PA's turn to make an offer the NHL cannot refuse..

Status
Not open for further replies.

nyr7andcounting

Registered User
Feb 24, 2004
1,919
0
WC Handy said:
are you not reading this????
do I have to make it HUGE for you to read it???

If every team spent to the $49 million level you have proposed, total player compensation would exceed what we spent last season and, assuming for discussion purposes, there was no damage to the game, our player compensation costs would exceed 75% of revenues. We cannot afford your proposal.

:teach:

Right but the problem is that it was his #1 reason for not taking a cap at $49M. He used a completely hypothetical and unrealistic situation to say, 'look this won't work'. That's the problem with it.
 

WC Handy*

Guest
Bob Goodenow is the last person I'd be posting to support my opinion, if I were you. He, just like you, doesn't get that the increase was a $75M increase in the cap. That is quite obvious...
 

CGG

Registered User
Jan 6, 2005
4,136
55
416
WC Handy said:
Really? That's his sole reason for rejecting the offer? Did he tell you this?

I might be going out on a limb here, but I'm guessing the nearly $30M difference between the highest and lowest payroll under that proposal might have been a reason?

Might be going out on a limb again, but maybe the fact that smaller market teams would still be at a disadvantage under their proposal might have been a reason?

Just a thought...

I can only go by what Gary said in his letter to Bob Goodenow, in which he outlined why the NHL wouldn't accept the $49 million cap offer. I don't remember seeing anything in here about $30M payroll disparities, considering his own $42.5 million cap offer had a potential payroll disparity of about $35 million since there was no minimum. If those were big issues, you think he'd use them to help justify his decision to turn down the offer.

Dear Bob:

It was disappointing to receive the fax of your "final" offer.

We would have been prepared to propose and negotiate over a "de-linked" maximum team salary sooner, but the NHLPA had been consistent in stating that the players would never accept a salary cap. We only learned in the mediation process on Sunday that you would entertain such an offer, which is why we asked for a meeting yesterday and made the "de-linked" proposal.

If every team spent to the $49 million level you have proposed, total player compensation would exceed what we spent last season and, assuming for discussion purposes, there was no damage to the game, our player compensation costs would exceed 75% of revenues. We cannot afford your proposal.

Our offer of earlier today was a $75 million increase over the offer we made yesterday. I hope you will accept it, and that we can move forward and negotiate the myriad of other issues that need to be addressed.

Sincerely,

Gary B. Bettman
Commissioner
 

nyr7andcounting

Registered User
Feb 24, 2004
1,919
0
Thunderstruck said:
How many teams in the NBA are more than 3M below the cap?

How many teams in the NFL are more than 3M below the cap?

Please don't use the NFL in any comparison with the NHL. The NHL is talking about a completely different cap. NFL teams can afford the cap level with their TV revenues alone. In the NHL most teams can't and never have spent what the cap would be, especially if it is going to be $45M or $49M whatever, so it is unrealistic to say that NHL teams will all spend the cap because NFL teams do. Completely different.
 

WC Handy*

Guest
Why would he outline that in his letter to Goodenow when they've been quite clear from the start of this that payroll disparity is equally as important as the cap itself? The point Bettman was making was simply that $49M was too high of a cap for the league to opperate under and I'm sure he would have worded his concerns differently had he realized that people such as yourself would read so deeply into the verbage he used when declining the unacceptable offer.
 

R0CKET

Registered User
Jul 2, 2004
320
0
gc2005 said:
Seriously dude, look at what's WRITTEN in the following links, stop trying to say the PA has only made one offer:

#1. Proposal

#2. Proposal

#3. Counter-Offer

#4. Adjustment of Previous Offer

Still want to tell me they've only made 1 offer?

Seriously, I mean wise up pal!

The first offer was you cited was before the season would have started. Don't even begin to try this as some kind of offer , knowing how Don Goodenow works this, was all BS. I mean how many proposals do you want to go back to before during any prior talks for the last 2 years? This season should have began AFTER that 1 POS craposal. Its not relevant at all.

What the other crap says is that they found a way to talk the same offer in several different ways that all pretty much would have arrived at the same end...assurance that the 70% gravy train will go on for the long haul. You know its one of those 6 of one half a dozen of the other "deals".

Only a chump would actually be taken to think they would have resulted in something different.

So I noticed you're kinda mum about the Wayne and Mario "deal"?? :amazed: It had the same bona-fide validity as the rest of their "proposals" but you seem to have conveniently omitted it? Their BS "negotiations" are meaningless.

You may see them as "formal proposed offers" but they are only BS designed to satisfy the idiots that believe these liars words and provide no way to hold them to accountability.

Words are cheap.
 

joepeps

Registered User
Jan 2, 2004
12,697
674
Toronto
Visit site
WC Handy said:
Why would he outline that in his letter to Goodenow when they've been quite clear from the start of this that payroll disparity is equally as important as the cap itself? The point Bettman was making was simply that $49M was too high of a cap for the league to opperate under and I'm sure he would have worded his concerns differently had he realized that people such as yourself would read so deeply into the verbage he used when declining the unacceptable offer.


I agree that 49 is too high IF.. see the IF... IF.. every team spent 49 million... but thats not the case.... only 6 teams will spend the 49 million the rest will be at the 35 avg rage.... so really.. they can afford it...
 

nyr7andcounting

Registered User
Feb 24, 2004
1,919
0
gc2005 said:
Explain this then:



How is a $42.5 million salary cap a $75 million increase compared to a $40 million salary cap? I'll make it multiple choice:

(a) If and only if every team spends up to the maximum allowable limit of $42.5 million
(b) Gary is lying

The idea wasn't that every team would spend $42.5M instead of $40M, it's that all teams would spend $2.5M more as the cap is raised. The $75M increase takes into account the fact that Pittsburgh would have to spend maybe $30M instead of $28M for the same players, because the top spenders are allowed to raise the market by $2.5M.

Bettman's theory that the cap acts as a magnet is fine. The "universe" of salaries is increased whenever the cap is increased.

The problem is that he talked about the theory in the complete wrong way, saying all teams would spend to the cap limit etc. All teams would spend more as the cap is increased, but that doesn't mean all teams would spend the cap.

If Detroit is allowed to spend $45M instead of $42M, it doesn't mean Pittsburgh will spend $45M it means that they will have to spend about $3M more for the same team, because the market is increased. So like $30M instead of $28M.

Problem is, some people took Bettman's terrible explanation of the theory and failed to understand what he's actually talking about. Some people on here still think that a $49M cap is too high because 30x$49M is too much. It's pretty annoying.
 

WC Handy*

Guest
joepeps said:
I agree that 49 is too high IF.. see the IF... IF.. every team spent 49 million... but thats not the case.... only 6 teams will spend the 49 million the rest will be at the 35 avg rage.... so really.. they can afford it...

If only 6 teams can reach the cap, it's too high.
 

nyr7andcounting

Registered User
Feb 24, 2004
1,919
0
WC Handy said:
If only 6 teams can reach the cap, it's too high.

Depends on what he rest are spending though. I assume your only concern with this would be competative balance...but if there is revenue sharing etc. and almost every team is spending at least low-mid 30's, than it's ok as far as competition goes.
 

joepeps

Registered User
Jan 2, 2004
12,697
674
Toronto
Visit site
nyr7andcounting said:
Depends on what he rest are spending though. I assume your only concern with this would be competative balance...but if there is revenue sharing etc. and almost every team is spending at least low-mid 30's, than it's ok as far as competition goes.


I'm assuming nashville will spend 20 -25 mill... ans the ottawa will spend 30-35 mill

I averaged the 24 teams at 30 mill and for arguments sake the Top 6 big franchises at the cap.. 49 mill

and it comes to 1 Billion dollars.... now thats alot left over for the Owners
 

WC Handy*

Guest
joepeps said:
49 49 49 49 49 49
plus 24*30

comes to 1 billion....

whats wrong with that?? how is that toom uch???

How do you not see something wrong with 6 teams being able to afford $19M more in players than the other 24 teams?
 

joepeps

Registered User
Jan 2, 2004
12,697
674
Toronto
Visit site
WC Handy said:
How do you not see something wrong with 6 teams being able to afford $19M more in players than the other 24 teams?


Okay how do you see if fair that I have no money where as Bill Gates is a billion air.. **** happends. suck it up.. not everyone is it it to make the bottom teams happy, and if you want the top teams to stay then treat them like you want them or they will go elsewhere...
 

joepeps

Registered User
Jan 2, 2004
12,697
674
Toronto
Visit site
Wisent said:
Even though they weren't in the Top15, it's the one exception to the rule.

On another note... the Lightning and Flames.. 2 "low market teams" were in the Stanely Cup Finals... and to say lower teams can't compete is not true.. they can if there managed correctly...
 

WC Handy*

Guest
joepeps said:
Okay how do you see if fair that I have no money where as Bill Gates is a billion air.. **** happends. suck it up.. not everyone is it it to make the bottom teams happy, and if you want the top teams to stay then treat them like you want them or they will go elsewhere...

Not that I didn't already know it, but thank you for making it clear to everyon else that your interests are completely vested in what's best for your favorite team and not what's best for the league.

Oh, and this idea that those 6 teams will go to another league is quite amusing. :biglaugh:
 

WC Handy*

Guest
joepeps said:
On another note... the Lightning and Flames.. 2 "low market teams" were in the Stanely Cup Finals... and to say lower teams can't compete is not true.. they can if there managed correctly...

What the last few years have taught us....

1. A hot goalie can take you far in the playoffs regardless of payroll, but only so far.

2. If you're lucky enough to sign a player for the league minimum that eventually turns into a Hart trophy winner and are able to pick up a goalie for next to nothing because he's holding out, you just might be able to win a Cup with a low payroll.
 

Slats432

Registered User
Jun 2, 2002
14,757
2,778
hockeypedia.com
joepeps said:
On another note... the Lightning and Flames.. 2 "low market teams" were in the Stanely Cup Finals... and to say lower teams can't compete is not true.. they can if there managed correctly...
They can compete. Once. Find a bottom 10 revenue team to be average of top 8 in the league for 5 years consecutive.

Improbably playoff runs aren't a solid guage of competitive balance.
 

WC Handy*

Guest
slats432 said:
Improbably playoff runs aren't a solid guage of competitive balance.

The playoffs as a whole shouldn't be used to gauge competitve balance. While winning the Cup is obviously the ultimate goal, an 82 game regular season is much more indicative of a team than a few playoff series.
 

Slats432

Registered User
Jun 2, 2002
14,757
2,778
hockeypedia.com
WC Handy said:
The playoffs as a whole shouldn't be used to gauge competitve balance. While winning the Cup is obviously the ultimate goal, an 82 game regular season is much more indicative of a team than a few playoff series.
No, but if a team that is a low revenue team ALWAYS made the playoffs, the PA apologists would at least have some validity to their point....but the one run from Carolina or Buffalo or Calgary really doesn't hold much weight.
 

nyr7andcounting

Registered User
Feb 24, 2004
1,919
0
joepeps said:
I'm assuming nashville will spend 20 -25 mill... ans the ottawa will spend 30-35 mill

I averaged the 24 teams at 30 mill and for arguments sake the Top 6 big franchises at the cap.. 49 mill

and it comes to 1 Billion dollars.... now thats alot left over for the Owners

Well that then might be a problem.

The salary range needs to b a)total salaries at a reasonable % of revenues and b)top salaries not too far ahead of bottom salaries.

As far as the salary range, and the affect it has no competative balance, I think $20M is the absolute max range the NHL should have. The floor should be 30M and the cap should be max $50M, probably a little lower. Of course that only works with revenue sharing, so as long as they share revenues than $20M is okay.
 

Weary

Registered User
Jul 1, 2003
1,068
0
slats432 said:
They can compete. Once. Find a bottom 10 revenue team to be average of top 8 in the league for 5 years consecutive.

Improbably playoff runs aren't a solid guage of competitive balance.
New Jersey Devils?
 

signalIInoise

killed by signal 2
Feb 25, 2005
5,857
0
Latveria
WC Handy said:
How do you not see something wrong with 6 teams being able to afford $19M more in players than the other 24 teams?

It's certainly not hard to imagine a team spending their $30M more wisely than another spending their $49M, is it? You really don't have to imagine -- you just have to remember Detroit watching the last Finals on television. It is a fallacy that more money equates to a better team.

The idea that the upper limit of the cap should be easily attainable by all teams is absurd. This subscribes to the same reasoning as the "No Child Left Behind" Act -- if high levels of achievement are curbed, below average students get the same level of education as the best and the brightest. In reality, all NCLB does is destroy America's place on the world stage, by dumbing down those who can to the artificially low level of the stupid.

For the record, I'm a small-market fan (Buffalo), and I don't see them ever hitting the upper reaches of any cap that is in place -- $20M, $30M, $100M, whatever. However, I am also a fan of the free market and think that any worker in any field should always be free to get the most they can from their employer -- as anyone who has ever worked a day in their life can tell you, the employers will do anything in their power to get the most out of their employees for their money. That is the very nature of capitalism.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad

-->