SImple Question for the Pro-owner crowd

  • Thread starter A Good Flying Bird*
  • Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.

Anksun

Registered User
Dec 13, 2002
3,616
1
Montreal
Visit site
My team is Montreal,

my team is perhaps (more probably but...) the most HURT team in the entire NHL with a season lost because:

my team have the highest fix expenses of the league (start at 20 millions for taxes on building, ground + interests and so on.

my team would barely be able to afford a 42.5 Millions Cap let alone 49M is not faisable.

my team have the highest attendance number of all the nhl and that should show us what kind of difficulties the league is in.
_______

If the difference was really that insignificant, then the players should have move because they wont see this kind of offer anymore... People tend to think now that the players concession of the Cap was a bigger move than the League concession of Linkage: What a joke. The current impasse losts are Impossible to measure, we have absolutly no idea what the nhl finances (fans, tv, etc...) would looks like after
154 days of lockout (now 1 year) and the league agree to forget about linkage???????????? This mean they take ALL, absolutly ALL the risk. And this risk is not even about IF but about HOW MUCH the revenus will go down.

Welcome back Linkage to revenu in futher negociations.
 

ali_ababa

Registered User
May 25, 2002
17
0
Markham, Ont.
Visit site
New England Patriots...those are the three words I have for everyone...if they can play a great brand of football for four years (under a salary cap) and win Super bowls why shouldn't the NHL play by the same rules and force teams to flex their player evaluation/drafting skills, and not rely on greater financial wherwithall. Financial "parity" has worked in the NFL, for those teams that choose to exploit the system, abd the NHL would be no different.

The New York Rangers of the new generation would be the teams with the greater player evaluation staffs...it could be Florida...or Detroit...that is the beauty of a system that does not rely on ones bank account but hockey I.Q.

Yes, the NFL, has a much more stable financial footing but the concept is the same. All you have to do is find that stable point for the NHL as a league and voila you have a league where owners, players, and fans can enjoy this great game together.

Dave
P.S. I have been following HF Boards for 4 years but have not found many topics I felt like commenting on...but these two sides have pissed me off enough to speak out.
 

txomisc

Registered User
Mar 18, 2002
8,348
62
California
Visit site
Newsguyone said:
Dude, I don't see it.

Maybe I'm dense.

But I don't see how a $6.5 Million difference (spread over 20 players) completely changes the face of the leage.

I agree that it's nothing to sneeze at. But I also recognize that the inequity is NOTHING compared to what we've just experienced.
And I don't think it's worth killing the league for.
Well we've had a bunch of posters who wanted to scrap the season whether a deal was reached at this late stage or not. Is losing a 28 game season and playoffs going to do that much more damage than losing the first 50 did? Sure it's worse, but I don't see it killing the league.
 

futurcorerock

Registered User
Nov 15, 2003
6,831
0
Columbus, OH
Newsguyone said:
But neither does a $42.5 Million cap.
Sure, it gets you closer to exact parity.
But is it worth the cancellation of the season.

I mean, given where we've come from, and what your Bluejackets were up against up until now, isn't a $49 Million cap considered major progress? Not to mention the rollback.

I'm not saying the league should accept it.
I'd like to have seen the sides negotiate more and bring it to $45 Million, or whatever, with some of those loopholes closed.

What I worry about is the long term health of the league if this lockout does wipe out the season and if this does stretch into next season.

I was shocked to see the players give in on the cap, despite all the criticisms levied at the PA's proposal. I thought it would enable the two sides to actually get a deal done.

It just seems so damn petty to cancel the season when at long last, the two sides were actually talking the same language, at least somewhat.
you say it like it's 6.5 million.... multiply that number by 30 and you'll notice theres a bigger dispairity between the sides.

The fact of the matter is, if theres a graduated luxury tax, the higher the cap means that the graduation starts much higher.

Plus, your question in general comes off as weak to me, because a lot of the pro-owner sentiment comes more from being anti-player. Some pro-owner people would concur the PA's deal was sufficient, but right now it's to the point where the players' actions throughout this lockout have been selfish and ridiculous, and the players' representatives have tackled this process much in the wrong way that it should have been handled.

To me, it seems you missed the entire point of the argument.
 

CarlRacki

Registered User
Feb 9, 2004
1,442
2
Newsguyone said:
Dude, I don't see it.

Maybe I'm dense.

But I don't see how a $6.5 Million difference (spread over 20 players) completely changes the face of the leage.

I agree that it's nothing to sneeze at. But I also recognize that the inequity is NOTHING compared to what we've just experienced.
And I don't think it's worth killing the league for.

Newsguy:

I commend you for starting and staying with a good, serious discussion on the issue. But the $6.5 million figure you continue to cite is wrong.

The PA proposal also included significant cap elevators based on linkage and two exceptions allowing teams to add another $5 million to the cap during the six-year CBA. So, even throwing out the elevators, a team that can afford a $30 million payroll could and will be facing off against teams with $54 million payrolls. Yes, that's better than the $30 million vs. $75 million we have today, but it's still a far cry from the $30 million vs. $42.5 million in the league proposal.
 

Jag68Sid87

Sullivan gots to go!
Oct 1, 2003
35,575
1,249
Montreal, QC
nedved93 said:
we are co-owners of the senators in the new NHL complete with a $40 million hard salary cap. we just initiate a complete rebuild. we patiently draft and develop talent while our total salary is roughly $25 million. through hard work, we emerge from the rebuilding phase about three years later, to become competitive once again - our total payroll begins to creep steadily to $30 million, then reside firmly in the $30-$35 million range. our club is now fully developed, and has gained some solid playoff experience over the past two seasons. the pundits forecast that we'll be contenders for the cup, despite the devastating game 7 loss in the conference finals. however, we take a quick look at our total payroll and its right at that $40 million mark, but we ignore that problem for the time being focusing on the task at hand. the season draws to a close, and the pundits are proven correct - the senators are stanley cup champions! we've got a young team of proven winners, the question is, how do we maintain that core nucleus over the long-term given that our total salary is at the hard cap level?

Seriously, what team in any sport would NOT want to be in that situation??? You've just won. Repeating is NEVER supposed to be easy under any circumstance. Regardless of the system, you're always going to have problems keeping players after a championship season. That's the nature of the beast.

The good news is that even if you have to lose a few parts, no one team can load up with those or other parts to become stronger than you are (assuming the deal is done right) with just money.
 

nedved93

Registered User
Aug 5, 2003
135
0
Visit site
CarlRacki said:
That's a good question. For the simple answer, look at the New England Patriots and the Philadelphia Eagles. They've proven it can be done.

The longer answer is that successful teams will be those that build around a strong core of 6-8 top quality players that would eat up a little more than half your 2/3 cap room (say eight players with an average salary of $3.5 million or $28 million in all) then fill the rest of the roster with eight solid role players earning, on average, about $1.3 million, then give your final eight about $600,000 each.

Now, I'm sure your next questions is "What happens when those top 6-8 guys start demanding more than an average salary of $3.5 million?" Two things: First, under a cap they won't be able to demand a whole lot more than that because salaries over all will be deflated. Second, if and when that happens, you let the player go and replace him with someone you can afford.
This, of course, isn't all that different than what would happen to Ottawa under the present system. With $70 million in total revenue last year and $27 million in non-player costs (per Forbes) they're not going to be able to afford much more than $42.5 million in payroll regularly without going into the red regularly.
the NFL's revenue sharing model makes any comparisons difficult at best.

i understand the mechanics of your proposed solution, but i reject the premise that a team that goes through a long and tortured rebuild should even have to contemplate letting a core player go - that seems to be wholly unfair and provide a dis-incentive to adopting a "build-from-within" philosophy. i bring up the senators because as a rangers fan i am extraordinarily jealous of how their club has developed through the years. i see a model NHL franchise, that simply because of their own competent management, must be forced to decide whether to keep a hossa or a havlat in a strictly hard cap environment. any new CBA must ensure that clubs are never forced to be put in such an unenviable position!
 

Other Dave

Registered User
Jan 7, 2003
2,025
0
New and improved in TO
Visit site
Jag68Vlady27 said:
Seriously, what team in any sport would NOT want to be in that situation??? You've just won. Repeating is NEVER supposed to be easy under any circumstance. Regardless of the system, you're always going to have problems keeping players after a championship season.

Under the old system, the Sens had the opportunity to generate Devils-like revenues and maintain a Devils-like payroll, if they could match the Devils' penchant for winning. (For the record I recognize that they had not done so through 2004. I considered this season and the next to be make or break years for the Sens.)

Under a cap system, the Sens in the situation described by nedved93 get broken up.
 

mooseOAK*

Guest
Newsguyone said:
Fair enough, so explain how the long term health of the league is more secure if the league cancels the entire season (and drags it into next season) because of a six million difference in salary caps (which perhaps 6 or 7 teams will even use)

Because $6 million per team is a lot of money. And, even if not all teams use it it still drags the payrolls of the mid and low range teams up also.
 

nedved93

Registered User
Aug 5, 2003
135
0
Visit site
txomisc said:
Well the salary cap alone does not do most of those things. That is why there are also changes to the qualifying offers and arbitration systems. The salary cap does not have anything to do with things such as canadian taxation and exchange rates. That is dealt with seperately. In the past it was dealt with by paying players in US dollars but the actual Canadian teams only handing out the Canadian amount. It doesn't allow big-market teams to moderately subsidize smaller-markets either. That's for the NHL to decide in his revenue sharing program. The CBA needs to be broken down into its many pieces, don't expect just one (the cap) to be the entire cure for the NHL's ailment.
a cap alone most certaintly doesn't. i've believed for a while that the real driver of salary inflation has been the qualifier and arbitration system (ask most any rangers fan what they think of tom poti be awarded a 2 year deal @ $3.1 million per year!), which is why i'm such a proponent of tsn's proposed reforms to those systems combined with the player's much needed 24% rollback - they absolutely must be included in a new CBA.
 

Trottier

Very Random
Feb 27, 2002
29,232
14
San Diego
Visit site
What we have here ultimately (at least on this thread) is a simple disagreement as to what constitutes a fair market benchmark.

As an NYI fan, with a team operating at ~$40 mil, I've never felt that division rivals NYR at $80 mil, nor Philly, at ~$60 mil, had an unfair advantage on the ice. On the other hand, I felt that NJD, with a smaller payroll advantage but a winning pedigree, a proven lineup and an astute GM, had an incalculable advantage.

And going into the playoffs the last two seasons, I certainly didn't feel that my team had an advantage over the Sens and Lightning respectively, two teams with lower budgets that eliminated my team handily.

So I view a hardcap in the high $40 mil range that allows my team "average-NHL-payroll" team some roster/payroll flexibility, while significantly depressing the size of the wealthiest teams payrolls, very equitable.

That said, if I were a fan of a team that had to constantly sell off players, I would likely want as restrictive a cap as possible, because my team is so far removed from the wealthiest teams in the league. (And that is not meant as a slight.)

And of course, neither scenario addresses revenue linkage.

Regardless, this is a superb thread. :handclap:
 
Last edited:

Jag68Sid87

Sullivan gots to go!
Oct 1, 2003
35,575
1,249
Montreal, QC
There will always be teams that need to build more quickly than others. There will always be teams with better scouting and development staffs. However, if everybody would get under a cap (and I believe a floor is also a must, though with greater revenue sharing into the mix), then they'd all fall under the same umbrella...and nobody gets wet.

That is the basis of the owners' cost-certainty stance.
 

Double-Shift Lasse

Just post better
Dec 22, 2004
33,355
14,030
Exurban Cbus
CarlRacki said:
Newsguy:

I commend you for starting and staying with a good, serious discussion on the issue. But the $6.5 million figure you continue to cite is wrong.

The PA proposal also included significant cap elevators based on linkage and two exceptions allowing teams to add another $5 million to the cap during the six-year CBA. So, even throwing out the elevators, a team that can afford a $30 million payroll could and will be facing off against teams with $54 million payrolls. Yes, that's better than the $30 million vs. $75 million we have today, but it's still a far cry from the $30 million vs. $42.5 million in the league proposal.

And it seems to me this is all he's saying. It would have been better/more level than before. And I think he's wondering if that wasn't good enough to keep from cancelling the season. My answer to that question is yes.

As a fan of two lower-revenue teams, I would have accepted even a $49 million cap, provided there were significant negotiations regarding arbitration and free agency, maybe even non-guaranteed contracts, as well as meaningful revenue sharing. I would have seen this as a first step in a long-term process. Fans love to hold up the NFL model - it took that league 40-some years to put all of the economic pieces in place.

Ultimately, what comes of all this might well end up being better still. Honestly, I just wanted them to play.
 

tmangos

Registered User
Jul 7, 2002
354
4
Toronto
Visit site
Joe1-Lou2 said:
The difference between 6.5 million when combined w/arbitration and index will just continue the rise of salaries.

The Rangers will be able to use all of that 49 million. They sign player A for 7 million and his current smaller mrkt (Oilers, who will never be able to afford 49m payroll) affixes price of 4 million. He signs with Rangers. That has now set the market for players at that level of 7 million.

Top that off with arbitration, all players of that level will want the 7 million. Future players will want the 7 million +, or neogiate off that number.
So the Oilers will have to start letting players go or pay the price and now their payroll will climb.

So as Bettman said the salary cap will become a magnet for player salaries or teams will drop/trade/let go/players to keep payroll affordable and therefore be most likely non-competitive.

This doesn't factor in the index which would all but increase the salary cap and make the difference between the haves and haves not greater. And Then add on the exception allowing teams to go over the cap by 10% and the players system is not much different then the current system.

This sums up my feelings on why a hard cap is necessary for the survival of the league. A large-market team (I'm a Leafer, by the way) can afford to spend more than a small market team, obviously. Given a higher cap, they can (and will) spend that much more on a player - what the heck, being a large market team, they'll make their money back anyway, right? So right there, as Joe1-Lou2 says, they now set the market value for that type of player. If a small market team has that same kind of player up for arbitration, then obviously that player will now command & deserve that same "large market" salary. So a higher cap amount, in a league of large & small market teams, is inherently inflationary.
And in a league of large & small market teams, no matter what the cap, some of the small teams simply can never afford to go over a salary budget (e.g. $30-35M figures stated in other replies in this thread). Whereas the budget of a large market team will obviously be higher, probably to the max. A high profile free agent then, would most likely go to the team that can pay him more - again, what the heck, being a large market team, they'll make their money back anyway, right? And they won't have to do this at an outrageously high salary either, simply one that outbids the other teams. What you'll get is the high profile FAs on the large market teams, the leftovers on the small teams. (I'm not implying then that the large team would necessarily be more successful, but it would be nice to see those hi profile guys on the "small teams".)

A way to stop these league problems - salary escalation and "haves & have nots" - is to have a hard salary cap. The lower the better to reduce the difference between large & small teams.
Even if it was ONLY a difference of 6.5M, yes, I'd still stand my ground at 42.5 AT MOST.
Is it worth cancelling a season to get it right? Definitely.

That's my two cents ... keep the change.

P.S. Newsguyone - this is a nice thread you started. I appreciate your replies - simply asking posters for more info, trying to keep up an intelligent thread going, not trying to sway anyone to yours or anyone else's views. Cudos!
 

Beukeboom Fan

Registered User
Feb 27, 2002
15,391
1,189
Chicago, IL
Visit site
likea said:
hey, can you point me to the the "inflation" potential in the PA's proposal

Can someone help me out with a link to the PA's proposal? I was looking at TSN but now I can't find it.

It is referenced in several other threads, so I'm not making this up.
 

kerrly

Registered User
May 16, 2004
811
1
Regina
Trottier said:
I want to see the league sustain each of its 30 franchises, and cannot understand how any legitimate NHL fan would wish otherwise. However, to what end do you go to sustain the poorest teams? Another poster in this thread suggested - and I have no reason to challenge him - that the Oilers can only sustain a budget in the low-to-mid $30 million area....and that figure would put them an unfair $20 mil below the top teams.

Is the only answer to lower the bar (the cap) to appease the most economically challenged franchises? That is, use the lowest common denominator to dictate the payroll benchmark?

Actually, if you want to use the lowest common denominator, maybe we should use Pittsburgh or Nashville or Florida.
 

Trottier

Very Random
Feb 27, 2002
29,232
14
San Diego
Visit site
Beukeboom Fan said:
Can someone help me out with a link to the PA's proposal? I was looking at TSN but now I can't find it.

Bob Goodenow took it and went home. :joker:

kerrly said:
Actually, if you want to use the lowest common denominator, maybe we should use Pittsburgh or Nashville or Florida.

I hope you didn't take the mention of Edmonton personally, it was not intended as such (and I stated as much). The Oilers were cited earlier in the thread. My own favorite team would have been the ideal example of economic despair just a mere several years ago.
 

King Fish

Registered User
Jan 29, 2003
1,042
0
Where's ma pizza?
Visit site
The league holds all the cards, I don't see why the players did not take what was offered. It is not going to get any better for the players next year for the new round of talks. I'm not in favor of what the owners have done by canceling the season but as a player they should realize it's not getting any better.
 

nedved93

Registered User
Aug 5, 2003
135
0
Visit site
i don't think people are taking expectations into account here, a critical driver of inflation that most students of economics will appreciate. consider the pace of salary inflation in the UFA market over the past two summers - certainly far more sane than previous periods, but why? because all econonic agents who participate in the NHL realized that change was afoot, most likely in the form of a system that constrains future salary growth. based on those expectations, the behavior of those economic agents changed accordingly, resulting in somewhat more rational contract terms.

let's now assume that the NHL has agreed to a new CBA featuring a $25 million salary floor and $50 million salary cap. in this new world, only the most foolhardy of owners would be willing to offer exhorbitant contracts. would a bobby holik be tendered multiple offers averaging over $8 million per year? certainly not considering how unwise it would be for an owner to devote 16% of his club's allowable cap space to one sole player - expectations must change, and hence the market for all UFA's.
 

kerrly

Registered User
May 16, 2004
811
1
Regina
Newsguyone said:
So with an extra $6M on the cap, Detroit may offer $5.5 Million instead of $5 million, which still seems like a far cry from the $9M they offered last year.

When it comes to the model you are talking about, a $49 M cap isn't terribly more inflationary than a $43M cap.

$195 million over the whole league (not including the amount that teams can go over) is the amount to show how much more inflationary it can get.
 

me2

Go ahead foot
Jun 28, 2002
37,903
5,595
Make my day.
Newsguyone said:
Dude, I don't see it.

Maybe I'm dense.

But I don't see how a $6.5 Million difference (spread over 20 players) completely changes the face of the leage.

I agree that it's nothing to sneeze at. But I also recognize that the inequity is NOTHING compared to what we've just experienced.
And I don't think it's worth killing the league for.

I'd be willing to bet a $49m cap + $5m overdraft would blow out salaries of the lower clubs by at least 10% for the same roster as under a $42.5m cap. $45m cap with a loss of pick thrown in and I'd consider it close to workable.

There has to be something to control teams trying to stay at the top past their used by dates. Its just too damaging with a $49m cap most teams can't afford, too much reason for teams to postpone rebuilding IMHO.

I would honestly love a system where there was no cap on well built teams. There are ways of achieving that but I doubt the PA would accept them

ie PA gets 55-6% of the revenues and distributes it directly to the players. Teams get the players they've drafted/traded but don't pay them since the PA does that. In other words the PA becomes a giant labour hire firm and supplies players for a fixed fee.

Draft well, trade well and you could have a $200m payroll for just 55% of your revenue. Draft poorly and trade poorly and you'd have a terrible team for the money. Tampa or Ottawa could have more in payroll than their total revenue and it still only costs them 55% of revenue. TO might be paying $70m to PA for $20m worth of players at Pittsburgh current quality level.

It'd work but the PA wouldn't want to do it (nor would the rich teams).

OR

Another option might be an overdraft system top stop continual big spending. ie Instead of a cap at $42.5m for 10 years (max $425m) why not a cap at $35m/y + $75m in funding that can be spread around as needed (max $425m). You build your team and you spend bits of the $75m in the years you need it. There would of course be limits on how much you could increase the budget between years etc (ie no spending $75m in one go on UFAs etc).

If the PA/NHL sat down it could work out some quite creative ways to let teams grow into their salaries. The problem is it would take the PA to accept the NHL's 55% or $42.5m value (or close to it) and then get creative.
 

MRWRISTER

Registered User
Feb 19, 2003
13
0
State of Confusion
Visit site
For me, simply put, the league is in worse shape because there is no national TV contract here in the states. I also believe the league extended itself to 42.5 and told the PA thats it. I also believe the owners really only wanted to go as high as 35-38 million. To say they were only six million apart is not being honest when we don't know all the facts. The players have to relise that this sport is not on par with other sports when they don't have the revenues. Yes some teams do but MOST do not. I find it incomprehensible that any employee can tell their employer they will get a certain amount of money regardless of the revenues.
No successful business operates this way, period. If you couldn't afford to go to games would you take your mortgage/rent money to go.

Also arbitration is a great unknown here salaries escallate all the time.
 

lazaer

Registered User
Jan 29, 2005
25
0
e-town
Newsguyone said:
I understand.
But It's also important to remember that there will probably be two to four teams maxing out in the first few years.

And it's also important to remember that this is a huge improvement over what previously existed.

And it's also important to remember that the season and the future of the league, perhaps, hangs in the balance.

As a wings fan, I've lived high on the hog (after many years of mediocrity).
Still, I fail to see how the league could get hung up on such a petty number after the most difficult hurdle had been cleared.

ANd I don't understand why fans are so hateful toward the players when they've clearly, clearly, clearly made MAJOR concessions.

As an Oilers fan i've lived with mediocrity for a very long time. I can remember the Oilers winning the cup in 90 but i was 9 and didn't really understand the importance of the event i was seeing, it was the end of an era. What i do remember though is a crappy team till i was about 15, then i remember almost losing the team, then i remember a promising and exciting team on their way up (Weight, Cujo, Guerin) and now i remember my Oilers fighting for survival, getting hand-me-downs (Neved) from a former GM. That sucks. I think your right this deal is better than what was before, but a bad deal is still a bad deal. I understand that i am looking at this selfishly and that the league's future is now in a LOT of trouble, but under the PA's proposal the Oilers don't have a future. The 42 Million cap would be a stretch for this team but i think we could make due. I have no hate or even dislike for the players, i have had the pleasure my meeting a few players and they were great people i just think that the players don't trust the owners (for good reason) and if the PA can make a deal that brings small market teams the ability to RETAIN players then i'm all for it. The PA has yet to do this. This probably belongs in the rant thread but i hope this answers your response.

P.S. I can't stand hearing people say "well too bad Edmonton, mabey you shouldn't have an NHL team". My only response to this is if this city can't support a team then there is something SERIOUSLY wrong with the NHL and it must be fixed. When Marchant scored in Game 7 over Dallas people were honking there horns and the city was going crazy, when a game against Dallas (1999) game 4 went to triple overtime and eventhough Dallas won the series 4 games to none everbody at my school the next day was dead tired cause they stayed up to watch. If thats not passion then i don't know what is. If hockey can't live here, then where can it?
 

kerrly

Registered User
May 16, 2004
811
1
Regina
Trottier said:
I hope you didn't take the mention of Edmonton personally, it was not intended as such (and I stated as much). The Oilers were cited earlier in the thread. My own favorite team would have been the ideal example of economic despair just a mere several years ago.

No no, I didn't take it personally at all. I just thought that with your argument of how far we need to go to please the lowest common denominator teams was off because Edmonton has been spending more than some teams in the league like the ones I mentioned before.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad

-->