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

[HSHS]

Revenue: Thems that have above a certain amount pays, thems that has less than a certain amount gets.

Swing and a miss...

 

[Icey]

I was about to fall asleep but fortunately I saw this thread.

Really, I'm not sure (and it seems most posters think the same) what your point is?

NHL goes from big teams spending $40M+ more than small teams to big teams spending ~7-8M more than small teams and you make the claim "still no parity".

Just think about it, it's like saying that had Saddam Hussein killed only 10 kurds instead of 100.000 he would have still been a murderer, while technically correct those 2 have huge difference in reality.

I certainly don't claim no parity, but I don't think this is the sure fire fix that some think it will be. There are plenty of folks who think if we get the cap then team X will have no problem competiting with Toronto, Detroit, etc. We will all sudden be able to afford to keep our FA because the big markets won't be able to bid higher for their services. Nothing could be further from the truth. It may make it a bit easier because the payroll differences are smaller, but in the end it will still come down to smart drafting, excellent player development, and an intelligent GM and owner knowing where to spend the money and where to cut back.

 

[hockeytown9321]

For years before this he has been complaining his team had to reach the final to break even

This is like the 50th time you've said that, and its still not true. #1, Ilitch has never discussed the finances of his teams in public. Ever. the closest he gets to that is through Jim Devellano, who has said in the past the Red Wings need to make the conference finals to make a profit. Big difference. #2, Whatever losses the Red Wings had in 03 and 04 are covered by profits they made before.

 

[hockeytown9321]

but it wasnt based on the size of the owners wallet.

Please get me a list of every Cup winning team's free agents over the last CBA.

 

[HSHS]

You're misinterpreting what the numbers mean. It is NOT a "big market cap" and a "small market cap". It is a "do you want revenue sharing dollars or not" threshold. If Melnyk decides to load up and spend to the max for Ottawa, they are perfectly entitled to do so. As is any other team that has acquired the meaningless "small-market" label from the press.

Swing and a miss...

 

[HSHS]

Revenue sharing doesn't go team by team, it's a flat rate divided by 30. A small market can't lower ticket prices and bring in $50M in revenue and than expect the big teams to say 'here you go, here's $15M so you can reach the floor'

All teams put, for example, 30% of their local revenues into revenue sharing. Than you divide the total by 30 teams, and that's how much each team get's back. So small market teams put in less than they take out, big market teams the opposite. But it doesn't mean that a small market can have no revenues and take out more than everyone else because they need it. And, the teams like Vancouver who might be right in the middle as far as revenue, probably get nothing. They will put it the same amount as they take out sometimes.

DING DING DING!!! Winner! Finally someone who has half a clue.

 

[HSHS]

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.

Maybe Chicago should look to ManU fans to learn how to attempt to oust an owner.

 

[hockeytown9321]

Oh for crying out loud.
Name one team Stanley Cup team that was based on the size of the owner's wallet.

Detroit? Only the most recent cup featured any major UFA signings. ANd even Hull and Robitaille were two UFAs who were no longer wanted by their old teams.
Detroit's payroll is high because jackasses like Pete Karmanos went and offered Fedorov the sun and the moon as an RFA.
So if Fedorov was worth $5M, then what was Yzerman, SHanahan and Lidstrom worth?
Everybody else was drafted, or came in trades of significant cost.

New Jersey? How many big UFA signings can you peg on big Lou?

Colorado? Look at their cup wins. They've got Sakic (draft) Forsberg (Lindros trade), Roy (Montreal meltdown). Yeah, they had some major deadline deals (Ray Bourque comes to mind), but these guys, like Detroit, aren't responsible for the high salaries all over the league.


I can understand small market fans who are upset because they've watched their best players leave, year after year. I was an expos fan until 1987, when the owners colluded against the players.

But a salary cap isn't going to help much. Fact is, Jarome Iginla is still going to get big offers from teams that don't mind maxing out their cap.

See, the salary cap means no team in the league will have consistent lineups.
You know why Detroit fans and Colorado fans love their hockey?
Because they've had the same core for a decade.
What does Steve Yzerman mean in Detroit.
What does Peter Forsberg and Joe Sakic mean in Colorado?

If a team drafts three great players, like Yzerman, Fedorov and Lidstrom, will there be room to keep them with a salary cap?

My fear is that there will not be with this new system.

You guys will whine and whine "Now you know how it feels to be an Oilers fan"

Well, if you wanna fix the NHL, you don't want everybody to feel like an Oilers fan.
You want everyone to feel like a Wings fan.

Unfortunately, a salary cap accomplishes more of the former than the latter.

It'll fall on deaf ears, but well said. I'm really looking forward to the day when Calgary or Pittsburgh doesn't have the cap room to resign one of their best players. I don't know what will be louder-the silence or the *****ing.

 

[NYIsles1*]

This is like the 50th time you've said that, and its still not true. #1, Ilitch has never discussed the finances of his teams in public. Ever. the closest he gets to that is through Jim Devellano, who has said in the past the Red Wings need to make the conference finals to make a profit.

The point has to be hammered home the Wings (Illitch) and the owners mentioned above did this business no favors by overspending, all they did was drive it into a lockout with lousy ratings no matter who played in any of these markets.

How is what I'm writing this not true when you write yourself:

Jim Devellano, who has said in the past the Red Wings need to make the conference finals to make a profit. .

The point is your team is not making money. I have heard Illitch make the comments in interviews and clearly I'm correct because you confirm it by Devellano's statements.

Big difference. #2, Whatever losses the Red Wings had in 03 and 04 are covered by profits they made before

So what if they made past profits (which is unlikely recently) if they lost 16.4m going to the second round of the playoffs in 2003-04. Does that give them some kind of entitlement to continue to spend until the entire NHL business fell apart?

 

[hockeytown9321]

The point has to be hammered home the Wings (Illitch) and the owners mentioned above did this business no favors by overspending, all they did was drive it into a lockout with lousy ratings no matter who played in any of these markets.

How is what I'm writing this not true when you write yourself:


The point is your team is not making money. I have heard Illitch make the comments in articles and clearly I'm correct because you confirm it by Devellano's statements.


So what if they made past profits (which is unlikely recently) if they lost 16.4m going to the second round of the playoffs in 2003-04. Does that give them some kind of entitlement to continue to spend until the entire NHL business fell apart?

No, you're not correct. Here's how: You said the Red Wings have claimed they don't break even until they reach the Stanly Cup Finals. The Red Wings have said they make a profit when they reach the conference finals. These two stateents don't match either in terms of money or time. I'll go with the Red Wings' version.

The profits they've mad give them no entitlement. They cover future losses. They were entitled to spend whatever Mr. Ilitch wanted. He knew if the team failed, he'd lose money. He was OK with that. And guess what? The team did fail, so his spending didn't get him anything, did it?

As for lousy ratings, the Red Wings consistently draw the best numbers for ABC, and drew about double in 2002 for the Finals than the last two years. Those numbers are even better when you remember that the majority of Wings fans would've watched that series on CBC.

 

[GSC2k2*]

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?

Do you have a link for this? I have searched high and low and cannot find anything that indicates how the NBA's revenue sharing works as a system. One thing I have found (sorry, no link) is on an IRS website and references NBA revenue sharing for gate receipts as 94%/6%. I assume national TV contracts are shared equally; again, no link, but every national TV contract in every sport works that way.

As far as luxury taxes and escrow amounts, the manner of sharing is not specified in the NBA CBA and not publicized.

In baseball, i can say you are absolutely and completely incorrect. Adherence to the salary "cap" in MLB has nothing to do with it and nothing to do with how revenue sharing is split.

Exactly where are you getting your "facts"?

Revenue sharing will have precisely dick to do with the level of team spending on salaries. I cannot believe this discussion has endured for several pages. It is completely self-evident - so much so that it is a ridiculous discussion point.

 

[NYIsles1*]

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.

Aside from reading or hearing interviews with Tom Hicks claiming his hockey team lost money it's been documented the Stars are not profitable. We can talk about the losses being less than what they want us to beleive but a team that builds a new facility that goes to the playoffs should be making a healthy profit. In the Stars case this is simply not happening.

http://www.forbes.com/free_forbes/2003/1208/nhl_2.html

The skinny
On the ice and with its fans, the Dallas Stars have proven that hockey can make it big-time in the South. But the team's bankers are not impressed. The team has been losing money due to a high payroll and its 50% owned American Airlines Arena is stacked with debt.

 

[ScottyBowman]

Do you have a link for this? I have searched high and low and cannot find anything that indicates how the NBA's revenue sharing works as a system. One thing I have found (sorry, no link) is on an IRS website and references NBA revenue sharing for gate receipts as 94%/6%. I assume national TV contracts are shared equally; again, no link, but every national TV contract in every sport works that way.

As far as luxury taxes and escrow amounts, the manner of sharing is not specified in the NBA CBA and not publicized.

In baseball, i can say you are absolutely and completely incorrect. Adherence to the salary "cap" in MLB has nothing to do with it and nothing to do with how revenue sharing is split.

Exactly where are you getting your "facts"?

Revenue sharing will have precisely dick to do with the level of team spending on salaries. I cannot believe this discussion has endured for several pages. It is completely self-evident - so much so that it is a ridiculous discussion point.

http://members.cox.net/lmcoon/salarycap.htm#16

 

[reckoning]

That is my point. Their was more parity during the last decade in hockey than there ever was. To judge parity, I look at the standings and look at how many teams were under 60 pts and what the difference in pts was between the top playoff team and the bottom playoff team.

For example in 83-84, the Detroit Red Wings were in the playoffs with 69 pts.

84-85 Detroit made it in with 66 pts

85-86 Toronto made it with 70 pts

Fast forward it to 2000

The bottom seed had 84 pts

My point is that teams are much closer right now than they were back in the 80's record wise. I don't get the argument about parity when we have 16 teams finishing with above .500 records.

Very true and correct points; which means the pro-owners sheep will jump all over you with name-calling and insults. They all like to say "Detroit and Colorado have high payrolls and win Cups so that proves you can`t win without a high payroll", yet at the same time dismiss the Rangers or St. Louis dismal records as aberrations or flukes. As somebody mentioned earlier, Tampa didn`t have a high payroll in their Cup year. There has been more parity over the last 5 years than any other time in the NHL`s history. It`s a fact. This lockout was all about putting more money in Jeremy Jacobs pockets- that`s it.

 

[hockeytown9321]

which means the pro-owners sheep will jump all over you with name-calling and insults.

Or, in their language, prove him wrong. they'll probably put the eye roll guy, the shrugging shoulders guy, the laughing guy or the professor guy at the end of that insult or shout down, becuase that only proves thier point further.

 

[reckoning]

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.

Post of the year. Couldn`t have said it better myself.

 

[txomisc]

Or, in their language, prove him wrong. they'll probably put the eye roll guy, the shrugging shoulders guy, the laughing guy or the professor guy at the end of that insult or shout down, becuase that only proves thier point further.

Im not even sure why parity is being brought up. I dont see many people wanting 100% performance parity. What we want is something close enough to economic parity that teams can compete. We dont want every team to have an equal shot at winning, we want every team to have an equal shot at building a winner through good drafting and wise decisions. and plus you forgot this one

 

[hockeytown9321]

Im not even sure why parity is being brought up. I dont see many people wanting 100% performance parity. What we want is something close enough to economic parity that teams can compete. We dont want every team to have an equal shot at winning, we want every team to have an equal shot at building a winner through good drafting and wise decisions. and plus you forgot this one

How can I argue with that? You proved your point 5 different ways. If Goodenow had mastered the use of the emoticon, there wouldn't be a cap.

 

[NYIsles1*]

No, you're not correct. Here's how: You said the Red Wings have claimed they don't break even until they reach the Stanly Cup Finals. The Red Wings have said they make a profit when they reach the conference finals. These two stateents don't match either in terms of money or time. I'll go with the Red Wings' version.

The comments I have read or listened to on the Wing needing to go to the finals to break even date back a few years. It still does not diminish the point the Wings lose money going deep into the playoffs. With 16.4m in losses going to the second round they no longer are capable of making ANY profit even with winning the cup under the old system.

They were entitled to spend whatever Mr. Ilitch wanted. He knew if the team failed, he'd lose money. He was OK with that. And guess what? The team did fail, so his spending didn't get him anything, did it?

It helped set a market the league could no longer function with and the league shutdown. That's what it got everyone.

As for lousy ratings, the Red Wings consistently draw the best numbers for ABC, and drew about double in 2002 for the Finals than the last two years. Those numbers are even better when you remember that the majority of Wings fans would've watched that series on CBC.

The only thing the numbers consistently confirm are the Wings have little impact on ABC ratings..

http://www.andrewsstarspage.com/NHL-Business/NHL-TV-Ratings.htm

 

[ScottyBowman]

Im not even sure why parity is being brought up. I dont see many people wanting 100% performance parity. What we want is something close enough to economic parity that teams can compete. We dont want every team to have an equal shot at winning, we want every team to have an equal shot at building a winner through good drafting and wise decisions. and plus you forgot this one

I agree with that only if they put some clause in the CBA allowing you to go over the cap to sign your own players that you drafted. Otherwise, economic parity only benefits teams like the Blackhawks.

 

[hockeytown9321]

The only thing the numbers consistently confirm are the Wings have little impact on ABC ratings..

http://www.andrewsstarspage.com/NHL-Business/NHL-TV-Ratings.htm

2002 Finals ratings were a full point higher than 2004's, not including CBC. And the highest Finals rating came in 1997. And the highest average regular season ratings came in years they made the Finals, set an NHL record for wins, or won the Stanley Cup. I'm afraid you're wrong, so I'll use the professor.

 

[NYIsles1*]

2002 Finals ratings were a full point higher than 2004's, not including CBC. And the highest Finals rating came in 1997.

Dallas-New Jersey had higher ratings than three of the four finals the Wings participated in. The only thing the numbers prove is Detroit has little impact, regular season or otherwise. The only marginal bump in finals ratings was with
Philadelhia-Detroit, without the Flyers next year Washinton-Detroit produced a tie for lowest rated final until 2002-04.

Your going to make a case the Wings are good for hockey based on these horrible numbers?

As for lousy ratings, the Red Wings consistently draw the best numbers for ABC, and drew about double in 2002 for the Finals than the last two years.

3.6 is not double 2.6 or 2.9.......Either way who cares. Fox, ABC and Espn said no thanks to all thirty markets and the numbers explain why.

1995 New Jersey-Detroit 3.4
1997 Detroit-Philadelphia 4.0
1998 Detroit-Washington 3.3
2002-Detroit-Carolina 3.6

And the highest average regular season ratings came in years they made the Finals, set an NHL record for wins, or won the Stanley Cup.

The regular season numbers on Fox or Abc are awful between 97-99 and 03-04 regular season ratings are between 1.1-1.4.

Where is all this huge impact Detroit brings?

 

[GSC2k2*]

http://members.cox.net/lmcoon/salarycap.htm#16

I had found this one myself, but apparently did not read far enough (previously only got to para 14). I am afraid this does not give your position much support. A miniscule portion of revenue sharing occurs through luxury taxes based on exceeding a threshold which is above the salary cap. THe other 90% + of revenue sharing occurs equally (more or less, with a few exceptions for Toronto currency exchange and injured player issues).

I repeat you are off on your MLB assertion. To suggest that the NBA's revenue sharing is based on exceeding the salary cap is plain wrong, and to suggest that it is based on exceeding a certain salary threshold is a gross overstatement of a very small portion of revenue sharing in the league.

 

[CantHaveTkachev]

Very true and correct points; which means the pro-owners sheep will jump all over you with name-calling and insults. They all like to say "Detroit and Colorado have high payrolls and win Cups so that proves you can`t win without a high payroll", yet at the same time dismiss the Rangers or St. Louis dismal records as aberrations or flukes. As somebody mentioned earlier, Tampa didn`t have a high payroll in their Cup year. There has been more parity over the last 5 years than any other time in the NHL`s history. It`s a fact. This lockout was all about putting more money in Jeremy Jacobs pockets- that`s it.

yuo forgot to mention Toronto drafting all their oldies and having one of the best young talents in the league they've been hiding their terrible drafting by buying UFA for years.

sure, Tampa won the cup but they did something out of this world...they drafted well and developed their talent!! holy cow! who would have thought!! ...under the old CBA, how long until they have to sell off an important piece of their championship puzzle because he got too expensive?

I'll say it simple so you can all understand...WE JUST WANT AN OPPERTUNITY TO HOLD ONTO OUR PROSPECTS AFTER WE'VE DEVELOPPED THEM INTO SUPERSTARS!...
and about parity in the NHL, of the last 10 cup champions, only Tampa Bay was a "small market". Sure there has been some cinderalla-type runs (Vancouver in '82 and '94...Minnesota in '91...Anaheim in 2003...Buffalo in '99....Florida in '96...Calgary in 2004) yet they rarely win

 

[Sammy*]

Good Lord, the Stanley Cup stayed in Montreal, Long Island and Edmondton for 12 of 13 years.

The parity of the the last decade looks positively communist next to that.

Imagine that. Back in the day where you actually had to draft, manage & coach well to do well. Where the almiighty dollar wasnt a basic pre-requisite to doing well or constantly missing the playoffs.
The horror. The horror.