So a cap isn't the solution after all

[hockeytown9321]

http://www.tsn.ca/nhl/news_story.asp?ID=105982&hubName=nhl

Lemieux says even if there is a cap, the Penguins can't survive without a new arena. I'm shocked becaause I thought a cap would let every team make money no matter ho poorly they're run.

Click to read more...

 

[Dr Love]

I'm shocked becaause I thought a cap would let every team make money no matter ho poorly they're run.

That's not the purpose or intention of a cap. You still need to run your franchise wisely, it is not a silver platter for incompetence.

 

[FLYLine27*]

That's not the purpose or intention of a cap. You still need to run your franchise wisely, it is not a silver platter for incompetence.

Yea but it sure is the closest thing to it.

 

[Dr Love]

Yea but it sure is the closest thing to it.

Perhaps, but it's purpose isn't to give all owners a profit regardless of losses. That is what the original poster appears to think a cap does. This is probably because the NFL makes money hand over fist and it's salary cap is set at such a level that they do all make money. But that will never happen in the NHL, because the revenue just isn't there. It will only limit the losses a bad ownership can occur, but it can never directly prevent the losses. Nor should it.

 

[hockeytown9321]

Perhaps, but it's purpose isn't to give all owners a profit regardless of losses. That is what the original poster appears to think a cap does. This is probably because the NFL makes money hand over fist and it's salary cap is set at such a level that they do all make money. But that will never happen in the NHL, because the revenue just isn't there. It will only limit the losses a bad ownership can occur, but it can never directly prevent the losses. Nor should it.

Its certainly not what I think, but its what I've been told by numerous people here. They seem to think the only reason their teams lose money is because some other evil team is causing it when in fact its their own team's incompetence.

 

[Dr Love]

Its certainly not what I think, but its what I've been told by numerous people here. They seem to think the only reason their teams lose money is because some other evil team is causing it when in fact its their own team's incompetence.

Well your titling of the thread doesn't reflect that, but the body of the post does in hindsight. Like every sport, the future of a team lies heavily in it's stadium. It's been the reason for teams moving since the start of teams moving, and always will be. From the Dodgers and Giants moving west to Red McCombs on the verge of putting his team up for sale because the cities won't fund a stadium, they've always gone hand in hand.

 

[hockeytown9321]

Well your titling of the thread doesn't reflect that, but the body of the post does in hindsight. Like every sport, the future of a team lies heavily in it's stadium. It's been the reason for teams moving since the start of teams moving, and always will be. From the Dodgers and Giants moving west to Red McCombs on the verge of putting his team up for sale because the cities won't fund a stadium, they've always gone hand in hand.

Sorry if the title is misleading. I just get frustrated when all I hear is teams blaming everybody but themselves.

 

[Bruwinz37]

I think it is great if they install a cap even if Pitt cant survive with it. Good, be gone with them and give a new city a chance to make it.

I also dont think that a cap gives team's anything besides allowing them an even playing field. Moreso than in any sport there is much disparity between the have's and have nots. This throws off salary structure and you have the predicament you have here today.

Like it or not, there will be a cap when (or if) they come back. They arent going to bend now. The union will. I honestly cant see the union staying together if a second season is threatened. Too much money at stake.

 

[hockeytown9321]

I think it is great if they install a cap even if Pitt cant survive with it. Good, be gone with them and give a new city a chance to make it.

I also dont think that a cap gives team's anything besides allowing them an even playing field. Moreso than in any sport there is much disparity between the have's and have nots. This throws off salary structure and you have the predicament you have here today.

Like it or not, there will be a cap when (or if) they come back. They arent going to bend now. The union will. I honestly cant see the union staying together if a second season is threatened. Too much money at stake.

The players are all getting between $5-10,000 a month over the next two years. I think they'll survive.

 

[Bruwinz37]

The players are all getting between $5-10,000 a month over the next two years. I think they'll survive.

Why do you think that? You think their mortgage companies are going to accept less? You think their other bills will dissapear? Do you think their wives wont start giving them the what for? Heck, I couldnt live on 5k a month, I hardly expect some of these guys to...especially the ones who have not made big dough yet.

All of this really isnt the point. The real reason why it wont last and the union will cave is because the fringe/younger players dont want this. They know they havent made their money and losing 2 years of NHL pay really, really hurts. They wont let it happen. They would be wise to rid themselves of Guerin, Linden and their ilk and get something moving.

 

[I in the Eye]

Heck, I couldnt live on 5k a month

I couldn't feed my dog with that...

 

[hockeytown9321]

Why do you think that? You think their mortgage companies are going to accept less? You think their other bills will dissapear? Do you think their wives wont start giving them the what for? Heck, I couldnt live on 5k a month, I hardly expect some of these guys to...especially the ones who have not made big dough yet.

All of this really isnt the point. The real reason why it wont last and the union will cave is because the fringe/younger players dont want this. They know they havent made their money and losing 2 years of NHL pay really, really hurts. They wont let it happen. They would be wise to rid themselves of Guerin, Linden and their ilk and get something moving.

You could not live on between $60-120,000 US a year? There will be plenty of NHL'ers not making $120 grand after Bettman is done destroying the league.

 

[GKJ]

That's not the purpose or intention of a cap. You still need to run your franchise wisely, it is not a silver platter for incompetence.

Short and sweet. No more needs to be said. There can be a $14M salary cap, if you run your franchise like an assclown, you're not going to be making jack.

 

[Bruwinz37]

You could not live on between $60-120,000 US a year? There will be plenty of NHL'ers not making $120 grand after Bettman is done destroying the league.

Not on the lower portion, no. Yes, the upper portion would be fine, thanks for caring.

Yes, I agree that Bettman has ruined much of this great league, but right now Boob Goodenow is doing a terrible disservice to the people that employ him. That is plain to see.

 

[hockeytown9321]

Not on the lower portion, no. Yes, the upper portion would be fine, thanks for caring.

Yes, I agree that Bettman has ruined much of this great league, but right now Boob Goodenow is doing a terrible disservice to the people that employ him. That is plain to see.

OK, i'm not going to question whether you can or can't, but I'd say 95% of the players can live on an income a third larger than the US median, especially since that $60 grand is worth even more in Canada.

I don't see guys who are making half a million or less now are going to play for the same or less when they can live comfortably on $100 grand sitting on their ass. At least not enough to break the union.

 

[NYR469]

this has been my thought all along, a cap (hard or soft) should only be part of the solution not the whole solution. there is no doubt that salaries are crazy and something needs to get done but the idea that the league presents that a hard cap will fix all of the problems just simply isn't true...player salaries are part of the problem, but it isn't the whole problem.

a hard cap by itself won't get the pens a new arena, it won't increase revenue for teams that already have low payrolls, etc

wouldn't the pens benefit more from increased revenue sharing then limiting the rangers, flyers, wings, etc from spending only $35 mil instead of $45 mil?? to me creating a situation where the big spenders get hit with a luxury tax that generates $$ for the pens to put toward an arena helps the pens far more then a hard cap...

and if you address the reasons for lack of revenue whether it be an arena, tv deal or whatever it creates more of a long term solution. you could hand the penguins a $5 mil check to cover their loses so they break even, but that is just a bandaid and they will need that same $$ again next year. but if you get them a new arena then their revenue will increase to the point where they won't need help anymore. and shouldn't that be the objective?? to help teams get to a point where they no longer need help?

 

[A Good Flying Bird*]

That's not the purpose or intention of a cap. You still need to run your franchise wisely, it is not a silver platter for incompetence.

Or, you need massive taxpayer handouts. Plus you need to jeopardize the future of the league by staging a 2-year lockout to bust the union.

 

[A Good Flying Bird*]

Sorry if the title is misleading. I just get frustrated when all I hear is teams blaming everybody but themselves.

I share your pain, hockeytown.
I assume that, like me, you watch the red wings.
We've been treated to good hockey for the past 15 years or so. Our owner markets the team well. He puts a good product on the ice. And fans pay big bucks to support the endeavor.

 

[hockeytown9321]

I share your pain, hockeytown.
I assume that, like me, you watch the red wings.
We've been treated to good hockey for the past 15 years or so. Our owner markets the team well. He puts a good product on the ice. And fans pay big bucks to support the endeavor.

And I'm not syaing there don't need to be changes, but I don't think a cap is the answer. Especially since Bettman seems intent on destroying the league to get one. When he's done going to court and using replacment players, they're going to need a lot more than a cap to sovle their problems. Its just not worth it.

 

[Benji Frank]

You could not live on between $60-120,000 US a year? There will be plenty of NHL'ers not making $120 grand after Bettman is done destroying the league.

If I were used to 1.8 per ... probably not. They kiss away a second season and that's like 30 years of lockout pay for the average player!!!

When you have a wife a couple of kids a house and a few cars, 120,000 does not go that far especially if you're tastes in clothes, food & entertainment are used to hundreds of thousands more....

I argued in another thread that several teams need to get their house in order or a cap won't help them anyway. The common response there was revenue sharing which I think is a joke. "Let's make up for Pittsburg's crumbling arena & dwindling fan base by giving them 18 mill of the money the Leafs saved by having the cap!!!!!" Sure!! What's Betman now?? Robin Hood???

 

[Bruwinz37]

I share your pain, hockeytown.
I assume that, like me, you watch the red wings.
We've been treated to good hockey for the past 15 years or so. Our owner markets the team well. He puts a good product on the ice. And fans pay big bucks to support the endeavor.

And the owner does this at the expense of the Tigers. If you dont think there is money flowing in a lot of different directions with Illitch then you might want to take another look. How can a town support a 70 million dollar payroll for a hockey team but can barely support a 40 million dollar baseball team?

 

[Bruwinz37]

OK, i'm not going to question whether you can or can't, but I'd say 95% of the players can live on an income a third larger than the US median, especially since that $60 grand is worth even more in Canada.

I don't see guys who are making half a million or less now are going to play for the same or less when they can live comfortably on $100 grand sitting on their ass. At least not enough to break the union.

Well you are assuming that all of these guys have managed their money correctly or have made enough money to live comfortably. Fact is most of these guys have 50k cars, probably on average 2-3 residences (and we arent talking mobile homes here) and lots of other expensive tastes. All it takes is a couple guys to start pissing and moaning and we have the cracks forming in the union that we need to get a cap done.

 

[YellHockey*]

If I were used to 1.8 per ... probably not. They kiss away a second season and that's like 30 years of lockout pay for the average player!!!

When you have a wife a couple of kids a house and a few cars, 120,000 does not go that far especially if you're tastes in clothes, food & entertainment are used to hundreds of thousands more....

But it does if you've already paid for your house and cars. Unlike working guys, hockey players don't have to finance their purchases. When you don't have car or mortgage payments 120,000 can go a long ways even for a hockey player.

Besides a lot of them have money invested away for their retirement and to avoid taxes. And in Canada, the lockout pay is taxfree.

 

[Brent Burns Beard]

But it does if you've already paid for your house and cars. Unlike working guys, hockey players don't have to finance their purchases. When you don't have car or mortgage payments 120,000 can go a long ways even for a hockey player.

Besides a lot of them have money invested away for their retirement and to avoid taxes. And in Canada, the lockout pay is taxfree.

not too mention that if you are a guy with 2 or 3 years remaining on your deal, it wont be hard to convince the bankers who on a regular basis trip and fall over themselves trying to do business with, to loan you money while the strike is on.

dr

 

[Bruwinz37]

But it does if you've already paid for your house and cars. Unlike working guys, hockey players don't have to finance their purchases. When you don't have car or mortgage payments 120,000 can go a long ways even for a hockey player.

Besides a lot of them have money invested away for their retirement and to avoid taxes. And in Canada, the lockout pay is taxfree.

I seriously doubt that most hockey player's houses are paid for. Maybe the guys in the 3m and up category (MAYBE) but remember the average is 1.8m so you have many, many guys who dont. Even the ones who get paid big bucks probably still pay off their house via mortgage for some tax benefits. I am no expert, but to say their houses are paid off is nothing more than idle speculation.