Salary cap good or bad?

Faltorvo

Registered User
Feb 18, 2008
21,067
1,941
Wait, are you saying a large market team should be able to "buy a championship?" or are you saying you think fans in smaller markets should pay the same price you do to see essentially the same product?

I'm very curious because I am a fan of both types of teams and a ticket buyer for both types of teams.

No, I'm saying i should pay what small market fans pay or something that looks similar to the floor/max set up. Don't get me wrong, i know it ain't happening.

But if i am forced to pay the highest average ticket prices in the league , which we do, then i expect the consumer should be able to receive some kind of competitive advantage that they pay so dearly for.

Let's face it, the new CBA was all about leveling the field , it did it's best to neuter the financial clout (impact of the fans) of the big markets. But sadly their fans got left behind, we as fans still pay as if we are in a big market , yet our franchises are not able to(for the most part) act like one when it comes down the the product we are paying for.

It bothers not the owners of the big markets , it gives them perfect cover to spend less then what we as fans might be able to pressure them into.

Unfortunately our ticket prices do not reflect the new realities in comparison to those being imposed on our owners.

Like i have said , what are our options to be able cause change ?

Not show up over a course of time and hopefully ownership will respond with lower prices for a short time?

How do you explain to your young kids that there will be no live games for a few years because you are trying to take a stand? Damned if you do and damned if you don't.

I'm not part of the evil empire known as MLSE but as a fan of the leafs i am surely feeling the effects of the war.
 

Dado

Guest
But if i am forced to pay the highest average ticket prices in the league , which we do, then i expect the consumer should be able to receive some kind of competitive advantage that they pay so dearly for.

This needs to be emphasized: a hard cap punishes both the most valuable fans in the league by not letting them get value for the money, and the weakest teams, who have trouble surviving even at the cap floor. The one group it most definitely helps is OWNERS of the big-market teams, who are essentially guaranteed large profits because they no longer have to compete against each other.

It's not the answer for hockey.
 

y2kcanucks

Le Sex God
Aug 3, 2006
71,229
10,319
Surrey, BC
No, I'm saying i should pay what small market fans pay or something that looks similar to the floor/max set up. Don't get me wrong, i know it ain't happening.

But if i am forced to pay the highest average ticket prices in the league , which we do, then i expect the consumer should be able to receive some kind of competitive advantage that they pay so dearly for.

Let's face it, the new CBA was all about leveling the field , it did it's best to neuter the financial clout (impact of the fans) of the big markets. But sadly their fans got left behind, we as fans still pay as if we are in a big market , yet our franchises are not able to(for the most part) act like one when it comes down the the product we are paying for.

It bothers not the owners of the big markets , it gives them perfect cover to spend less then what we as fans might be able to pressure them into.

Unfortunately our ticket prices do not reflect the new realities in comparison to those being imposed on our owners.

Like i have said , what are our options to be able cause change ?

Not show up over a course of time and hopefully ownership will respond with lower prices for a short time?

How do you explain to your young kids that there will be no live games for a few years because you are trying to take a stand? Damned if you do and damned if you don't.

I'm not part of the evil empire known as MLSE but as a fan of the leafs i am surely feeling the effects of the war.

One thing Vancouver has done with the surplus of money ownership has received as a result of this, is to reinvest in other areas of the team. Ownership has committed to increasing our scouting and player development budget. Rogers Arena underwent some extensive renovations to the team dressing room, and player facilities. The Aquilini's have poured a lot of money into the team in order to make Vancouver an attractive location for free agents to come here.
 

tarheelhockey

Offside Review Specialist
Feb 12, 2010
84,982
137,355
Bojangles Parking Lot
My anger is directed at the fact that we can't explore all avenues to improve my entertainment value per dollar spent.

My anger is directed toward the fact that a portion of the monies i spend on me and mine go toward others that get to view the same product at a fraction of what i pay.

1) Does this anger translate over to other businesses... say, movie theaters? Chain restaurants? Clothing stores?

2) Do you really think that your ticket prices would EVER go down under any circumstances, as long as people in your city are willing to pay them?
 
Nov 13, 2006
11,520
1,398
Ohio
No, I'm saying i should pay what small market fans pay or something that looks similar to the floor/max set up. Don't get me wrong, i know it ain't happening.

But if i am forced to pay the highest average ticket prices in the league , which we do, then i expect the consumer should be able to receive some kind of competitive advantage that they pay so dearly for.

Let's face it, the new CBA was all about leveling the field , it did it's best to neuter the financial clout (impact of the fans) of the big markets. But sadly their fans got left behind, we as fans still pay as if we are in a big market , yet our franchises are not able to(for the most part) act like one when it comes down the the product we are paying for.

It bothers not the owners of the big markets , it gives them perfect cover to spend less then what we as fans might be able to pressure them into.

Unfortunately our ticket prices do not reflect the new realities in comparison to those being imposed on our owners.

Like i have said , what are our options to be able cause change ?

Not show up over a course of time and hopefully ownership will respond with lower prices for a short time?
How do you explain to your young kids that there will be no live games for a few years because you are trying to take a stand? Damned if you do and damned if you don't.I'm not part of the evil empire known as MLSE but as a fan of the leafs i am surely feeling the effects of the war.

Price is set by demand. The entire Leafs situation is influenced by many anomalies. A lot of Leafs tickets are owned by ticket brokers. Part of the reason there are empty but sold seats at the ACC is the number of seats owned by companies and by brokers. If the fans stopped buying tickets from these brokers, they would most likely suddenly become available to the public directly from MLSE.

How does one explain to their kids no live games? I'm not sure where you live, but you can certainly go to Major Juniors games with the kids, you might not choose to support MLSE by going to see the Marlies, but you could see AHL hockey in Hamilton.


I'm lucky to live where I do. There are a number of good NCAA hockey programs within 100 miles (161 km), yet you even have more good choices in the GTA. I go to see NCAA hockey here, AND still buy season tickets for Columbus and a package for the Flyers. If I give up the Blue Jackets, which I'm seriously considering, I'd just go to more NCAA, Juniors and AHL games. It's a better value, I have as much fun, and frankly the Blue Jackets piss me off regularly. I've bought great seats for NCAA and AHL games for $20 or less, and at NCAA games, parking is free.
 

y2kcanucks

Le Sex God
Aug 3, 2006
71,229
10,319
Surrey, BC
1) Does this anger translate over to other businesses... say, movie theaters? Chain restaurants? Clothing stores?

2) Do you really think that your ticket prices would EVER go down under any circumstances, as long as people in your city are willing to pay them?

Just because your city doesn't support its team doesn't mean it's bad for every other city to support their team. A lot of us are hockey fans and die hards and will support our team through and through. We also like watching good hockey and seeing other teams come into our building (hence why we'll pay more in Vancouver to see a game against Detroit, than for what we're charged when Nashville comes to town).
 

Faltorvo

Registered User
Feb 18, 2008
21,067
1,941
One thing Vancouver has done with the surplus of money ownership has received as a result of this, is to reinvest in other areas of the team. Ownership has committed to increasing our scouting and player development budget. Rogers Arena underwent some extensive renovations to the team dressing room, and player facilities. The Aquilini's have poured a lot of money into the team in order to make Vancouver an attractive location for free agents to come here.

I am lead to believe Toronto has done the same.

I would trade all that for the ability to ship out dead weight/mistakes at no penalty , subsidies the contract of a unwanted player to another team. These are some ideas at the very least.

Ya know , i see posters here state things like the team/GM should suffer their mistakes and the likes.

The fact is it's the fans (the ones actually paying the freight) are the ones that suffer , the ones that have absolutely little to no say in the matter.
 

Faltorvo

Registered User
Feb 18, 2008
21,067
1,941
1) Does this anger translate over to other businesses... say, movie theaters? Chain restaurants? Clothing stores?

2) Do you really think that your ticket prices would EVER go down under any circumstances, as long as people in your city are willing to pay them?

It does not translate over to other areas for the simple fact that the product i receive is the same as it is at the other outlets for comparably the same price.

I'm sure as heck not paying $200 more to see a movie or eat at McDs then others are.

No I'm no fool , prices won't drop here.

So we are left with only one option, don't go to the games. How does that serve the fan in the long run? Make sense of that to your kids, if you chose to tell them the truth of , why?
 

Faltorvo

Registered User
Feb 18, 2008
21,067
1,941
Price is set by demand. The entire Leafs situation is influenced by many anomalies. A lot of Leafs tickets are owned by ticket brokers. Part of the reason there are empty but sold seats at the ACC is the number of seats owned by companies and by brokers. If the fans stopped buying tickets from these brokers, they would most likely suddenly become available to the public directly from MLSE.

How does one explain to their kids no live games? I'm not sure where you live, but you can certainly go to Major Juniors games with the kids, you might not choose to support MLSE by going to see the Marlies, but you could see AHL hockey in Hamilton.


I'm lucky to live where I do. There are a number of good NCAA hockey programs within 100 miles (161 km), yet you even have more good choices in the GTA. I go to see NCAA hockey here, AND still buy season tickets for Columbus and a package for the Flyers. If I give up the Blue Jackets, which I'm seriously considering, I'd just go to more NCAA, Juniors and AHL games. It's a better value, I have as much fun, and frankly the Blue Jackets piss me off regularly. I've bought great seats for NCAA and AHL games for $20 or less, and at NCAA games, parking is free.

Oh! the other options have been viewed . Jr A /OHL/ Marlies / oldtimer charity games/ local Rep games. But alas it does not diffuse the issue of when the question of " Can we go to a leafs game?". Let alone the issues when a Crosby or Ovi roll into town.:help:
 

tarheelhockey

Offside Review Specialist
Feb 12, 2010
84,982
137,355
Bojangles Parking Lot
It does not translate over to other areas for the simple fact that the product i receive is the same as it is at the other outlets for comparably the same price.

Perhaps you have heard of the Big Mac Index. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Mac_Index

As a Canadian, your Big Mac costs about 12% more than it would for the average American. The difference is even more extreme as you go south -- the difference is about 31% compared to Florida! And I'm willing to bet that Toronto's got higher prices than the average Canadian town, so it's probably even closer to 40% different when you take specific locations into account.

This is one of the main reasons people move to the south. Aside from jobs and weather, you can buy a lot of stuff cheaper down here. Hockey tickets are just another thing, and honestly it's nothing to be upset about. You could always take a vacation and see the Leafs for cheap on the road if you wanted.

So we are left with only one option, don't go to the games. How does that serve the fan in the long run? Make sense of that to your kids, if you chose to tell them the truth of , why?

In this day of TV and internet, it wouldn't hurt that much to stop going to games for a while. You guys have such a ridiculously wide variety of hockey options, honestly it makes a lot of sense to treat your kids to glass seats at an AHL game every now and then.
 
Nov 13, 2006
11,520
1,398
Ohio
Oh! the other options have been viewed . Jr A /OHL/ Marlies / oldtimer charity games/ local Rep games. But alas it does not diffuse the issue of when the question of " Can we go to a leafs game?". Let alone the issues when a Crosby or Ovi roll into town.:help:

I can sympathize with you on that. I am sorry your situation is the way it is.

Hey, you could always move! Lots of good seats available to see a bad team in Ottawa, but Crosby and Ovi do come to town there too!

I only say this because I know RR has considered moving if the Coyotes leave Phoenix. I believe he would too!
 

captainpaxil

Registered User
Dec 2, 2008
4,645
1,194
Whatever "market advantage" you are afforded as a big market fan should have nothing to do with the competitive balance of the league. There is absolutely no reason that small market teams should have to fight uphill in the player market.

Your market advantage already exists in the fact that you get to play in Winter Classics, see your team on national broadcasts, and generally reap the spoils of being in the spotlight all the time. That is in no way connected to whether your GM should have to make smart roster decisions.

the only small market team in the league is buffalo. the rest are all considered major us tv markets. as fas as larger and smaller markets go there is already parity.what is in contrast is each ownership groups ability to gain market share in thier market.the issue then becomes the availability of talent. are all teams given equal opportunity to bid on players services? i dont think anyone will argue that it is talented players which make for entertaining hockey. that was why the free agency age was lowered. to make a player available in thier prime so that the talent would disperse through the league.

the problem as i see it is that "smart gms" figured out rather quickly its both financially and compettitively to thier advantage to ice a less than competitive team. passing on adding a mid-level talent because of price in order to secure profitability and better draft position. i find it completely unacceptable that a team should finish multiple seasons with both a losing record and available cap space. the first key to having a competitive league is everyone at least tries to compete.
 

Pelle31

Registered User
Apr 3, 2003
1,058
313
Toronto
Visit site
As a Wings fan I feel that the cap punishes teams for being successful. I think parity is a nice word for mediocrity. In my view salary caps water down sports and create inferior product. In the 90s teams like Colorado, NJ, and Detroit were playing the game at an extremely high level albeit defensive. It seems to me that if you want to be good you should market your product as the best franchises in the league do. What do you think? Is it good that Chicago had to dismantle their team after winning a cup? Is it good that a team that drafts well and develops talent has to give up that talent as soon as they become strong NHL players?

Overall the cap system is good, but it hasn't stop brain dead GMs from giving players bad deals. I don't know if having a cap floor is beneficial for the teams because there are lots of teams that seem to be struggling to meet it and they end up losing money because of it. If you can somehow eliminate or move 6 of the struggling teams to better hockey markets then that would better for the league and salary cap overall. It will be interesting to see what happens in the next CBA but the ground work is there but there is definitely some tweaking to be done to make it better.
 

Dado

Guest
I agree with Faltorvo - if there is a hard floor/cap on spending, there should be a similar floor/cap on ticket prices across all franchises.
 

MoreOrr

B4
Jun 20, 2006
24,420
438
Mexico
Here's a question I thought of the other day, I guess this thread is as good a place as any to post it...

Would there be any logic in saying that once a league gets to a certain size that a Salary Cap becomes pretty much a necessary element if you wish to try to secure the future of the teams in the League?

I think it's not wrong to say that in the case of many franchises that the teams success fosters the fan following, and if there's little to no success then fans start to fade away, or new fans don't get interested. Oh sure, there are hardcore fans of the sport, whichever sport it may be, but in some cases, without the success of the team, there're aren't enough of those hardcore fans to help keep the franchise afloat during what may be long stretches of the team not doing well.

So, back to the point, with a large league, the odds of any team's overall success becomes less. Just talking winning a Championship, if all the teams won with a different team winning each year, that's 30 years between championships. Of course, we know that there are teams that endure longer stretches than that.


As for the answer to the OP: Good! For any number of reasons.
 
Last edited:

Dado

Guest
Would there be any logic in saying that once a league gets to a certain size that a Salary Cap becomes pretty much a necessary element if you wish to try to secure the future of the teams in the League?

There would be logic to saying that, but only if the cap is accompanied by very strong revenue sharing, either by direct taxation of the wealthy clubs, or by having the bulk of the revenue come from league-wide deals (eg broadcasting & merch).

Without such strong revenue sharing, which eg the NHL does not have while eg MLB does have, there will be no way to avoid having a perpetual circus of teams going on and off the death clock.
 

BadHammy*

Guest
It's very good long-term, as it's the only way to stop costs from flying out of control quickly but some fans will suffer short term.
 

Dado

Guest
Current bottom-spending team is at $33M actual payroll. Current top-spending team is more than double that, at $67M.

The bottom-spending team has 15 wins in 49 games, and sits at the bottom of the league. The top-spending team has 33 wins in 50 games, and sits at the top of the league.

Twice as much spending, twice as many wins.

#3 spender is 4th overall. #4 spender is 2nd overall. #5 spender is 5th overall.

The salary cap has done nothing to make small spenders any more competitive than they were pre-cap. If anything, it appears to be making the situation worse than it was before.
 

MoreOrr

B4
Jun 20, 2006
24,420
438
Mexico
Current bottom-spending team is at $33M actual payroll. Current top-spending team is more than double that, at $67M.

The bottom-spending team has 15 wins in 49 games, and sits at the bottom of the league. The top-spending team has 33 wins in 50 games, and sits at the top of the league.

Twice as much spending, twice as many wins.

#3 spender is 4th overall. #4 spender is 2nd overall. #5 spender is 5th overall.

The salary cap has done nothing to make small spenders any more competitive than they were pre-cap. If anything, it appears to be making the situation worse than it was before.

Got some good evidence for the first part of what you said. Where's your evidence for the bolded part... evidence and logic?
 

CanmoreMike

Registered User
Feb 27, 2002
2,815
614
#YEG
This needs to be emphasized: a hard cap punishes both the most valuable fans in the league by not letting them get value for the money, and the weakest teams, who have trouble surviving even at the cap floor. The one group it most definitely helps is OWNERS of the big-market teams, who are essentially guaranteed large profits because they no longer have to compete against each other.

It's not the answer for hockey.

This is one of the most intelligent comments on salary caps I've come across.

And you hit it right on the head with big market teams - they used the small market teams to get this cap knowing their $100M+ in revenues a year were secure post-lockout.

But the owners had the solution in the first lockout when the players offered a hard-cap of $45M but the owners insisted on cost certainty. Imagine the league today if they'd obtained that.
 

captainpaxil

Registered User
Dec 2, 2008
4,645
1,194
Current bottom-spending team is at $33M actual payroll. Current top-spending team is more than double that, at $67M.

The bottom-spending team has 15 wins in 49 games, and sits at the bottom of the league. The top-spending team has 33 wins in 50 games, and sits at the top of the league.

Twice as much spending, twice as many wins.

#3 spender is 4th overall. #4 spender is 2nd overall. #5 spender is 5th overall.

The salary cap has done nothing to make small spenders any more competitive than they were pre-cap. If anything, it appears to be making the situation worse than it was before.

talent costs money theres no getting around that. the devils and islanders have a huge payroll discrepancy yet little difference in the standings. yet unless your watching the quality of the product on the ice you wouldnt be able to say that 20 million dollars is the difference in two points. but it definitely would factor into a choice if you wanted to buy a ticket to a hockey game.

the cap is a percentage of revenue with the floor being a lesser percentage of the cap. as the game grows and revenue increases both the cap and floor go up. but the percentage of player share increases as well. there is no allowance for who is growing and who isnt. so any action to correct this disparity is then covered up by the increase in revenue. unless a small revenue team is growing at a faster rate then league average they'll continue to remain at the bottom. while top spending teams can simply plan ahead for the increase in payroll that goes along with increased revenue

what the salary cap lacks is incentive for the smaller market teams to grow or a mechanism to determine just who is unable to compete. i would argue for a set top percentage (60%) with the floor raising in percentage as revenue increases. instead of the floor being a set 55% of the cap it would be a percentage of average revenue. right now it would be approximately 31.5% of average revenue. id see that go up with 5 to 10% increases with each revenue benchmark. instead of forcing the top spending teams to grow already strong markets, you make the lesser teams justify thier existence by waiting for them to catch up.
 

Dado

Guest
what the salary cap lacks is incentive for the smaller market teams to grow or a mechanism to determine just who is unable to compete.

A promotion/relegation system would fix that.

(Yes, I know we will likely never see that in N.A.)

instead of the floor being a set 55% of the cap it would be a percentage of average revenue. right now it would be approximately 31.5% of average revenue.

This means less money for players, while retaining high profits for big-team owners. A heavy luxury tax with no cap ceiling, while retaining the cap floor, would IMO do more.
 

IU Hawks fan

They call me IU
Dec 30, 2008
28,516
2,813
NW Burbs
This means less money for players, while retaining high profits for big-team owners. A heavy luxury tax with no cap ceiling, while retaining the cap floor, would IMO do more.

Yeah, something like that works great in the NBA :facepalm:


The best thing for this league would be full revenue sharing, like the NFL has. That's never gonna happen, though.
 

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad

-->