Discussion in 'Fugu's Business of Hockey Forum' started by FlyerFan, Dec 15, 2005.
''Hopefully it will restore a little more of the competitive advantage we had on the financing side which will be nice,'' said MLSE president and CEO Richard Peddie.
yet another reason it hate the Leafs....can't scout, so we'll just buy!
*cough* Steen, Wellwood, and Pogge *cough*
competitive advantage = spending far more on players that smaller markets couldn't dream of.
that kind of competitive advantage defeats the whole purpose of a year-long lockout to realign the sport.
Are you advocating the idea that every team should only be allowed to spend what the weakest team can afford? That`s ridiculous. The solution is significant revenue sharing to help the smaller markets, but since everyone was so fixated on a cap being the perfect solution, they overlooked that. Now less than a year into the CBA, the whining has already started on how it`s unfair to small market teams. Newsflash! The lockout wasn`t about helping the small markets, it was about helping Jeremy Jacobs and Bill Wirtz. As long as their costs are guaranteed to not exceed their revenues, they could care less what happens to Florida or Pittsburgh.
I`m confused about one thing: Now, it`s possible that the cap could hit $45M, but all the experts on here said the players were stupid to not take the league`s 42M offer because they`d never get anything that good. Now it appears they may get something better. Were all the experts wrong?
I'm thinking no. The cap could have moved up or down. Some teams were expecting the cap to actually drop. I'm pretty sure all of the owner's cap offers were caps that could move up or down depending on revenue.
I really don't feel sorry if an NHL team is in financial trouble. NHL teams got a great deal. A hard cap that goes down if revenues go down. A 15% escrow account. Sure revenue sharing would have helped the weaker teams more but the big time owners didn't want that. The players did. You are totally right. Why should teams be limited by what the weakest team can spend? It's already fair to me as it is with all 30 teams averaged out.
Kaberle, D. Markov, Wellwood, Steen, Colaiacovo, etc.
We CAN scout. We just don't have many picks to deal with.
4 overall, Jason Bonsignore, 6th overall Steve Kelly, and 6th overall Boyd Devereaux .
i thought the idea was to LOWER the cap afterwards... not increase it!
Lowering the cap would mean the league as a whole was making less money.
the goal is to grow the revenues of the game. everyone gains when that happens including the players.
this is extremely good news for Saskin politically. Keep in mind it was Goodenow who first floated the rollback.
No, they were right. Just happens that the revenues (apparently) are climbing this season. Rightly so, pretty much everyone speculated that revenues would decrease after a heated lockout and a whole year off. If it did, the cap would get smaller and that $42M offer from before would look even bigger.
In fairness, no expert (and I use that term loosely) could have done more than guess what would happen to revenues this season. The most plausible assumption is that it would take a while to get the fans to come back in the same numbers or better; since we all got screwed, it was a pretty safe assumption. But I'm guessing by the topic of this thread (haven't read the article yet), the numbers look much better than most thought they would be.
Still, it's only about 10 weeks into a long season. If the numbers are up, there are still many chances for them to level off and/or decrease. Or if form continues to hold, they might go higher. Who knows? Way too early to speculate on where revenues will end up and where the cap will be next year. Like I said, didn't read the article; but if it's written halfway decently, it should say something to this effect.
Too early for some of the "big market" teams to start salivating.
While I know the revenue numbers are projections at this point they are coming in lower that earlier reports were quoting, now at $2.0 billion with a cap up to $45 million vs the earlier reports of revenues at $2.2 billion and a potential cap of $49 million.
$2.2 billion is where the league was pre-lockout. The NHL has set new attendance records thus far for the year, so where is the missing $200 million (ESPN partially?)?
In this morning's Globe and Mail, Bettman indicated that not only was overall attendance up, but paid attendance as well. He also qualified that by saying "some markets are up, some are down, but overall the average is up"
I wonder if he's talking about attendance revenue or just the count of butts in seats. Considering how many teams drastically lowered ticket prices this season, is this a case of the markets with high prices and strong demand pulling up the revenue average?
In any event, I'm much more interested to know what the actual revenue numbers are. I wonder if this will get "leaked" at any point....
You are confusing things between the cap number and the average salary. At a $45 million cap, the average salary will be considerably less.
The 54% is the key.
Glass houses, buddy.
At the end of the day the revenue sharing will help out the bottom teams. For the Canadian teams the higher dollar has really helped in the revenue department as the player salaries are US dollars and they get revenue in CDN dollars. A 63 cent dollar is tougher to work with than an 86 cent dollar. Plus this increase for 6 teams means revenue is up in those markets
Considerably less than what? What are you comparing it to? If you're comparing it to the 42M cap offer, how can the average salary of a 45M cap be "considerably less" than the average salary of a 42M cap?
The key to what? The key to which deal was better? Do you believe that the percentage linked to revenue in the 42M offer would have been higher than the 54% in the 39M deal? Even if it was, how could the average salary be "considerably less" if the 39M cap increased to 45M? If not, the only way the 42M offer could be better would be if the League revenues tanked.
You're also forgetting about that magnet that was rumored to be in the 39M cap. Wouldn't it also be in the 45M cap?
If the cap increases to 45 million, that does not put more money in the player's pockets... All that means is that revenue projections are higher for that year than they were this year, so the allowable salary range was moved higher.
54% is key because the players will still earn no more than 54% of actual revenue, no matter what the cap is. You could set the cap at 100 million, but the players would still have to pay back every penny over 54%, via escrow. (or a larger percent if revenue exceeded 2.2 billion).
Actually the players will get more money in their pocket THIS YEAR. Had the doom and gloomers been right and revenues been below 1.8B, escrow reserves would have been used to support revenue sharing... instead the escrows will go to the players.
Your scenario only happens if REVENUES DROP next year. You don't have any evidence or seriously researched projections to show that a drop will occur.
What "scenario"? A cap increase to 45 million? Please explain how that "only happens if REVENUES DROP"
All I said was this... a cap increase means nothing more than a higher projected revenue for the league. IF at the end of the season, it is determined that payroll exceeded it's pre-determined percentage of the revenue pie, the players would still have to pay back the difference through escrow. A higher projected revenue total (and resulting higher cap), in any season, does not guarantee the players anything. Their salary limitations lie in actual, realized revenue at the season's end, not the cap itself.
I never claimed to, nor would it be possible for me to know what the NHL's final revenue totals will be at the end of next season. Regardless, that is really irrelevant to what I said.
Now then, what "evidence" do you have that this year's "escrows will go back to the players", seeing as it's only December?
I hardly think this is the time to be drawing our own conclusions. I'm sure the NHL is coming up with a press release that will tell us how to feel about that.
I believe reckoning's conclusion is that the "experts" who felt that the players were stupid for rejecting the 42M offer because they wouldn't be getting anything that good might be wrong.
How hard is it to compare the 42M offer in which there would only be ONE winner at a time (players if revenues decrease, owners if revenues increase) to the 39M deal in which they're BOTH winners if revenues increase and call the better deal?
The bottom line is the 42M offer was a TERRIBLE deal which would only compound the debt a/o animosity REGARDLESS of the revenues.
Yes, I agree with you. I posted pretty much the same thing in the sticky thread and was told I was full of ****.
The players were stupid for not negotiating a linkage deal earlier rather than later.
They were NOT stupid. The League threatened that the pie was shrinking which was a flaw in their negotiating tactics. How hard is it to understand that the players wouldn't want their salaries linked to an Incredible Shrinking Pie?
Just about every offer the League made was presented to the players as a "punishment" for not accepting a previous offer. Is that anyway to bargain/negotiate? Didn't think so.
Now, who's stupid again?
Separate names with a comma.