One set of boundaries - Parity on the Ice - Close but no Cigar

[Pepper]

Then why didn't you just say that and join in on the conversation rather the attack the post starter or the format of the post.

It need a little expanation and background or it wouldn't explain the point.

Now 10 pages into the thread we are at the same point finally.

That makes the $29 mil a boundary of sorts to teams that collect revenue sharing money and while you called it not fair .. Perhaps its not even allowed as per the new CBA is what I am suggesting.

Wait, I thought your original post was about new CBA not bringing parity??? That was the part I attacked (along with the formatting), not your thoughts about revenue sharing limitations.

 

[txomisc]

I'm guessing the level of revenue a club generates will determine whether or not it receives any revenue sharing monies and how much.

It may even turn out that revenue sharing funds are completely independant of the teams' payroll (teams may be able to spend at luxury tax levels and still receive the transfers). The NHLPA who appear to be the driving force for revenue sharing are not being altruistic and hoping any shared funds end up in the owners pockets, I'd imagine that they prefer those monies be spent on their memberships salaries.

BINGO. I think this is how it'll work. Payroll should not be the judge of whether or not you recieve revenue sharing. If that is the case the rangers could spend 28 million and get revenue sharing? No, that can't be how it works. This is how i see it.
Teams split into 3 groups, large revenue, average revenue, and small revenue. Money from luxury taxes and further revenue sharing given to small revenue teams. They are free to spend to the 36 million $ cap.

 

[txomisc]

Of course he's going to be under $29 mil. Imagine getting a multi-million dollar check each year for being cheap. This will only encourage him.

Which is exactly why it probably doesnt work that way.

 

[txomisc]

So by your theory .. Calgary could put in 3 mil and take out 5 as an example ..

Are you counting Luxury tax fines into this revenue sharing pot here ??

Bettman going to teams like Toronto and Philly seeking extra revenue sharing $$ kind of goes agianst this though in that if the model is straight forward based on flat % to team revenue then why the special coaxing ??

What is preventing a team like your NYR from lowering ticket prices thereby lowering team revenue and trying to act more like Vancouver in your example and break even.. They have nothing to gain by charging more if the revenue simply goes to other teams .particularly if they are abusing the system and spending into luxury tax dollars ..

Not saying its so ..

Your example still hold up though if this is in fact the way the league intends to opporate.. Using Vancouver as in your break even example ..

Based on its team revenue in and out as far as sharing goes is a wash .. but that also doesn't mean Vancouver can't spend to the cap ceiling .. However it should not expect to pay for those additional cost from the revenue sharing pot either but from its own resources ..

I dont see anything wrong with a team chosing to lower ticket prices in order to not be considered a large revenue team. Hell if it happened it would be absolutely wonderful. I'll gladly pay lower ticket prices, thank you.

 

[ScottyBowman]

BINGO. I think this is how it'll work. Payroll should not be the judge of whether or not you recieve revenue sharing. If that is the case the rangers could spend 28 million and get revenue sharing? No, that can't be how it works. This is how i see it.
Teams split into 3 groups, large revenue, average revenue, and small revenue. Money from luxury taxes and further revenue sharing given to small revenue teams. They are free to spend to the 36 million $ cap.

Do you guys actually think that the ringleaders Jacobs/Wirtz would do it through revenue? You know its going to be based on payroll.

 

[txomisc]

I have a few concerns.
1) WHat incentive is there for the big spending teams to get better? They've got AUTOMATIC profits now.
2) Poorly located teams will always struggle. Carolina might compete once in a blue moon. But it might take 20 years before they have a real fan base.

The answer to your first question is easy. Teams want to get better because they want to win. Automatic profits are nice and all but Automatic profits + playoff revenue + stanley cup championship = very happy owner.

 

[Hoss]

Do you guys actually think that the ringleaders Jacobs/Wirtz would do it through revenue? You know its going to be based on payroll.

I sure hope your wrong.

 

[ScottyBowman]

Which is exactly why it probably doesnt work that way.

In the NBA, the Chicago Bulls received a revenue sharing tax in 2004 because they were under the salary cap.

In baseball it is the same deal. Why would it be any different in hockey?

 

[txomisc]

Do you guys actually think that the ringleaders Jacobs/Wirtz would do it through revenue? You know its going to be based on payroll.

I think it will go through some very easily calculated revenue. I highly doubt revenue sharing is based soley on payroll. Hell I doubt it is based on payroll at all.

 

[txomisc]

In the NBA, the Chicago Bulls received a revenue sharing tax in 2004 because they were under the salary cap.

In baseball it is the same deal. Why would it be any different in hockey?

I don't know for sure that it does, but they have taken how long to get to this point? I think they just might have a way of dealing with this, its not like this thing is rushed.

 

[ScottyBowman]

I don't know for sure that it does, but they have taken how long to get to this point? I think they just might have a way of dealing with this, its not like this thing is rushed.

This is how the basketball salary cap works. Not sure if you care to read it but I'll share it anyway

http://www.uncg.edu/bae/people/rosenbaum/luxtax.html

 

[A Good Flying Bird*]

The answer to your first question is easy. Teams want to get better because they want to win. Automatic profits are nice and all but Automatic profits + playoff revenue + stanley cup championship = very happy owner.

Most owners don't really give a crap about the on ice product. They only care enough to make sure that it is profitable.
Most owners are like Wirtz, Jacobs etc.

Very few are like Illitch.
If they were, the league would be in much better shape today.

 

[A Good Flying Bird*]

That's entirely possible but consider this:

why on earth would 2 small-market teams offer Iginla that kind of money which would strangle the rest of the team?? It just doesn't make any sense.

Because Iginla is a FRANCHISE player.

He's the kind of guy who gives the team an identity. He's the guy on the brochures when the ticket packages get sent out in the mail.

The superstars are going to get paid big bucks.
The lowest paid guys are going to get more money then they used to.

The guys who are screwed are the $2-4 Million dollar dudes playing on the 2nd/3rd lines.
Another casualty will be the older free agent guys. They'll ge t pushed into retirement earlier, IMO

 

[A Good Flying Bird*]

It's not a fact, it's product of your bitter pro-PA imagination..

Good Lord. Listen to Rush much?

 

[txomisc]

This is how the basketball salary cap works. Not sure if you care to read it but I'll share it anyway

http://www.uncg.edu/bae/people/rosenbaum/luxtax.html

Nah I dont care to read it but i appreciate teh effort. Look you may be completely right on how it works and if you are, I think the NHL is making a mistake. Revenue sharing should be based on the easiest to calculate team numbers. If Carolina chooses to spend 31 million, it doesnt make them any less of a low revenue team.

 

[A Good Flying Bird*]

Stanley Cup?

In MLB, George Steinbrenner has more money than God and two or three of his players combined make more than the entire Devil Rays roster. He has no regard for spending restrictions, makes obscene profits but flips out completely if his team isn't in the running for the World Series.

Making a profit doesn't negate the desire to win.

Providing you've got an owner who takes an active interest in his teams play.

 

[txomisc]

Most owners don't really give a crap about the on ice product. They only care enough to make sure that it is profitable.
Most owners are like Wirtz, Jacobs etc.

Very few are like Illitch.
If they were, the league would be in much better shape today.

I think most owners do want to win. Its very nice to make money and thats the main goal, yeah, but these guys also have huge egos. Winning a stanley cup is actually a pretty prestigious thing. It also comes with even more money. If you can spend the extra money and win a cup and get up to 16 home playoff games, including 4 stanley cup finals games, its certainly worth the investment.

 

[ScottyBowman]

Most owners don't really give a crap about the on ice product. They only care enough to make sure that it is profitable.
Most owners are like Wirtz, Jacobs etc.

Very few are like Illitch.
If they were, the league would be in much better shape today.

Let me take it a step further.

Lets assume that if you spend under $30 mil you get a $4 mil rev sharing check (this is just a guess for the sake of argument)

Say a small market team is a superstar goalie away from being a title contender and has a payroll of $29 mil. If they sign that goalie for $6 mil a year, they are in reality adding $15 mil in payroll. Because of $6 mil Plus $5 in 1:1 luxury tax Plus revenue sharing check that they will lose. Why take that risk to win the cup when you'll have a hard time of getting $15 mil in profit back even after winning a cup.

 

[ryz]

Because Iginla is a FRANCHISE player.

He's the kind of guy who gives the team an identity. He's the guy on the brochures when the ticket packages get sent out in the mail.

The superstars are going to get paid big bucks.
The lowest paid guys are going to get more money then they used to.

The guys who are screwed are the $2-4 Million dollar dudes playing on the 2nd/3rd lines.
Another casualty will be the older free agent guys. They'll ge t pushed into retirement earlier, IMO

I don't even want to wade into the Iginla debate, but I will somewhat reluctantly. I think it is nothing but fear mongering. He seems very happy in Calgary and if they offer him 5-6mil or so I can't see Iginla bolting off to Carolina or Florida or Detroit or anybody for an extra 1mil per year. It won't happen. Enough with the fear mongering already. People in Calgary are not scared of losing Iginla AT ALL in the near future, nor should they be. Notice how the only people arguing the point are the pro-PA shills and the big market fans who's team can't out-right buy him anymore?

As for the older free agents being pushed into retirement early, I say AWESOME!! I know this season is more the exception than the rule but I can't wait to see guys like Crosby, Ovechkin, Malkin, Phaneuf, Lehtonen, Carter, Richards, etc, etc replace Hull, Chelios, Messier, Andrechuck, Lowry, Hasek, Belfour, etc, etc. Simply can't wait.

 

[A Good Flying Bird*]

Its not just the teams that buy players.

The NHL is competative, when big payroll teams buy other teams players. It makes the ***** team weaker. Making all the lower payroll teams less competative. So making it more likely that a high payroll team will win. So even if a team dosnt buy players, if they have the payroll to afford to keep their stars, they are reaping the rewards of other pirates.

Not that I think you have to make an obscure arguement to make the point. I'm just pointing out, that you are wrong, even assuming the best possible light for your arguement.

Head in the sand??
Hah.

Anyway, I agree. I wouldn't say a team "reaps" the rewards of other pirates when it is simply keeping its team together.

But there is a some truth to what you say.

But that doesn't change my view.
My view is that the NHL is a better place if all teams get to have their Steve Yzerman for 20 years.
A salary cap, IMO, makes that less likely. Therefore, it is bad for the game.

What turns people off in sports is the movement. Players change teams too often.

You might disagree with me. But I can tell that one reason why fans are on the owners side is because they are sick and tired of seeing their stars leave via UFA or trade in a salary dump.

IMO, the best option would have been a luxury tax revenue sharing plan that puts teams on closer to equal footing while, at the same time, gives teams the flexibility they need to keep teams together so that you can draft an Yzerman, Fedorov and Lidstrom and have them all play together for 10 years.

See, the NHL was in trouble. And it needed a solution that would save the sport.

But it didn't get that. Why not? Because the owners don't feel like sharing their wealth with the other owners. Not in a meaningful way.

Instead of reaching for a solution that would give all fans the best of both worlds, we have a solution that turns every team into the Carolina Hurricanes.

Really, the only major benefactors are the owners.

 

[Kritter471]

I don't even want to wade into the Iginla debate, but I will somewhat reluctantly. I think it is nothing but fear mongering. He seems very happy in Calgary and if they offer him 5-6mil or so I can't see Iginla bolting off to Carolina or Florida or Detroit or anybody for an extra 1mil per year. It won't happen. Enough with the fear mongering already. People in Calgary are not scared of losing Iginla AT ALL in the near future, nor should they be. Notice how the only people arguing the point are the pro-PA shills and the big market fans who's team can't out-right buy him anymore?

Hey, I'm throwing him out there as a what if scenario. I think the Wings with have huge problems keeping Datsyuk and Zetterberg and the Thrashers keeping Heatley and Kovulchuk. Iginla's just very close to reaching the UFA age, so he'll be one of the first examples affected by this.

If you don't think $1 million or one extra year one a contract is going to affect his decision because he likes Calgary, you're the one having a pipe dream. To use an example from my team, Hatcher was happy in Dallas. He didn't want to leave, but Detroit offered him a higher value/longer contract than Dallas would and he left.

The ones likey to take huge cuts right now are the 37-39 year olds who've spent most of their career with one team (Yzerman comes to mind, Modano may have the Stars pressure him into doing the same thing). But guys like Iginla, Lecavilier, Thornton and Hejduk may end up signing in other places with more cap room even though they've become ingrained with the identity of the team that drafted them.

 

[Timmy]

See, the NHL was in trouble. And it needed a solution that would save the sport.

But it didn't get that. Why not? Because the owners don't feel like sharing their wealth with the other owners. Not in a meaningful way.

The league as a whole was losing money, so if revenues were shared, the league as a whole would still be losing money.

Why would the owners agree to a system that perpetuated their losses?

 

[NYIsles1*]

Very few are like Illitch.
If they were, the league would be in much better shape today.

Illitch lost a reported 16.4m going to the second round of the playoffs. For years before this he has been complaining his team had to reach the final to break even all his spending has done is drive the business into a lockout. So how does an owner like this keep the league in better shape when all he does is spend more and lose more.

We have a few owners like this, Dolan with his 40.9m loss, Walmart with their losses in St Louis. Hicks losses, Colorado losses, Snyder's losses. Losses in Boston, Los Angeles, New York Islanders, New Jersey.

And that's why hockey has closed it's doors.

 

[Kritter471]

We have a few owners like this, Dolan with his 40.9m loss, Walmart with their losses in St Louis. Hicks losses, Colorado losses, Snyder's losses. Losses in Boston, Los Angeles, New York Islanders, New Jersey.

I wish you would stop saying Hicks' losses. There are several points of contention on that. He owns 40 percent of the AAC through a seperate company, so he brought in all sorts of Stars-related revenue which was not accounted for in the umbrella of the "Dallas Stars" business.

He also upped ticket prices (not out of necessity, mind you. the Stars payroll actually dropped in 03/04, if I remember correctly) which caused him to lose about 2-3 percent of his in-arena audience. That's a business flaw that has nothing to do with payroll and was going to be corrected before the lockout even happened. The Stars had pissed off their ticket holders ever since they moved into the AAC and it really hurt them last season.

I don't argue that the league was not financially sound, though I think the losses are far less that what they want us to believe. But from a local perspective, Hicks' money was lost in the bear market of recent years, certainly not the Stars or Rangers.

 

[HSHS]

The point of the thread is to dispell the notion that people have that this new CBA promotes 30 equal teams and winning opportunities ..

That is not the case at all, hoever there will always be remaining an competitive advantage between the teams the collect Revenue Sharing money and pay Revenue Sharing money.!!!!

The point of this thread, just like the vodka drink I just finished, is a way to help you get through the day when faced with the unpleasant fact that you can't spin your way into turning vinegar into wine.