NHLPA and basic math don't add up

Status
Not open for further replies.

hockeytown9321

Registered User
Jun 18, 2004
2,358
0
kerrly said:
No that doesn't prove why a cap is required, but I'll tell you what does. The difference between Nahsville and Detroit, is that Detroit can remain competitive buy re-signing and adding valued players year after year. Small market teams, sure can have some success, but only for a period of a year or two. Why? When a small market team has success with a low payroll, it means that the players are going to get raises, thus they won't be able to afford to keep that competitive team together for very long. If they do decide to sign their guys, fine they stay competitive for another few years, but are no longer spending like a small market team. This could translate in huge losses for teams doing this. Example: Tampa Bay Lightning. As of right now they are considered small market, and had tremendous success last year, winning the cup. But when the keys players contracts come up, St. Louis, Richards, Modin, Lecavalier, Kubina, they will no longer fall into the small market category. Teams who can't afford to do this, Tampa might not be able to either, after being very successful end up losing their players. The cap offers teams to be competitive year after year. Wouldn't it be good for the whole league, especially the fans of small market teams, knowing at the start of the year that it could be very possible to be a contender, and not always knowing that your team doesn't have a hope in hell of making the playoffs.


So instead of finding a way that all teams could resign their guys if they were successfu,l its more fair to make it so no one can?
 

thinkwild

Veni Vidi Toga
Jul 29, 2003
10,815
1,468
Ottawa
kerrly said:
No that doesn't prove why a cap is required, but I'll tell you what does. The difference between Nahsville and Detroit, is that Detroit can remain competitive buy re-signing and adding valued players year after year. Small market teams, sure can have some success, but only for a period of a year or two. Why? When a small market team has success with a low payroll, it means that the players are going to get raises, thus they won't be able to afford to keep that competitive team together for very long. If they do decide to sign their guys, fine they stay competitive for another few years, but are no longer spending like a small market team. This could translate in huge losses for teams doing this. Example: Tampa Bay Lightning. As of right now they are considered small market, and had tremendous success last year, winning the cup. But when the keys players contracts come up, St. Louis, Richards, Modin, Lecavalier, Kubina, they will no longer fall into the small market category. Teams who can't afford to do this, Tampa might not be able to either, after being very successful end up losing their players. The cap offers teams to be competitive year after year. Wouldn't it be good for the whole league, especially the fans of small market teams, knowing at the start of the year that it could be very possible to be a contender, and not always knowing that your team doesn't have a hope in hell of making the playoffs.

I know what you are after. I think we want the same thing. What I am suggesting is that what you are proposing wont turn out to be the best way to achieve it.

4 years ago, Ottawa would never of dreamed of running a $40mil payroll. Everyone told us we would lose Alfie as soon as he became a UFA. THe idea of $150 tickets would have had the town laughing. What??? No way can an average family afford that, they would of said.

But here we are.

You are making the assumption that TBay and Nashville, after having some success, will have the same revenue. But their revenues will also increase significantly with a few years of continued playoff success great players would give them. If they are a big league hockey market. And all of them can be. If not, it is sad if they relocate, but proper. NFL does it a heck of a lot.

You should only have the ability to afford to keep your players if you are winning with them. Yes the big market teams have the advantage that they can also lose with them. That is a sacrifice we should be willing to make I think.
 

kerrly

Registered User
May 16, 2004
811
1
Regina
hockeytown9321 said:
So instead of finding a way that all teams could resign their guys if they were successfu,l its more fair to make it so no one can?

Yes noone would be able to afford to re-sign their top guys at the current pirce they are at, but by doing this, the price of the top guys along with everyone comes down.
 

hockeytown9321

Registered User
Jun 18, 2004
2,358
0
kerrly said:
Yes noone would be able to afford to re-sign their top guys at the current pirce they are at, but by doing this, the price of the top guys along with everyone comes down.


what if they don't?
 

kerrly

Registered User
May 16, 2004
811
1
Regina
thinkwild said:
I know what you are after. I think we want the same thing. What I am suggesting is that what you are proposing wont turn out to be the best way to achieve it.

4 years ago, Ottawa would never of dreamed of running a $40mil payroll. Everyone told us we would lose Alfie as soon as he became a UFA. THe idea of $150 tickets would have had the town laughing. What??? No way can an average family afford that, they would of said.

But here we are.

You are making the assumption that TBay and Nashville, after having some success, will have the same revenue. But their revenues will also increase significantly with a few years of continued playoff success great players would give them. If they are a big league hockey market. And all of them can be. If not, it is sad if they relocate, but proper. NFL does it a heck of a lot.

You should only have the ability to afford to keep your players if you are winning with them. Yes the big market teams have the advantage that they can also lose with them. That is a sacrifice we should be willing to make I think.

I did take into account that of course teams revenues will be greater after they acheive some consistent success. But of course some of these teams will have to be consistently successful to make this happen or the fans that aren't there now, will not be there again if the success slips. Its a hard thing to predict, but how many teams under the last CBA have come from small-market to consistently being successful and gaining profits, not many. The big market teams are usually always there.

I do agree with you that there needs to be some sort of system where successful teams are not penalized under the cap. Maybe some sort of revenue sharing percentage base on where you finish in the standings. Of course I am no genious when it comes to this, but some sort of system is crucial. And don't forget the more successful teams will also generate more merchandise sales and could also take in more ticket money, so that should help the case somewhat.
 

jacketracket*

Guest
hockeytown9321 said:
How can people dismiss Levitt's numbers when he didn't have any? His numbers were the league's and he was paid to agree with them.
:dunno:

All I'm suggesting is that the NHLPA --- rather than dismissing whatever Levitt prepared --- should have brought in their own team of accountants/auditors to point out the specifics of where/why they don't believe the report.
 

YellHockey*

Guest
jacketracket said:
:dunno:

All I'm suggesting is that the NHLPA --- rather than dismissing whatever Levitt prepared --- should have brought in their own team of accountants/auditors to point out the specifics of where/why they don't believe the report.

Why? For PR purposes? What if the NHL was only willing to let them look at Levitt's numbers if they signed a non-disclosure agreement? What good would it do the NHLPA if they found a smoking gun but weren't legally allowed to talk about it?
 

jacketracket*

Guest
BlackRedGold said:
What if the NHL was only willing to let them look at Levitt's numbers if they signed a non-disclosure agreement? What good would it do the NHLPA if they found a smoking gun but weren't legally allowed to talk about it?
What does this have to do with anything, really?

Did the owners make such a stipulation?
 

hockeytown9321

Registered User
Jun 18, 2004
2,358
0
jacketracket said:
:dunno:

All I'm suggesting is that the NHLPA --- rather than dismissing whatever Levitt prepared --- should have brought in their own team of accountants/auditors to point out the specifics of where/why they don't believe the report.

Isn't pointless if the owners are going to show them the same books?

The NHL has not nor will they allow full access to their books, at least until they get their panacea of impasse, becuase that's going to be the first thing the court makes them do.
 

kerrly

Registered User
May 16, 2004
811
1
Regina
hockeytown9321 said:
what if they don't?

The prices do come down, or else they won't be playing. With less overall money to spend across the league, there will be less money to be put towards players salaries. There is absolutely no way the salaries won't drop. And if you can't see it, then I'm not sure you fully understand the situation.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad

-->