Loonie above 1.04

[Melrose Munch]

http://www.cbc.ca/news/business/story/2011/07/04/loonie-markets.html

Uh Oh.

The cap we go even higher next season.

Click to read more...

 

[Fourier]

http://www.cbc.ca/news/business/story/2011/07/04/loonie-markets.html

Uh Oh.

The cap we go even higher next season.

With the new TV deal and the dollar where it is, along with other factors, I would not be surprised to see the cap reach $70M.

 

[King Woodballs]

The CBA is dont after this next upcoming season (11/12)

The cap wont get to 70 million. There are to many teams struggling to make the floor.

There is be some changes done next summer before that will happen.

 

[Melrose Munch]

Fehr vs bettman?

 

[Dado]

Fehr vs bettman?

Don't think so. Fehr and Bettman will be on the same side for this - both will push for much greater revenue sharing.

It'll be profitable owners against bad-market owners, this go round.

 

[Marc the Habs Fan]

The CBA is dont after this next upcoming season (11/12)

The cap wont get to 70 million. There are to many teams struggling to make the floor.

There is be some changes done next summer before that will happen.

The CBA expires on September 15th 2012.

So there will be a cap set in June 2012, I would imagine. The players would probably argue the cap based on the current formula (and not a revised one) should be in effect for 2012-13 if they can get a new CBA done before the season.

 

[La Grosse Tendresse]

So the league as a whole making more money is a bad thing...

 

[Dado]

So the league as a whole making more money is a bad thing...

When it's as unevenly distributed as this, yes.

Drop the bottom six revenue teams, and situation would be much much better (and players would, ironically, get paid more).

 

[King Woodballs]

The CBA expires on September 15th 2012.

So there will be a cap set in June 2012, I would imagine. The players would probably argue the cap based on the current formula (and not a revised one) should be in effect for 2012-13 if they can get a new CBA done before the season.

Maybe...
but maybe some of the owners dont want this system for making the cap limits....
there are quite a few teams that are struggling with making mpney at the cap floor let alone going higher then that.

 

[Jonas1235]

I actually saved money on my ebay purchases yesterday. Love having a high dollar.

 

[MoreOrr]

When it's as unevenly distributed as this, yes.

Drop the bottom six revenue teams, and situation would be much much better (and players would, ironically, get paid more).

Yes, and six teams fewer players to receive that money. I wonder if most players know who those 130 odd players would be, now and in Seasons to come.

 

[Pantokrator]

I wish the league would require more from the owners. What I mean is that apparently some owners come into the league and expect to make money. That likely won't happen. Owners like Balsillie should be courted, filling teams with owners who are willing to spend because they care more about winning than making money.

Maybe it is difficult to find owners as such, but when they find a possible owner like Balsillie, the league ought to do what it can to procure them, not drive him away. I'm tired of hearing owners complain about losing money. Sell the team.

 

[Burningblades]

I think they generally want local owners and handcuff themselves with that as to finding owners willing to lose money. But the floor is getting to high they could increase the difference between the cap and the floor by a bit more IMO.

 

[Jonas1235]

I wish the league would require more from the owners. What I mean is that apparently some owners come into the league and expect to make money. That likely won't happen. Owners like Balsillie should be courted, filling teams with owners who are willing to spend because they care more about winning than making money.

Maybe it is difficult to find owners as such, but when they find a possible owner like Balsillie, the league ought to do what it can to procure them, not drive him away. I'm tired of hearing owners complain about losing money. Sell the team.

You mean, the Jim Balsillie who is fighting for his job at RIM? Who's stocks have plummeted by over 50% and is going to be sold to Apple or another technology company. He doesn`t have nearly the same amount of money that he did two years ago.

Plus, he made a very bad impression on the BOG and will likely never be accepted. He botched it by himself. Nobody else to blame but himself.

 

[Fourier]

The CBA is dont after this next upcoming season (11/12)

The cap wont get to 70 million. There are to many teams struggling to make the floor.

There is be some changes done next summer before that will happen.

We do not know if the CBA is done, unless I missed something. It can be extended indefinitely if neither party chooses to terminate it.

Right now I do not see the NHLPA's incentive to terminate the deal. And I wounder if the NHL would do so until they had a clear and reasonably unified idea of what ownership wants. Because it is possible that the battle between various owners could be as intense as the battle between the league and the players. So if I had to guess right now I would say the CBA survives at least one more year.

 

[Confucius]

I have no problem with rev sharing, provided they charge the same price for tickets in all locations. Charging more for tickets in one city so fans in another city can attend games at cheaper prices just seems wrong. Let the market level out, teams will eventually locate to the most profitable locations.

 

[King Woodballs]

We do not know if the CBA is done, unless I missed something. It can be extended indefinitely if neither party chooses to terminate it.

Right now I do not see the NHLPA's incentive to terminate the deal. And I wounder if the NHL would do so until they had a clear and reasonably unified idea of what ownership wants. Because it is possible that the battle between various owners could be as intense as the battle between the league and the players. So if I had to guess right now I would say the CBA survives at least one more year.

I was under the impression that the last extension was it.
It is done after this next season with no more extensions allowed.

 

[Dado]

I have no problem with rev sharing, provided they charge the same price for tickets in all locations.

Good luck with that.

I get your reasoning - I really do.

But...good luck with that.

 

[Fourier]

I was under the impression that the last extension was it.
It is done after this next season with no more extensions allowed.

The CBA explicitly allows for the agreement to continue unless one of the parties asks for it to be terminated. I could have missed this notification as I have been busy of late, but I would have assumed that would have gotten some play here.

ARTICLE 3
DURATION OF AGREEMENT
3.1 Term.
(a) This Agreement is effective retroactive to September 16, 2004 (the
“Effective Dateâ€), and shall remain in full force and effect until midnight New York time on September 15, 2011, and shall remain in effect from year to year thereafter unless and until either party shall deliver to the other a written notice of termination of this Agreement at least 120 days prior to September 15, 2011 or not less than a like period in any year thereafter.

(b) Notwithstanding anything to the contrary set forth in subparagraph 3.1(a),
the NHLPA shall have the right: (i) to terminate this Agreement as of September 15,
2009 by delivery of written notice of termination to the NHL at least 120 days prior to
September 15, 2009; or (ii) to extend this Agreement for one additional year to
September 15, 2012 by delivery of written notice to the NHL of such election to extend at least 120 days prior to September 15, 2011.

 

[tarheelhockey]

Charging more for tickets in one city so fans in another city can attend games at cheaper prices just seems wrong.

That's not what happens. Ticket prices are set by local supply-and-demand, not by the CBA.

If people in Toronto stopped buying Leafs tickets, prices would go down... if Panthers games started selling out nightly, prices would go up. It's that simple.

 

[sh724]

I have no problem with rev sharing, provided they charge the same price for tickets in all locations. Charging more for tickets in one city so fans in another city can attend games at cheaper prices just seems wrong. Let the market level out, teams will eventually locate to the most profitable locations.

And then the league would lose a couple teams a year until there are about 10 teams left and they will slowly die off until the league is gone. Its imposible for every team to charge the same amount even Canadian teams would fail. There is not enough profitable markets to support any league if teams are forced to charge as much as TOR does

 

[sh724]

When it's as unevenly distributed as this, yes.

Drop the bottom six revenue teams, and situation would be much much better (and players would, ironically, get paid more).

Dropping the bottom six teams would not make much of a difference at all. If your drop those teams the cap would jump atleast 10 mil in one year then 1/2 of the remaining 24 teams would collapse. The problem is not so much how little the bottom 6 make but how much the top teams make. Toronto makes like $60 million more than any team, the top 2-3 teams basically control how much the cap goes up dropping teams makes those 2-3 teams even stronger in controlling the cap. What needs to be done is not include the top 5 and bottom 5 teams when calculating the new cap. The owners and players would never agree to lose 6 teams thats a ton of less jobs for the PA and a ton of money the remaining 24 owners would lose having to buy out 6 teams plus all the losses in revenue when national ratings and national endorsements significantly drop.

 

[Confucius]

That's not what happens. Ticket prices are set by local supply-and-demand, not by the CBA.

If people in Toronto stopped buying Leafs tickets, prices would go down... if Panthers games started selling out nightly, prices would go up. It's that simple.

How would you feel if every state paid $4 per gallon for gas and your state paid $12. More gas should be sent to your state to ease the demand, would that not seem fair? Pretty smug to say don't buy gas, it's that simple.

 

[Bear of Bad News]

How would you feel if every state paid $4 per gallon for gas and your state paid $12. More gas should be sent to your state to ease the demand, would that not seem fair? Pretty smug to say don't buy gas, it's that simple.

Can you explain how your example ties into the hockey ticket situation? Are you suggesting that (for instance) Florida send more tickets to Toronto?

 

[Confucius]

And then the league would lose a couple teams a year until there are about 10 teams left and they will slowly die off until the league is gone. Its imposible for every team to charge the same amount even Canadian teams would fail. There is not enough profitable markets to support any league if teams are forced to charge as much as TOR does[/]

The solution is put enough teams in the area and force the price down. The average fan can't afford Leaf prices.