teams shouldn't worry, the admin team is having this same discussion.

 

[Dryden]

umm

The problem is with revenues. 41 home games can not cover 82 games worth of expenses. Not one team can ever make money that way

 

[Toronto_AGM_Adil]

The problem is with revenues. 41 home games can not cover 82 games worth of expenses. Not one team can ever make money that way

how can revenue be the problem if average game revenue has not gone down? If the average game revenue isn't enough to cover expenses maybe the problem is with expenses... ie payroll

 

[Hossa]

how can revenue be the problem if average game revenue has not gone down? If the average game revenue isn't enough to cover expenses maybe the problem is with expenses... ie payroll

Payrolls which are tied to NHL salaries, which are magnetized to the cap, which is tied to revenues...but none of this is tied to HFNHL revenues. So NHL revenues go up, NHL salaries and the NHL cap go up, as do our salaries and cap, but never our revenues.

 

[Wildman]

The problem isn't with revenue, it's with payrolls... average payrolls have gone up an average of 5M from last season; equivalent to the salary cap increase. There have been no significant revenue increases to warrent GM's increasing their payroll spending... unless ofcourse they were willing to dip into their cash reserves.

I know everyone's going to look to blame the agents on the increase in payroll but befor we all point the finger in their direction keep in mind how much we all over-spent in free-agency and UFA signings the last couple of years... I'm not sure why we are all surprised this has happened.

I don't want to play the bad guy here but I'm sorry someone has to bring this up. I think though that teams shouldn't worry, the admin team is having this same discussion.

The agent are in the best interest of the players. I think the GM needs to learn to let go some of their assets if the asking price is high. As I recall, there was not much left in UFA las season as majority of th eplayers were signed prior to free agency.

 

[Dryden]

I signed Tanguay for less than his NHL salary before the season started and free agency was over.

 

[Wildman]

I signed Tanguay for less than his NHL salary before the season started and free agency was over.

Yes you did

 

[Ohio Jones]

Aw. look at my little thread, all grown up... *sniff*

I guess this is the right place to announce the following:

CD - Columbus, OH

Nationwide Arena -

Following the thrilling overtime win against the conference-leading Blues, Blue Jackets GM Doug Emerson announced that veterans Martin St. Louis and Scott Hannan had been traded to the Washington Capitals.

Coming back in the deal is 25-year-old defenceman Mark Giordano, a first-round pick in the 2010 entry draft, as well as prospects Adam Henrique, Kirill Petrov and Dane Byers. Washington also included some cash.

In the past two days, Columbus has slashed its salary commitments by almost $12 million, but in the process has given up its top scorer and both of its top defencemen, all in a bid to stop a hemhorraging back balance.

Whether the moves will be enough to stave off bankruptcy, and whether the newly-constituted team will be able to stay in the playoff hunt remain to be seen, but on thing is certain: it is an interesting time to be a Jackets fan.

Maybe not a *fun* time, exactly, but certainly interesting.

 

[MatthewFlames]

As I recall, there was not much left in UFA las season as majority of th eplayers were signed prior to free agency.

And that probably acted to keep salaries down... in the past year we've tied salaries even closer to the NHL - and lets not forget that their magnet is 6 million per team higher than ours.... so we're paying players based on that even though we're still at 50.3.

 

[Fan.At]

to me it looks like that we are developing into a more imbalanced league than ever before. with the competitiveness of the western conference this season, i thought we are on a good way to have a balanced and fun league, but apparently that is not of interest for *some* gms.

i was fortunate enough to have enough money in the bank when i took over my team - but the way things seem to develop, i have to take care not to be in trouble in a few years. but gms who take over a team which has less money (and NOT because of their fault) are not only in trouble, it comes close to being impossible to be competitive for a longer time ...

as for me, i rather have a competitive league where everyone has fun in than to insist on some financial model that (additionally to the salary cap) restrains a lot of teams in a big way when it come to competitiveness. i think thats what it will all come down to.

 

[Canuck09]

how can revenue be the problem if average game revenue has not gone down? If the average game revenue isn't enough to cover expenses maybe the problem is with expenses... ie payroll

I'm on board with what Sean had to say about this.

You can't have a league tied to NHL contracts and expect teams to have $30-35 Mil payrolls in the HF. It's not the agents fault at all, they are doing exactly as is stated in the rules, it's the fact that revenue doesn't seem to have been increased to cope with the higher payroll.

 

[Vagrant]

10% salary roll back? What does the HFNHLPA think about this?

 

[Toronto_AGM_Adil]

I'm on board with what Sean had to say about this.

You can't have a league tied to NHL contracts and expect teams to have $30-35 Mil payrolls in the HF. It's not the agents fault at all, they are doing exactly as is stated in the rules, it's the fact that revenue doesn't seem to have been increased to cope with the higher payroll.

I don't know why everyone feels that teams have no control over their payrolls... no one is forcing anyone to bid excessively in free agency, or over-pay for a UFA because the corresponding NHL team did. Everyone knows how much their payroll was the year befor, why go up if you don't have any projected revenue increase?

With a more robust free agency market teams wouldn't have had to over-bid for the few players available and payrolls wouldn't be in such a bad state.

I hope everyone realizes that NHL teams are having the same problems today...

 

[Ohio Jones]

I don't know why everyone feels that teams have no control over their payrolls... no one is forcing anyone to bid excessively in free agency, or over-pay for a UFA because the corresponding NHL team did. Everyone knows how much their payroll was the year befor, why go up if you don't have any projected revenue increase?

With a more robust free agency market teams wouldn't have had to over-bid for the few players available and payrolls wouldn't be in such a bad state.

I hope everyone realizes that NHL teams are having the same problems today...

While I hear what you're saying, Adil, (and I am obviously working on a solution to my team's situation internally, since I recognize my problems are as much my own making as they are systemic), there are significant factors working against your theory. First, we are a league that requires teams to field competitive rosters (minimum OV rule and restrictions on who you can waive and for how long), so a number of poorer teams have had to spend in ways that are probably unsound from both economic and hockey perspectives just in order to meet their obligations. Second, revenues are strongly tied to peformance in the form of winning streaks, OV80 players, playoffs and endorsements. We ain't the Oakland A's, and this ain't "moneypuck" -- noone's figured out a way to achieve sustainable success on-ice without spending... if not to the cap, certainly above the level of revenues.

So we require teams to be competitive, and only successful teams can make money. That makes it very difficult for teams to pursue your cost-saving strategy, which at best limits losses.

 

[Wildman]

I don't know why everyone feels that teams have no control over their payrolls... no one is forcing anyone to bid excessively in free agency, or over-pay for a UFA because the corresponding NHL team did. Everyone knows how much their payroll was the year befor, why go up if you don't have any projected revenue increase?

With a more robust free agency market teams wouldn't have had to over-bid for the few players available and payrolls wouldn't be in such a bad state.

I hope everyone realizes that NHL teams are having the same problems today...

Adil, just look at my team...the projected revenue is around $18M and even if I hit the incentive to the max I will get is $4M ..so what team can you put together with $22M budget?

 

[Canuck09]

I don't know why everyone feels that teams have no control over their payrolls... no one is forcing anyone to bid excessively in free agency, or over-pay for a UFA because the corresponding NHL team did. Everyone knows how much their payroll was the year befor, why go up if you don't have any projected revenue increase?

With a more robust free agency market teams wouldn't have had to over-bid for the few players available and payrolls wouldn't be in such a bad state.

I hope everyone realizes that NHL teams are having the same problems today...

Does this mean we shouldn't re-sign a single player before FA every summer? Leave things until the offseason and basically have a dispersal draft of all the FAs? If we say there will be 2 or 3 good players per team up for FA every year, 60-90 league wide, that teams aren't going to get competitve for those players? The teams with modest bank accounts might stay somewhat in check, but the ones that have just been through the playoffs and have lots of money saved up are going to make sure they pay the right price (a high one) to get the top players again.

We're forced to over pay for FAs, because the NHL does, there is no real way around this. The NHL sets the market that the agents follow. I might not think Rozsival is worth the $5 Mil he's making in the NHL but have I had any luck at all in bringing that number down in my extension talks with Mickey? Not so much. So I either buck up and pay what he requires to keep my team together, or risk losing both him and the assets I traded to get him. Even if things get to the open market in FA, GMs are going to use the NHL contracts as a starting point for their offers...and if they don't, the players probably aren't going to accept anyways. I agree that there needs to be some self control (I was an AGM for the Ducks during FA last summer) but to say we can maintain a low payroll when the NHL is running a $56 Mil cap and driving contracts up is something I don't agree with.

Hopefully I'm wrong and there is a simple fix in the works. Hopefully I can sign my slew of FAs to reasonable deals too

 

[SPG]

The problem isn't with revenue, it's with payrolls... average payrolls have gone up an average of 5M from last season; equivalent to the salary cap increase. There have been no significant revenue increases to warrent GM's increasing their payroll spending... unless ofcourse they were willing to dip into their cash reserves.

I know everyone's going to look to blame the agents on the increase in payroll but befor we all point the finger in their direction keep in mind how much we all over-spent in free-agency and UFA signings the last couple of years... I'm not sure why we are all surprised this has happened.

I don't want to play the bad guy here but I'm sorry someone has to bring this up. I think though that teams shouldn't worry, the admin team is having this same discussion.

The main goal of this league from the very beginning, 10 years ago now, was to be as realistic as we can in respect to the NHL. All of our salaries are tied in to the NHL's (especially with the new re-signing rules), and as a result, so is our cap, etc. The problem isn't payroll. Our payrolls are right on par with the NHL's. The problem is the simulator. It's ancient.

 

[Wildman]

The main goal of this league from the very beginning, 10 years ago now, was to be as realistic as we can in respect to the NHL. All of our salaries are tied in to the NHL's (especially with the new re-signing rules), and as a result, so is our cap, etc. The problem isn't payroll. Our payrolls are right on par with the NHL's. The problem is the simulator. It's ancient.

The easy solution is to raise the revenue meter. I believe it was set at minimum.