Owners cave again??

[CarlRacki]

Reading is fundamental, you know?

Instead of creating differences where none exist, why not stand on your own Braveheart? Do you think that the needs of 0-15 (depending on who's "facts" one wishes to rely on) financially periled franchises should be the sole/major focus of the CBA, from the owner's perspective?

Try taking a stand, instead of playing the role of guttersnipe contrarian to perfection.

I'm flattered that you choose to misconstrue my posts with frequency, but for the sake of the board, the "Ignore" button appears to be in order.

Sadly, some folks are not happy unless they are disagreeable, one guesses.

Oh, one last one for you: today is Thursday, January 27th. Care to debate that one?

I've taken numerous stands, Deputy Fife, mostly stating that the best solution would be an NBA-type system. I've laid out my proposal (and how it would benefit all parties) in various other threads and don't feel the need the rehash it.
Again, if my facts are so skewed, biased, unobjective, whatever .. refute them.

"Oh, one last one for you: today is Thursday, January 27th. Care to debate that one?"
Sure. In several parts of the world it is Friday, January 28th.

 

[Brent Burns Beard]

Exactly!

But alas, your reasoning addresses the very real economic concerns of these franchises.

It does not address the real motivation of some fans: denying even moderate economic freedoms moving forward to more affluent franchises.

As is, a softcap + luxury tax will discourage many teams from spending lavishly. Just look at MLB. Three teams(!) have chosen to exceed that league's luxury threshold. Three! The softcap will serve as a de facto hardcap for many teams, I suspect. (a.k.a. a legal excuse not to increase their payrolls).

not being an MLB expert, im sure one could argue the threshold is only exceeded by 3 teams because its so high.

would the same thing not be said right now if the NHL had a 60m LT threshold all these years ? its an almost meaningless marker since only a few NHL teams would even consider spending 60m on payroll no matter what system was used.

not to be mistaken with a supporter of the garbage the NHL has been promoting, but thought this point was interesting.

it bother me none that TOR and NYR can outspend the teams i chear for. big deal.

dr

 

[kerrly]

Canadians here are telling me that their teams can't afford to be in the league. So if Edmonton moves to a market that can afford them, or if they fold, and you, in Edmonton, stop watching the NHL... which no longer would exist there... how does that hurt me?

For the record, I see nothing magical about 30 teams.

Well if Edmonton goes, because a garbage CBA deal is signed, then very likely Calgary, Montreal, and Ottawa can go as well. Followed not too far behind the by the Canucks. You lose out on the money you get from the Canadian tv deal. Not too mention the loss in popularity in the league. If you're so confident that Canadians will still support the NHL with one NHL franchise or none at all. Take them away and see what happens.

Thats right, alot of the Canadian teams cannot afford to be in the league right now. Neither can about 10 teams in the states. You want a ridiculous CBA to be signed to allow your Flyers to be able to keep their high end talent, while other teams fold. Have fun trying to make a 10 team league float consisting of 9 American teams. Canada's importance to the league runs far beyond just having 6 teams up there, and that you will never truly understand.

 

[Dr Love]

would the same thing not be said right now if the NHL had a 60m LT threshold all these years ? its an almost meaningless marker since only a few NHL teams would even consider spending 60m on payroll no matter what system was used.

7 teams were over 60M in salary last year.

 

[NorthOiler]

Canadians here are telling me that their teams can't afford to be in the league. So if Edmonton moves to a market that can afford them, or if they fold, and you, in Edmonton, stop watching the NHL... which no longer would exist there... how does that hurt me?

For the record, I see nothing magical about 30 teams.

Its a good thing for the small market canadian cites that there are many small market american cities in the same boat. If Edmonton leaves or folds, so do many "prized" american teams. Look in your own backyard.

This aint a Canadian problem ... this is a NHL problem.

 

[kerrly]

Canadians here are telling me that their teams can't afford to be in the league. So if Edmonton moves to a market that can afford them, or if they fold, and you, in Edmonton, stop watching the NHL... which no longer would exist there... how does that hurt me?

For the record, I see nothing magical about 30 teams.

Well if Edmonton goes, because a garbage CBA deal is signed, then very likely Calgary, Montreal, and Ottawa can go as well. Followed not too far behind the by the Canucks. You lose out on the money you get from the Canadian tv deal. Not too mention the loss in popularity in the league. If you're so confident that Canadians will still support the NHL with one NHL franchise or none at all. Take them away and see what happens.

Thats right, alot of the Canadian teams cannot afford to be in the league right now. Neither can about 10 teams in the states. You want a ridiculous CBA to be signed to allow your Flyers to be able to keep their high end talent, while other teams fold. Have fun trying to make a 10 team league float consisting of 9 American teams. Canada's importance to the league runs far beyond just having 6 teams up here, and that you will never truly understand.

You can't even get one column on PTI for christ's sake. I've watched almost everyday over the whole lockout and its been brought up maybe twice at the end of the show. The NHL will never ever survive without Canada.

 

[Trottier]

not being an MLB expert, im sure one could argue the threshold is only exceeded by 3 teams because its so high.

would the same thing not be said right now if the NHL had a 60m LT threshold all these years ? its an almost meaningless marker since only a few NHL teams would even consider spending 60m on payroll no matter what system was used.

Meaningless indeed...if it did not have a residual effect of stabilizing payrolls. As in flattening out salaries. Through the 2004 season, it has done just that, as the median MLB salary decreased, albeit very modestly, in recent time. That point will clearly not be enough for those seeking draconian measures, but so it goes.

Also, consider that the NHL rumored system would also importantly, include the lower softcap+luxury tax threshold. Further incentive to keep payrolls down.

If a couple of teams wish to exceed it, so be it. They "could" conceivably buy their way (a specious argument) to a Cup. Or, they could be NYR. St.Louis, etc. (read: big spendors with nothing to show for it). Point is, the overall payrolls of teams leaguewide will stabilize/decrease, relatively speaking (without being "frozen in time", as some misguidedly pine for). Which is what this whole thing is about, no? Cost certainty.

 

[NorthOiler]

It will be amazing to see the money teams earn their success instead of buying it.

 

[i am dave]

Well if Edmonton goes, because a garbage CBA deal is signed, then very likely Calgary, Montreal, and Ottawa can go as well. Followed not too far behind the by the Canucks. You lose out on the money you get from the Canadian tv deal. Not too mention the loss in popularity in the league. If you're so confident that Canadians will still support the NHL with one NHL franchise or none at all. Take them away and see what happens.

Thats right, alot of the Canadian teams cannot afford to be in the league right now. Neither can about 10 teams in the states. You want a ridiculous CBA to be signed to allow your Flyers to be able to keep their high end talent, while other teams fold. Have fun trying to make a 10 team league float consisting of 9 American teams. Canada's importance to the league runs far beyond just having 6 teams up here, and that you will never truly understand.

You can't even get one column on PTI for christ's sake. I've watched almost everyday over the whole lockout and its been brought up maybe twice at the end of the show. The NHL will never ever survive without Canada.

First of all, I think you've gotten the mistaken impression that I've been pro-PA throughout all this. I've always favored a cap. I've just never favored a cap under $40M. If we're going to be fair, we need to be fair to all 30 teams.

Secondly, you can't have people telling me the Canadian dollar is the problem and then other people telling me hockey can't survive without Canada. You should get together with your Edmonton breatheren and figure out where you stand.

Thirdly, I'll state yet one more time since it's been largely ignored - I am not in favor of losing Canadian teams. I am in favor of losing warm weather teams.

Finally, don't tell me what I do and don't udnerstand about Canadians and about hockey. I have close friends from Toronto. I've been following hockey for almost 25 years. I spent Friday nights in college listening to internet broadcasts of hockey games instead of going to parties. I used to watch Hockey Night in Canada all the time (we got the CBC in the dorms). I even own a copy of the movie Hockey Night - you know, the one with the girl goalie.

PS, why would you want Kornheiser and Wilbon to talk about hockey?

 

[Brent Burns Beard]

. Canada's importance to the league runs far beyond just having 6 teams up there, and that you will never truly understand.

i am Canadian, live in Calgary and cheer for the Canucks. I get the importance of Canada to the league.

I think you are full of it. Talk about exageration. I have yet to see any proposal that would kill any team, including status quo.

If Cal Nichols doesnt like it, he can lump it or leave it. If he cant make an NHL team work with over 80m in revenue, than he isnt the man for the job.

DR

 

[Bruins4Ever]

Well if Edmonton goes, because a garbage CBA deal is signed, then very likely Calgary, Montreal, and Ottawa can go as well. Followed not too far behind the by the Canucks. You lose out on the money you get from the Canadian tv deal. Not too mention the loss in popularity in the league. If you're so confident that Canadians will still support the NHL with one NHL franchise or none at all. Take them away and see what happens.

Thats right, alot of the Canadian teams cannot afford to be in the league right now. Neither can about 10 teams in the states. You want a ridiculous CBA to be signed to allow your Flyers to be able to keep their high end talent, while other teams fold. Have fun trying to make a 10 team league float consisting of 9 American teams. Canada's importance to the league runs far beyond just having 6 teams up here, and that you will never truly understand.

You can't even get one column on PTI for christ's sake. I've watched almost everyday over the whole lockout and its been brought up maybe twice at the end of the show. The NHL will never ever survive without Canada.

This is the best post I've read here. American's don't understand the popularity of NHL hockey up here. It's bigger than anything, and I mean anything. We buy so much merchandise, go to so many games, and basically live an breathe hockey. As much as I want to see hockey this year, I see this proposal as a temporary solution. I could see it working, but I'd like to see a few more parts of it before I was to make up my mind. It definately has potential, outside of the franchise player idea, and it could work if implemented correctly. I just want to see hockey so bad, I feel like I'll cling to any shred of good news.

 

[Brent Burns Beard]

It will be amazing to see the money teams earn their success instead of buying it.

another cliche .. ... so which team bought their cup ?

dr

 

[I in the Eye]

Well if Edmonton goes, because a garbage CBA deal is signed, then very likely Calgary, Montreal, and Ottawa can go as well. Followed not too far behind the by the Canucks.

Why, because misery likes company?

 

[me2]

another cliche .. ... so which team bought their cup ?

dr

I can think of some that meet the criteria of winning a SC through financial might. Still there is more to success than just the cup, continuous contending is also a good definition. Which teams have increased their chances through excessing payroll spending?

 

[Brent Burns Beard]

I can think of some that meet the criteria of winning a SC through financial might. Still there is more to success than just the cup, continuous contending is also a good definition. Which teams have increased their chances through excessing payroll spending?

you havent described "buying" a cup.

One team I can think of that has tried to manufacture success with money is NYR. Hasnt worked.

WSH gave it a run with Jagr and Lang. Didnt work.

DET, COL and NJD drafted superbly.

DAL built a core before adding FA. When they REALLY went overboard on FA, it failed.

STL tried, failed.

TBY didnt try. Didnt fail.

DR

 

[kerrly]

First of all, I think you've gotten the mistaken impression that I've been pro-PA throughout all this. I've always favored a cap. I've just never favored a cap under $40M. If we're going to be fair, we need to be fair to all 30 teams.

Secondly, you can't have people telling me the Canadian dollar is the problem and then other people telling me hockey can't survive without Canada. You should get together with your Edmonton breatheren and figure out where you stand.

Thirdly, I'll state yet one more time since it's been largely ignored - I am not in favor of losing Canadian teams. I am in favor of losing warm weather teams.

Finally, don't tell me what I do and don't udnerstand about Canadians and about hockey. I have close friends from Toronto. I've been following hockey for almost 25 years. I spent Friday nights in college listening to internet broadcasts of hockey games instead of going to parties. I used to watch Hockey Night in Canada all the time (we got the CBC in the dorms). I even own a copy of the movie Hockey Night - you know, the one with the girl goalie.

PS, why would you want Kornheiser and Wilbon to talk about hockey?

I'm sorry if I'm incorrect but I believe you were in favour of this deal rumored to be presented in front of the PA. You've been harassed enough about your position to know what my points are against this, especially when it allows for an increase in players average salary, room for inflation, and nothing to lower the upper end salaries.

Sure the Canadian dollar is of course a hurdle that all Canadian teams face, but that has nothing to do with the NHL not being able to survive without Canada. One is a factor in team's financial success, and the other is a factor in the whole league's success.

But when you make points like, if Edmonton is gone, how will that affect me? I'm going to argue points against this. I personally don't see the point in getting rid of any franchises, I'm also completely against adding more too though. It will not increase scoring, it will not make the game any better to watch, etc. Anyways this is a whole other argument.

I'm not discounting your knowledge of hockey and that you have some Canadian ties. But I also believe that you stated that hockey is too much of a tradition for us to give up on the NHL even if our team is gone. When you have friends in Toronto, of course they will never give up on the NHL, because their team will never be in danger of losing their franchise. In many other markets that are faced with this reality, it is a much much different scenario. People here are very loyal to their clubs and don't forgive and forget easily. If the Oilers went south alot of fans won't. My hatred will be placed on Bettman, where it should be, for not getting the proper deal.

I don't care about Wilbon and Kornheiser.....it was just a point that it would be alot harder to make the NHL survive without Canada because of the lack on interest in the States.

 

[kerrly]

i am Canadian, live in Calgary and cheer for the Canucks. I get the importance of Canada to the league.

I think you are full of it. Talk about exageration. I have yet to see any proposal that would kill any team, including status quo.

If Cal Nichols doesnt like it, he can lump it or leave it. If he cant make an NHL team work with over 80m in revenue, than he isnt the man for the job.

DR

Is this yet another poster I have to explain about how the 80 million dollars in revenue actually works out, instead of having a certain pro-PA'er (not you) throw the figure around using it to paint a pretty picture.

 

[kerrly]

Why, because misery likes company?

No because some teams face the same financial reality as the Oilers. Of course the Canucks and Sens are much better off now than in previous years, doesn't mean that can't happen again. Everything is not always this pretty.

 

[Brent Burns Beard]

Is this yet another poster I have to explain about how the 80 million dollars in revenue actually works out, instead of having a certain pro-PA'er (not you) throw the figure around using it to paint a pretty picture.

i know how it works out .... fact is that it is still 80m dollars.

dr

 

[Brent Burns Beard]

No because some teams face the same financial reality as the Oilers. Of course the Canucks and Sens are much better off now than in previous years, doesn't mean that can't happen again. Everything is not always this pretty.

so how come VAN and OTT could do it, but EDM cant ?

dr

 

[I in the Eye]

Everything is not always this pretty.

And everything is not always this ugly, either...

 

[kerrly]

i know how it works out .... fact is that it is still 80m dollars.

dr

The year was 2002 - 03. The 80 million is in CDN funds. The dollar that year hovered in the low 60's I believe it averaged out to around 62 or 63 cents. The Oilers payroll that season was 31 million USD. That equals out to 51 million CDN, thats 64% of revenues on players salaries alone, not including player costs and salary bonuses. And of course all of the other costs that go into running a team. The Oilers also had 3 home playoff dates that year. Everything went as good as expected that year for the Oilers and they still broke even.

Sure you can make a team survive by running in the low 30's with that amount of revenue, but what kind of owner wants to own a team, when his goal is to make it survive.

 

[Sammy*]

so how come VAN and OTT could do it, but EDM cant ?

dr

I laugh whenever anybody points out Ottawa. Both you & I know (as well as anybody with any semblence of common sense) that their day of having to pay the piper is just about on them.The same thing is going to happen to TB in short order.

 

[kerrly]

so how come VAN and OTT could do it, but EDM cant ?

dr

Ottawa has had good drafting and player development as well as having their team fall into the hands of a rich owner willing to spend some cash and keep the team in Ottawa. Vancouver is a way larger market with more revenue and more money than Edmonton and has always been. Fortunately for them, they had some good management and acquired themselves a great team, allowing them to finally ice a team that is worth spending some money on, and that will not lose them money.

 

[me2]

you havent described "buying" a cup.

which team just bought a presidents trophy.

One team I can think of that has tried to manufacture success with money is NYR. Hasnt worked.

Worked in 94. solid team + edmonton oilers + buckets of cash = cup.

WSH gave it a run with Jagr and Lang. Didnt work.

Not all are winners, not all are losers. Washington wasn't much different to the Avs, Blake-Borque v Lang-Jagr. But Washington tried to buy a cup and the Avs didn't? Can't have it both ways.

DET, COL and NJD drafted superbly.

Indeed. Can't argue with Detroits first 2 cups, or NJs success or the Avs early success.

Do the Wings win their 3rd cup without using their substantial financial advantage to pick up players other teams can't afford (Chelios, Hasek) or UFAs?

Do the Avs win their last cup if they don't throw money at a UFA-dump Blake ($10m) or take on Borque and his big contract? Probably not.

Did the attempt to buy a cup outright like NYR, no, but you can't argue they didn't use the financial power to vastly improve their chances. They were not a Tampa type achievement.

Teams with money using money to improve their chances. Nothing illegal or unfair about it, it was allowed, it was how the old CBA was supposed to work to a degree.

TBY didnt try. Didnt fail.

Want me to list all those that didn't try and did fail?