NFL players happy with their cap

[Buffaloed]

And how much has the NFL brought in from expansion fees during the same time?

I don't know, you tell me. Also what were the fees used for. Were they used to pay down debts and cover operating expenses or was it discretionary income?

Once again, how does the NFL players extending the CBA from 93 to the present signify that they are still happy with the agreement when the NHL owners have done the same but are unhappy with their agreement?

I think it's a matter of common sense. There's too much digging, looking for ulterior motives and conspiracies. Profitable businesses don't close their shops, and disgruntled union members don't keep silent. I'd find it impossible to believe that the media wouldn't be reporting on disenchanted NFLPA members, which would surely be the case if they weren't happy with their CBA. I'm not aware of any movement afoot to oust the NHLPA leaders. The NHL will suffer huge losses over this lockout. They don't put that on the line unless they are already suffering. I've yet to see a profitable business or satisfied union members, not excersize an option to extend a CBA and keep the status quo.

 

[thinkwild]

I show you all these cases of fan disenchantment with the results of the cap on their sport, and you guys come back with, ya but they have better pension plans, franchise values, and profits for their owners? Whose side are you on anyway?

They used expansion money to COVER opertaing costs? Thats hilarious. Their costs were low. They used them to drive them through the roof. Now they cant afford it. So what? They wont offer it anymore then?

And this line about why would the owners do all this if they werent serious? We have an opening for a 6th at our weekly poker table. Please drop by.

 

[Buffaloed]

The NHL owners extended the agreement as a cash grab, hard to tell if they were happy about it or not, but they did it anyway. They were just postponing the inevitable. I don't see what these two events have to do with each other.

I find it amusing that the NHL won't admit it was a cash grab, but I guess they don't want to seem greedy. They're trying to make it seem as if the CBA was fine when they extended it, and then went sour right afterward. They ought to come clean and admit some teams badly needed cash and may have gone under if they waited until 2000 when the CBA was due to expire. They needed that money in 1997 to stay in operation. The $12 million the Sabres got was probably just enough to service their debts.

 

[mr gib]

I find it amusing that the NHL won't admit it was a cash grab, but I guess they don't want to seem greedy. They're trying to make it seem as if the CBA was fine when they extended it, and then went sour right afterward. They ought to come clean and admit some teams badly needed cash and may have gone under if they waited until 2000 when the CBA was due to expire. They needed that money in 1997 to stay in operation. The $12 million the Sabres got was probably just enough to service their debts.

aldelphia's pockets - they didn't pay down nuttin -

 

[thinkwild]

The CBA is fine. THe owners are just claiming it has settled at an equilibrium that was meant for times of continued growth and quadrupling of revenue. Unfortunately, unless revenues quintuple, they will lose money.

If the current CBA were reset at a lower equilibrium, and new safeguards and standards set, it should work for competent management.

They could neogotiate a link between overall revenues and expenses, that was ensured through a salary holdback in escrow, and then use the current system to manage everything else.

 

[Sotnos]

They used expansion money to COVER opertaing costs? Thats hilarious.

You're denying that teams have been having financial problems for years? It's pretty widely known why they extended the previous CBA - they needed the money, badly.

And this line about why would the owners do all this if they werent serious? We have an opening for a 6th at our weekly poker table. Please drop by.

So, they're locking out the players, causing problems with their respective local businesses and communities, alienating their fan base and possibly damaging the League for the hell of it? OK

 

[thinkwild]

You're denying that teams have been having financial problems for years? It's pretty widely known why they extended the previous CBA - they needed the money, badly.

That some teams have financial problems is a sign of some great acopolypse? They should be different from the rest of the world?

THey needed money, revenues increased giving them more money, they still need money, revenues increase again and they aget expansion fees, they still need more money, at what point do we agree its not the money.

So, they're locking out the players, causing problems with their respective local businesses and communities, alienating their fan base and possibly damaging the League for the hell of it? OK

Would the mafia do that? Then so would the owners. Their whole lives revolve around exercising heir leverage. Do you think they care more about you than their leverage?

 

[Buffaloed]

aldelphia's pockets - they didn't pay down nuttin -

Wrong, the team was owned by the Knox family at that time and was heavily in debt from the construction of the new arena. Without the expansion cash to pay off the interest on contruction loans, and a massive payroll dump, the Knox's would have had a hard time selling that team to anyone. The Sabres under the Knox family were also getting regular advances on their share of the national TV contract money from the NHL to meet operating expenses. It didn't change when the team was sold to John Rigas, he just stole the funds from Adelphia.

 

[mr gib]

Wrong, the team was owned by the Knox family at that time and was heavily in debt from the construction of the new arena. Without the expansion cash to pay off the interest on contruction loans, and a massive payroll dump, the Knox's would have had a hard time selling that team to anyone. The Sabres under the Knox family were also getting regular advances on their share of the national TV contract money from the NHL to meet operating expenses. It didn't change when the team was sold to John Rigas, he just stole the funds from Adelphia.

gotcha - thanks

 

[me2]

The CBA is fine. THe owners are just claiming it has settled at an equilibrium that was meant for times of continued growth and quadrupling of revenue. Unfortunately, unless revenues quintuple, they will lose money.

If the current CBA were reset at a lower equilibrium, and new safeguards and standards set, it should work for competent management.

They could neogotiate a link between overall revenues and expenses, that was ensured through a salary holdback in escrow, and then use the current system to manage everything else.

Haven't the players already ruled out linking revenue to salary in the name of "market value"?

 

[thinkwild]

They have. Im not.

 

[Buffaloed]

Haven't the players already ruled out linking revenue to salary in the name of "market value"?

The players proposal does link revenue to salary in the form of a luxury tax. Presumably only teams with revenue to spare would go over the cap number where a tax kicks in and that tax money would be made available to the poorer teams to spend on payroll. It seems like a reasonable system to me, but the owners are unwilling to open negotiations in this area. The owners have to give a little and this is where it has to be done if they want a cap. Until they're willing to discuss it, they can't even begin to define the cap figure and luxury tax rate(s). I think it's entirely possible to make everyone happy using a luxury tax system.

 

[Tom_Benjamin]

The players proposal does link revenue to salary in the form of a luxury tax. Presumably only teams with revenue to spare would go over the cap number where a tax kicks in and that tax money would be made available to the poorer teams to spend on payroll.

No it doesn't. In a luxury tax system there is no need to define revenues and there is no negotiated share for the players. Without a direct link, we can also say "Presumably only teams with revenue to spare would pay Martin Lapointe $5 million."

Basically the players began this set of negotiations by saying, "We like the CBA the way that it is. We understand you don't like it. Tell us your concerns." According to Goodenow, the NHL tabled three concerns:

1) The teams were losing a ton of money. (A 5% pay cut would have halved last year's losses.)

2) The revenue and payroll gap was too large. (A luxury tax should narrow both gaps. Last year 15 teams would have been taxed under their proposal and 15 teams would have received tax proceeds.)

3) The entry level salary system was not saving the owners what they had anticipated because of lucrative bonus provisions and too high an entry salary. (The players ratcheted back the entry level salary and capped bonses.)

The players were wasting their time attempting to address those concerns because they are not and never were the issue. Linking revenues to salaries is the issue.

If this dispute was really about losses, the owners would have jumped on the 5% and tried to work it higher. If the owners were really concerned about revenue and payroll disparities they would share revenues. The payroll disparities would take care of themselves. (I hate the idea, but never mind.) Or they would go for the luxury tax. If the owners really cared about the entry level system...

They care about guaranteeing their end of the revenues. Period.

Tom

 

[Cawz]

1) The teams were losing a ton of money. (A 5% pay cut would have halved last year's losses.)

But the 5% cut is the definition of a band-aid solution.

2) The revenue and payroll gap was too large. (A luxury tax should narrow both gaps. Last year 15 teams would have been taxed under their proposal and 15 teams would have received tax proceeds.)

I heard a different number, like only 3 or 5 teams. I'm not sure who's hear-say I should listen to.

The players were wasting their time attempting to address those concerns because they are not and never were the issue. Linking revenues to salaries is the issue.

If this dispute was really about losses, the owners would have jumped on the 5% and tried to work it higher.

I totally disagree. That solves nothing. A cash grab does nothing if the trend isnt corrected. We've seen that with expansion fees.

If the owners were really concerned about revenue and payroll disparities they would share revenues. The payroll disparities would take care of themselves. (I hate the idea, but never mind.) Or they would go for the luxury tax. If the owners really cared about the entry level system...

They care about guaranteeing their end of the revenues. Period.

And the players are looking to maximize their end of the revenues. Which side looks more selfish? The side looking to maximize revenues, or the side looking to guarantee revenues?

I agree that the owners have to get off the salary cap kick, and suggest a luxury tax with teeth (300% per dollar over the thresh-hold, or something ridiculas like that.

But back on topic of the thread, I like this exerpt from the TSN Hot Seat:

Gord Miller: The two most successful in professional sport, the National Football League and the NBA they both have salary caps. So why can't you?

Ted Saskin: Well they may be the most successful leagues, for the owners, but I don't think that their systems are particularly fair for the players, and necessarily for fans. So I don't know that I would agree that they are the most successful sports in that sense.

Gord Miller: And yet, Troy Vincent from the NFL players association and so did Michael Curry from the NBA players association said that they not only like their salary cap arrangements but they are looking to extend them. Are they wrong?

Ted Saskin: Well the majority of players in the NFL and the NBA who our players talk to tell them there are a lot of problems in the salary cap systems in those sports

So who are these "majority of players"? How can he possibly say that they are not the most successful sports for the fans?

He should just be honest and say "we just dont want a cap because that means that the owners win this negotiation. They are not being honest with their revenues and disrespecting us, so we cant give in or else we end up looking like chumps."

 

[Motown Beatdown]

I heard a different number, like only 3 or 5 teams. I'm not sure who's hear-say I should listen to.."

15 teams last year had a payroll over 40 million dollars.

Here's a link.


http://www.hockeyzoneplus.com/$maseq_e.htm


Totals over that 40 million was close to 240 millions. So if the NHL had a 100% tax ( i know it wont happen, but what if), said 240 million dollars would be given to those 15 teams under the cap or around 16 million dollars per team.

 

[codswallop]

But the 5% cut is the definition of a band-aid solution.


I heard a different number, like only 3 or 5 teams. I'm not sure who's hear-say I should listen to.


I totally disagree. That solves nothing. A cash grab does nothing if the trend isnt corrected. We've seen that with expansion fees.

And the players are looking to maximize their end of the revenues. Which side looks more selfish? The side looking to maximize revenues, or the side looking to guarantee revenues?

I agree that the owners have to get off the salary cap kick, and suggest a luxury tax with teeth (300% per dollar over the thresh-hold, or something ridiculas like that.

But back on topic of the thread, I like this exerpt from the TSN Hot Seat:

Gord Miller: The two most successful in professional sport, the National Football League and the NBA they both have salary caps. So why can't you?

Ted Saskin: Well they may be the most successful leagues, for the owners, but I don't think that their systems are particularly fair for the players, and necessarily for fans. So I don't know that I would agree that they are the most successful sports in that sense.

Gord Miller: And yet, Troy Vincent from the NFL players association and so did Michael Curry from the NBA players association said that they not only like their salary cap arrangements but they are looking to extend them. Are they wrong?

Ted Saskin: Well the majority of players in the NFL and the NBA who our players talk to tell them there are a lot of problems in the salary cap systems in those sports

So who are these "majority of players"? How can he possibly say that they are not the most successful sports for the fans?

He should just be honest and say "we just dont want a cap because that means that the owners win this negotiation. They are not being honest with their revenues and disrespecting us, so we cant give in or else we end up looking like chumps."

Makes you wonder if anybody is coming remotely close to the truth these days. I understand it's part of the negotiation process, I just hope the honesty part comes out sooner rather than later.

At least there are a few people willing to speak their minds. Stan Kasten, former president of the Hawks and Thrashers and still president of the Braves, had an article in the NY Times about a week and a half ago. Interesting to hear the perspective from someone who has seen three of the four major sports from the inside. And one of the new Thrashers owners just got fined $250k for saying something about using replacement players if this drags on for a year.

I'm thinking we'll see more like this in the near future. It's not just us who is ticked off about not having the NHL.

 

[Mothra]

They (owners) care about guaranteeing their end of the revenues. Period.
Tom

Same can be said about the NHLPA

 

[Go Flames Go*]

Same can be said about the NHLPA

Thats why the NHL has offered 55% of revenues to players gaurnteed, would your ather have gaurnteed money, or possibility of just loosing your job and playing in Germany with Aldof Volshinkof for 10 bucks a game.

Cap is needed, and if it mean replacement players bring em on, if the NHLPA dosent like it then, I got a huge sidewalk Goodenow and Saskin can shovel for me for 10 bucks a day.

THE CAP IS COMING weahter the greedy players like it or not.

 

[Tom_Benjamin]

Same can be said about the NHLPA

No it can't. The players don't have a guarantee of any piece of the revenues, they have not asked for that, and none of the owner proposals have offered them that.

Tom

 

[Go Flames Go*]

No it can't. The players don't have a guarantee of any piece of the revenues, they have not asked for that, and none of the owner proposals have offered them that.

Tom

All of the proposals have offered them gaurnteed 55% of revenues.

 

[ceber]

I show you all these cases of fan disenchantment with the results of the cap on their sport...

Only problem I see with this is you had 5 (6?) guys complaining, yet during football season I see with my own eyes thousands upon thousands of fans apparently very, very happy with the state of the game. I think most people just don't care about the system that's in place, as long as their team has a chance to win some games and they have a chance to watch some games. I really don't think most fans care one bit about how the dollars they put into the system are distributed, so long as they're happy with the return. There are a lot of happy fans out there in NFL land.

 

[YellHockey*]

Same can be said about the NHLPA

How so?

How are the players guaranteed any portion of the revenue?

They aren't under the system they just finished and the systems they've proposed.

 

[Tom_Benjamin]

All of the proposals have offered them gaurnteed 55% of revenues.

No. As far as I am aware, the offer capped the share at 55%. Burke's proposal did guarantee them 55%.

Tom

 

[dawgbone]

15 teams last year had a payroll over 40 million dollars.

Here's a link.

The last NHLPA offer was a $50mil luxury tax.

And the other problem, is a tax a $40 million, with a 100% tax on every dollar spent over that amount, another word for a CAP (considering you'd be lucky to see more than a couple of owners willing to go very far over that)?

You'd have to ask the PA about that...

 

[Motown Beatdown]

The last NHLPA offer was a $50mil luxury tax.

And the other problem, is a tax a $40 million, with a 100% tax on every dollar spent over that amount, another word for a CAP (considering you'd be lucky to see more than a couple of owners willing to go very far over that)?

You'd have to ask the PA about that...

I used 40 million because it was in the middle of the two sides proposals. The players know they are gonna have to take a hit. And yes the point of a luxury tax is to lower payrolls. Basically the owners want a hard cap to save the owners from themselves, a 100% tax could very well do that. While at the same time partly addressing one of the biggest problems in the NHL, disparity in revenue. If owner X want to be a moron and have a huge payroll it only helps the small market teams.