I'm sorry but 6.25% and 8.75% is pretty close to the max and both are less then 10%. So if this held true with the NHL it would mean that all teams would be over $40M if the cap was set at $45M.
nomorekids said:I work with no less than 5 Philadelphia Eagles fans. I heard at least 5 accounts of why the Eagles lost the Super Bowl, and at least 4 contained "and they won't even spend up to the cap."
What's your point? Someone said that all of the NFL was right up against the cap. They aren't. I don't know what your argument against me is.triggrman said:I'm sorry but 6.25% and 8.75% is pretty close to the max and both are less then 10%. So if this held true with the NHL it would mean that all teams would be over $40M if the cap was set at $45M.
Dr Love said:What's your point? Someone said that all of the NFL was right up against the cap. They aren't. I don't know what your argument against me is.
Well, the Browns and Eagles (and one other IIRC) were more than 10% under the cap, so no, not every team was right against the cap. John Clayton has a list on ESPN, but my comp's on the fritz and it won't let me access the page.MLH said:Within 10% is close to the cap.
Dr Love said:Well, the Browns and Eagles (and one other IIRC) were more than 10% under the cap, so no, not every team was right against the cap. John Clayton has a list on ESPN, but my comp's on the fritz and it won't let me access the page.
The difference? To a number of people that is the same thing. If by total payroll you mean only the money paid to players on the roster, no, I am going by salary cap, because that is what counts.MLH said:Are you going by salary cap figure or money paid out for payroll?
Dr Love said:The difference? To a number of people that is the same thing. If by total payroll you mean only the money paid to players on the roster, no, I am going by salary cap, because that is what counts.
It doesn't matter anyway. NFL teams get roughly 95% of their cap figure from TV contracts alone, then they also have merchandising, tickets, local radio revenue, local sponsorships, etc... all of which are much much more than what the average NHL team gets. The NFL salary cap has never been a good example for comparision to the NHL, the NBA is a better--not necessarily good, but better--fit.
Dr Love said:Since when are 11 and 15 years "recent"? Perhaps you mean just the Cup Finals in regards to the Caps, which was 7 years ago. And do share how the Caps are "an oft-cited example of just how competitive the league is."
It's over a decade ago, that is not recent.PecaFan said:When your my age, 10 years *is* recent. Years pass now like months used to pass. Sorry, but 1994 is not that long ago.
I have no idea what you are talking about, I haven't seen that 'common refrain.' The Caps took Jagr because Pitt couldn't afford him, and were terrible last year and drop salary left and right. If anything, they are an example of how things are NOT fine.As for the Caps, the common refrain used practically daily around here is "look how many different teams have made the Conference Finals!! 12 different teams in 3 years!!"
The Caps, Ducks, and Hurricanes are the "Big Three" of the "competition is just fine" crowd. They repeatedly say that a run to the finals like these teams managed once every 10 years is proof that everything is just fine.
go kim johnsson said:Yes. And where are the Caps and Rangers now?
Dr Love said:It's over a decade ago, that is not recent.
I have no idea what you are talking about, I haven't seen that 'common refrain.'
broman said:A cap of $xx is no more a "magnet" than Wings blowing away $77M annually. No team is under any kind of obligation or unbearable pressure, from fans or otherwise, to try and meet Detroit's budget, or that of any other big spender. It's just nonsense. Having a cap in place wouldn't change that the least bit.
Sure fans will whine and wish their team would spend spend spend, but at the end of the day that's not going to change anything. Besides or whole lot of so-called "knowledgeable" fans take great pride (and make a lot of noise) in calling on their team to invest in budding youth, not another aging underperformer with a highly debatable price-to-performance ratio. They see through the bluff of Holiks and Jagrs of this world. Why can't the owners?
So "recent" is 10 years ago and "common" is 3 times. Gotcha. And only 1 of those links mentioned the Capitals by name.PecaFan said:The Rangers have won the Cup more recently than *twenty four* other teams.
Geezus, do you even read the boards at all? This comes up all the time, even the NHLPA loves to trot out these kinds of quotes. Just a few from browsing for a couple of minutes:
http://www.hfboards.com/showpost.php?p=2423216&postcount=23
http://www.hfboards.com/showpost.php?p=2510875&postcount=1
[url="http://www.hfboards.com/showpost.php?p=2504239&postcount=56"]http://www.hfboards.com/showpost.php?p=2504239&postcount=56[/url]
go kim johnsson said:Since we're talking about the Preds.
http://www.nashvillepredators.com/pressbox/news/default.asp?item_id=5313
Gaylord Entertainment is getting out of their deal with the Predators.
Leipold makes some money, loses a sponsor (although they say they will "support" the team).
Thanks to the Nashville board, where I found that.
No, this has been going on for 3 years it's has nothing to do with hockey and Leipold said yesterday in the long run he'll benefit greatly from this.Greschner4 said:Maybe there's some politics involved that those outside of Nashville don't know about but it says here that when a key partner and big backer of hockey -- and the very name on the building where you play -- bails out, you're in big, big trouble.
It's pretty clear that Gaylord wanted to get in on the ground floor and that the high hopes and expectations for hockey in Nashville that the company had at the beginning are now long, long gone.
This could be the beginning of the end of the failed experiment of NHL hockey in Nashville.
triggrman said:No, this has been going on for 3 years it's has nothing to do with hockey and Leipold said yesterday in the long run he'll benefit greatly from this.
Gaylord restructured a few years ago and decided to shift more to just strictly hotel ownership/management. They sold most of their record labels and radio stations (except 650 WSM). They wanted out of the naming rights of the arena too (remember it's not just a house for hockey, it's also the main concert venue for fan fair and it sits right next to the Country Music Hall of Fame). They also sold Opry Mills Mall. Gaylord has been slowly pulling out of Nashville and the country music scene since the backlash they took from closing Opryland Park. It has nothing to do with hockey.
Greschner4 said:Whatever ... As I said, I'm sure someone will cite local factors. All those factors are merely cover for the fact that a major corporate sponsor in Nashville -- perhaps the biggest -- and a partner in the Preds has bailed out of the hockey business. You can hope all you want that it doesn't mean anything, but it obviously does.
Greschner4 said:Whatever ... As I said, I'm sure someone will cite local factors. All those factors are merely cover for the fact that a major corporate sponsor in Nashville -- perhaps the biggest -- and a partner in the Preds has bailed out of the hockey business. You can hope all you want that it doesn't mean anything, but it obviously does.
vopatsrash said:In other words "Someone who lives in Nashville with more knowledge of this than I will explain the actual situation, but I will choose to not believe it because it doesn't fit what I want to believe."
Greschner4 said:I have just as much knowledge of the big picture and the big picture is that Gaylord was in on the ground floor of hockey in Nashville and it's only a few years later and they want out.
Those aren't the actions of a company happy with its investment and the future, no matter how you want to try to dismiss it.
The Preds' situation could be every bit as much a cause of Gaylord wanting to shed non-core businesses as an effect. Maybe if hockey in Nashville were a bigger success, Gaylord would see hockey as a core business.
nomorekids said:But you're missing the big picture. Hockey isn't the only thing at the GEC. Leipold just served as the proprieter. Gaylords naming rights went beyond just hockey...it went to every concert(it's the primary big concert venue in an entertainment-based city) arena football and so on. You're grasping at straws here, but as vopatsrash pointed out, there are people that have been following this story for almost four years now that are bound to know much more about it than someone on the outside who is simply speculating. Gaylord's pulling-out of all their interests has been widely publicized and often criticized. In my opinion, they're doing their part to keep their luxury boxes and season ticket options, and the Preds are free to find a new suitor to the naming rights. This is seen as a VERY good thing, whether you recognize that or it fits your argument or not.
Greschner4 said:Find me a company that's bought out a naming rights deal within 6 years that didn't either go bankrupt or get bought out/merged in any sport in the past 20 years and I might start to reconsider.