NHL sets deadline on de-linked proposal

[Mess]

Sportsnet has learned that when the two sides met last week in New York and the NHL presented two offers, that the league also imposed an April 8th deadline.


http://www.sportsnet.ca/hockey/article.jsp?content=20050324_153147_5348

Click to read more...

 

[rekrul]

Bob goodenow in bizaro world: "gary this has gone on too long, our game is dead. I tell you what lets spend the next few weeks with the best available people and really hammer this out. lets be creative, not just to get the NHL back up but to get this right for many years. Lets SET and example for other sports leagues that will soon have the same troubles as ours. I just want to know at the end of the day players will make out OK, all franchises can field competitive teams and superstars can be just that and paid with in a reasonable range."

Gary Bettman in Bizaro world: "bob, your right this can't be about bringing you guys down anyfurther, we want to be a partnership again. I'm going to make sure 'hockey' people are much more involed in every aspect and if the players still feel the way they do to me after this, fine I'll step down. This has been a real drag and I'm sick of the press, fans players ripping me. I let this problem get out of hand, I'm just tring to fix it the longer we took to take care of this the worse it got.."


Bob " ok cap type thingy, lets get this around $35-45mil"

Gary " thats a start"


Real world Bob Goodenow: "cap offer off the table, think you can wait us out some more? see if you can get replacemets on the ice, even so no one will watching. Your screwed!"

Real world Gary Bettman: " linkage baby, hard cap $38 mil. Players really want another year in europe? like those fat NHL paychecks aren't missed, HA we will go with replacements and see how the fans respond, they hate you guys now. once the fans show up to games you know your hosed!"

Real world fan : "Um Guys us few diehards miss the games, can't you stop bickering and just agree to end this?"

Bob&Gary "SHUT IT WE ARE NEGOTIATING"

 

[Hawker14]

gotta admit bizzaro world makes alot of sense at $ 45 million !!

 

[chiavsfan]

45 million IS OVER!!! The PA had their chance...they tried to call a bluff...it failed, and 45 million went out the window. You say this in every thread...it will NOT happen

 

[ResidentAlien*]

45 million IS OVER!!! The PA had their chance...they tried to call a bluff...it failed, and 45 million went out the window. You say this in every thread...it will NOT happen

ya...cuz the league saves money by not playing but their revenues are down...thats bizzaro too

 

[Timmy]

ya...cuz the league saves money by not playing but their revenues are down...thats bizzaro too

Revenues are zero.

Expenses were greater than revenues.

Expenses still exist, but not the largest component (salaries).

Ergo, the league saves money by not playing when expenses are greater than revenue during normal operations. They still lose money by not playing, because they have to keep a skeleton staff, office space, etc., but not as much.

 

[ResidentAlien*]

Revenues are zero.

Expenses were greater than revenues.

Expenses still exist, but not the largest component (salaries).

Ergo, the league saves money by not playing when expenses are greater than revenue during normal operations. They still lose money by not playing, because they have to keep a skeleton staff, office space, etc., but not as much.

ummm,,,i was being sarcastic..but thanks anyways
not really the point, you kinda missed it

 

[Timmy]

ummm,,,i was being sarcastic..but thanks anyways
not really the point, you kinda missed it

Sorry, I'm slow.

What was your point?

 

[nyr7andcounting]

I was just thinking, if you go by the Levitt numbers expenses outside of player costs last year were $775 million. How much of that are fixed costs that still remain despite there being $0 revenues? I would guess the league lost anywhere from $175-$300 million this year. The idea that 'owners lose less by not playing' might be accurate, but I don't think it is accurate to such a great extent that it will continue to be true in the future. I don't think it's something to justify a lockout simply because the league is still losing a ton of money anyway, only difference is the fans don't get hockey.

And when you consider how much is coming off of franchise values every day the lockout resumes...I don't think the owners are losing less by not playing.

 

[Timmy]

I was just thinking, if you go by the Levitt numbers expenses outside of player costs last year were $775 million. How much of that are fixed costs that still remain despite there being $0 revenues? I would guess the league lost anywhere from $175-$300 million this year. The idea that 'owners lose less by not playing' might be accurate, but I don't think it is accurate to such a great extent that it will continue to be true in the future. I don't think it's something to justify a lockout simply because the league is still losing a ton of money anyway, only difference is the fans don't get hockey.

The players use the same justification when people point out they just kissed 1.14 billion away - sure it's costing us now, but we'll benefit in the future.

If I'm losing 400m less by now playing, and ensuring the economic viability of my business for the foreseeable future by doing so, then I do it, regardless of what the fans think.

 

[smileymcadam]

Sportsnet has learned that when the two sides met last week in New York and the NHL presented two offers, that the league also imposed an April 8th deadline.


http://www.sportsnet.ca/hockey/article.jsp?content=20050324_153147_5348

Call me crazy, but is this news? Everyone reported this last week, what's so new about it? I read everywhere the de-linked offer had a time limit. That's all everyone talked about the day the offer was made, wasn't it?

 

[nyr7andcounting]

The players use the same justification when people point out they just kissed 1.14 billion away - sure it's costing us now, but we'll benefit in the future.

If I'm losing 400m less by now playing, and ensuring the economic viability of my business for the foreseeable future by doing so, then I do it, regardless of what the fans think.

Yea but it wasn't the players choice to lockout, it was obviously the owners. The owners are the ones who stopped play in order to lose less money this year, as well as negotiate a better deal. The players use it as justification not for stopping play, but simply for trying to get the best deal possible for them.

And my point was I don't think the owners are losing less. When you consider fixed costs between all the teams probably neared the $200-whatever million they claimed to lose when playing...and then consider how much franchise values have dropped...I don't think they are losing so much less than what they would lose if they were playing.

 

[Timmy]

Yea but it wasn't the players choice to lockout, it was obviously the owners. The owners are the ones who stopped play in order to lose less money this year, as well as negotiate a better deal. The players use it as justification not for stopping play, but simply for trying to get the best deal possible for them.

And my point was I don't think the owners are losing less. When you consider fixed costs between all the teams probably neared the $200-whatever million they claimed to lose when playing...and then consider how much franchise values have dropped...I don't think they are losing so much less than what they would lose if they were playing.

We'll probably never know, and you certainly may be right.

And, while it wasn't the players' choice to be locked out, it has so far been their choice not to agree with any of the offers the NHL has proposed. Again, they are within their rights to do this, but not agreeing to a new CBA did cost them 1.14b after a 24% rollback.

 

[nyr7andcounting]

We'll probably never know, and you certainly may be right.

And, while it wasn't the players' choice to be locked out, it has so far been their choice not to agree with any of the offers the NHL has proposed. Again, they are within their rights to do this, but not agreeing to a new CBA did cost them 1.14b after a 24% rollback.

Well it goes for both sides. But anyway, not something to argue about I just, but I just hate the 'owners lose less than when they play so the lockout is good' argument.

 

[Timmy]

Well it goes for both sides. But anyway, not something to argue about I just, but I just hate the 'owners lose less than when they play so the lockout is good' argument.

Fair 'nough.

 

[Mat]

45 million IS OVER!!! The PA had their chance...they tried to call a bluff...it failed, and 45 million went out the window. You say this in every thread...it will NOT happen

its a bluff. the nhl will accept 45m no problem. get your head out your ass

 

[Mess]

its a bluff. the nhl will accept 45m no problem. get your head out your ass

I am not sure the NHLPA wants anything to do with a Cap .. IMO

A luxury tax system with strong fees would best suit the NHL IMO .. Then at least the big market teams get something for their Revenue Sharing ..

but say it was $1 for $1 over 40 mil .. Then if a team added a 5 mil Contract that would cost the team 5 mil in Contract and 5 mil in Revenue Sharing fees .. SO $10 total to sign that player .. This would curb spending IMO .. but still allow the occasion contract in a year when a team thought it was close to a Cup

 

[me2]

I am not sure the NHLPA wants anything to do with a Cap .. IMO

A luxury tax system with strong fees would best suit the NHL IMO .. Then at least the big market teams get something for their Revenue Sharing ..

but say it was $1 for $1 over 40 mil .. Then if a team added a 5 mil Contract that would cost the team 5 mil in Contract and 5 mil in Revenue Sharing fees .. SO $10 total to sign that player .. This would curb spending IMO .. but still allow the occasion contract in a year when a team thought it was close to a Cup

luxury tax shouldn't count towards a teams revenue sharing contribution.

 

[CMUMike]

I am not sure the NHLPA wants anything to do with a Cap .. IMO

Are you .. sure?

 

[Steve L*]

its a bluff. the nhl will accept 45m no problem. get your head out your ass

Why would they, cancelling the season will do a lot of damage to revenues that a $45m cap may not be sustainable.

Everyone apart from the NHLPA and its fanboys knew that the longer this went on, the lower income the NHL would have and the lower the cap offer would have to be to balance with the lower income.

 

[Mess]

luxury tax shouldn't count towards a teams revenue sharing contribution.

A luxury tax fee amount gives the NHL team some value for incurring the cost ..

Randonly sending money to poor market teams and BAD expansion ideas, so they can use your money to bid against you for UFA or pocket the money does not seem like it would be in the best interest of many businessman ..

Its like me giving you 100 bucks and then bidding against you for an item on ebay and hoping to outbid you to win it .. If I really want the item ... This method drives prices up not down IMO ..

 

[Mess]

Why would they, cancelling the season will do a lot of damage to revenues that a $45m cap may not be sustainable.

Everyone apart from the NHLPA and its fanboys knew that the longer this went on, the lower income the NHL would have and the lower the cap offer would have to be to balance with the lower income.

$ 45 Million may not be sustainable ???? ...

The only thing a NHL Team has to do is sustain the $ 22 mil or whatever the Hard Cap Floor is eventually.

The $45 mil should mean as much as the $ 42.5 or $ 40 mil should to a team that needs to keep to its budget to make money with its NHL team.