Sportsnet: NHL Shooting for Weekend Deal

[Cawz]

Jeezus, if the PA gets a $38-$39 M cap, plus revenue sharing to help the smaller teams pay for salaries, therebye increasing salaries on the small market teams, how is this much worse than the deal in February?

When the Sean Avery's of the world are speaking out one way, it's always a good idea to consider the other.

What about the Roenicks and Jagrs (and who else...)?

Or alternatively, who has spoken out so far, saying they are glad they have held out this long, since the deal they are going to sign trumps anything that has been put in front of them thus far?

I'm waiting for someone from the PA to say "its been a long battle but this new CBA is totally worth all the hardships we have endured. We may have missed a whole year, but it was worth the wait."

I dont think we'll hear it though. More like "we're taking it up the ass for hockey to return, so you ****ing fans better appreciate it..."

Edit: Well, Healey kind of said it, 2 posts above mine...

 

[GirardIsStupid]

When the Sean Avery's of the world are speaking out one way, it's always a good idea to consider the other.

In the words of George Laraque, Avery is an idiot. Most of these players that speak out have an agenda. Both Roenick and Avery were shunned by their fellow NHLPA members and are making notable remarks (based largely on premature/inaccurate perceptions) to the media in response to the criticisms they've received.

 

[Scoogs]

More like "we're taking it up the ass for hockey to return, so you ****ing fans better appreciate it..."

If any player comes off like that (other than Roenick), honestly, they can **** off because we (the fans) took it up the ass for a year.

 

[GSC2k2*]

That hard cap hardly differs from the one from Bettman's Feb. proposal. The 42.5 M figure included player benefits while Garrioch reported a 39 M cap that consists only of salaries.

That is wrong. You have stated it before and I believe I have corrected you before. This is getting ridiculous.

THe $42.5 million was exclusive of $2.2 million in benefits.

Do I need to proivide you with the link or shall you simply come clean?

 

[GSC2k2*]

Jeezus, if the PA gets a $38-$39 M cap, plus revenue sharing to help the smaller teams pay for salaries, therebye increasing salaries on the small market teams, how is this much worse than the deal in February?

When the Sean Avery's of the world are speaking out one way, it's always a good idea to consider the other.

Um, because in the last deal they (players) would have gotten a 1/3 season worth of salary?

Because the players would have received 54% of playoff revenues for this year?

Because if they had taken the Feb 2 offer, they would have received the same 54%, plus profit sharing, plus the earnings this year, plus 54% of playoff revenue, plus 54% of a bigger pie going forward, plus the revenue sharing they will get anyway, plus a higher floor in $29.8 million in salary (plus $2.2 mil in benefits), plus the exact same cap number?

Even you with your pro-Pa blinders should be able to see that.

Before you sprout wood over a $38-39 million cap, you may want to keep in mind that number is adjustable based on revenue.

That being said, Avery = moron.

 

[A Good Flying Bird*]

What about the Roenicks and Jagrs (and who else...)?

Or alternatively, who has spoken out so far, saying they are glad they have held out this long, since the deal they are going to sign trumps anything that has been put in front of them thus far?

I'm waiting for someone from the PA to say "its been a long battle but this new CBA is totally worth all the hardships we have endured. We may have missed a whole year, but it was worth the wait."

I dont think we'll hear it though. More like "we're taking it up the ass for hockey to return, so you ****ing fans better appreciate it..."

Edit: Well, Healey kind of said it, 2 posts above mine...

Don't put words in my mouth, Cawz.

I never suggested that the players won this thing. I think it's been clear from the beginning that they were going to give back in a major way.
And they have.

The point is, I've read about a zillion posts that said, the PA should have taken whatever Bettman threw at them in February, because what ever else they get will be much, much worse.

Turns out that might not be quite true.

 

[Cawz]

I think it's been clear from the beginning that they were going to give back in a major way.
And they have.

If only it was clear to them from the beginning. As many people here said, they should have negotiated some sort of cost certainty from the beginning. Thats the catch phrase they should have given in to. Then, I believe, the PA and NHL would be way better off.

But hey, hindsight is speculation.

 

[Digger12]

In the words of George Laraque, Avery is an idiot.

Georges is the last person who should be calling anyone an idiot.

 

[A Good Flying Bird*]

If only it was clear to them from the beginning. As many people here said, they should have negotiated some sort of cost certainty from the beginning. Thats the catch phrase they should have given in to. Then, I believe, the PA and NHL would be way better off.

But hey, hindsight is speculation.

I had an 8th season South Park taped that I watched last night, where the time porthole allowed Americans from the future to come and take present-day American's jobs. If anyones seen it, I guess thats where the "taking in up the ass" came from. Parts of that episode got stuck in my brain I guess.

Great episode.

 

[Leafer4Life]

Good News! Damn, I wish they'd announce it, soon!

 

[London Knights]

What is known at this point is the system that will govern the 30 teams will be based on a hard salary cap, likely just under $40-million with a floor of approximately $22-million.

Sportsnet can confirm this system will not include a luxury tax, however revenue sharing will very much play a role in trying to sustain all teams' long-term viability. And while the revenue sharing component soon to be released will be more comprehensive, the most simplistic way to describe it is the top 10 teams will feed a percentage of their gross hockey revenues into a pool designed to prop up the bottom 10 teams.

Clearly, it's undetermined as to what dollar amount the higher revenue clubs can expect to contribute, however sources say these teams believe it will hover between $5-7 million dollars annually.

That hard cap hardly differs from the one from Bettman's Feb. proposal. The 42.5 M figure included player benefits while Garrioch reported a 39 M cap that consists only of salaries.

As far as the revenue sharing goes...it'll make a small dent in the profits of the large market teams but help the bottom ten survive any economic hardships they're enduring. It, however, doesn't make sure these bottom ten will be able to keep their best players. This type of revenue sharing is hardly impressive and won't help the players one bit as all that money will go into the back pocket of smaller market owners.

Depends on how things work. We are basing the financial output of the big market teams by what they were capable of doing when they could spend to remain competitive. What happens to attendnace in Colorado, Detroit, etc. if the team suddenly becomes a bottom feeder.

Toronto will probably still sell out just because, but they would also potentially lose out on some serious playoff revenue.

 

[Dogbert*]

I had an 8th season South Park taped that I watched last night, where the time porthole allowed Americans from the future to come and take present-day American's jobs. If anyones seen it, I guess thats where the "taking in up the ass" came from. Parts of that episode got stuck in my brain I guess.

DEY TOOK'R JOBS!

 

[Scoogs]

Toronto will probably still sell out just because, but they would also potentially lose out on some serious playoff revenue.

I can't stress enough how much money they would lose on no playoff revenue..

 

[GirardIsStupid]

That is wrong. You have stated it before and I believe I have corrected you before. This is getting ridiculous.

THe $42.5 million was exclusive of $2.2 million in benefits.

Do I need to proivide you with the link or shall you simply come clean?

i probably didn't catch your previous posts (or simply forgot). my bad. yes, the max individual cap was 44.7 M. nevertheless, the difference in cap levels (3.5M) is more than made up for with the salary floor and retention of salary arb. and inflationary QOs.

 

[Boltsfan2029]

lol. i think the small market owners want to make some money too. besides, they're already being 'forced' to spend 22 M.

How many were under $22M before?

I think you missed my point. The Devil Rays, possibly the worst baseball team in the universe, has a total payroll that is lower than only 2-3 of the Yankees players combined. We're horrible, our attendance is maybe 5,000 per game. Still, our owner makes a tidy profit because he takes all the revenue sharing/luxury tax money & pockets it, as do many baseball owners. You can bet when MLB draws up a new CBA, there will be a clause to prevent that.

I would be very surprised if the NHL allows owners to take other teams' money & not invest it in their teams. They have a glaring example of how that very system can be abused, I would hope they learn from it.

 

[Jaded-Fan]

How many were under $22M before?

I think you missed my point. The Devil Rays, possibly the worst baseball team in the universe, has a total payroll that is lower than only 2-3 of the Yankees players combined. We're horrible, our attendance is maybe 5,000 per game. Still, our owner makes a tidy profit because he takes all the revenue sharing/luxury tax money & pockets it, as do many baseball owners. You can bet when MLB draws up a new CBA, there will be a clause to prevent that.

I would be very surprised if the NHL allows owners to take other teams' money & not invest it in their teams. They have a glaring example of how that very system can be abused, I would hope they learn from it.

I feel your pain. I have suffered through the McClatchy/Nutting ownership here in Pittsburgh. They do the same.

As for the rest, I am pretty confident that is including checks on just that sort of thing in this new CBA. If Bettman has shown a brilliance for anything during this lockout it has been learning from the mistakes of past sports negotiations and making sure they do not occur in this lockout. Only needing 8 owners to support Bettman's position, the war chest, etc. won this victory for the owners. I am very certain that Bettman will not lose it in the details. 600 plus pages that we hear about speaks to that.

 

[GirardIsStupid]

Depends on how things work. We are basing the financial output of the big market teams by what they were capable of doing when they could spend to remain competitive. What happens to attendnace in Colorado, Detroit, etc. if the team suddenly becomes a bottom feeder.

Toronto will probably still sell out just because, but they would also potentially lose out on some serious playoff revenue.

In 1998, many of the large market teams didn't as frequently out-spend their opponents. Yet, teams like Colorado, Detroit and Dallas dominated the Western Conference d/t dilligent managerial decisions and very good scouting. These bigger markets, I would bet, will still continue to generate great amounts of revenue regardless of mediocre team performance. Even so, these teams are owned by the richest owners of the NHL. I seriously doubt these teams suffer financially any time soon.

FYI, Denver is an excellent sports town...consistently regarded as among the top 10 by The Sporting News. The Avs players also give rave reviews regarding team support from the community. Although attendance figures would expectedly drop when the team's performance decreases, not many other cities would be immune from such losses.

 

[futurcorerock]

Boy, what's with all these guys taking it up the ***?

You guys must be all excited about those new Canadian marraige laws.

That was completely out of good taste.

Go sit in the corner and think about what you've done.

 

[GirardIsStupid]

How many were under $22M before?

I would be very surprised if the NHL allows owners to take other teams' money & not invest it in their teams. They have a glaring example of how that very system can be abused, I would hope they learn from it.

i think you missed my point. why would they be forced to spend the money derived from revenue sharing? as far as I've heard, the only obligations these owners have is to pay up to that 22 M floor. any extra money from there on is fair game to go into the owners' pockets. after all, these small market owners are also looking to make a tidy profit themselves. would you like to be told how to spend your money?

however, you can also make the case you're only entitled to this cash if it only goes towards the team payroll. but that would mean the cap floor for these teams would have to be 26-28 M.

 

[Boltsfan2029]

i think you missed my point. why would they be forced to spend the money derived from revenue sharing? as far as I've heard, the only obligations these owners have is to pay up to that 22 M floor. any extra money from there on is fair game to go into the owners' pockets.

Because there is a union negotiating the new CBA with the league. It's in the union's best interest that the owners be required to put their money into their teams to (1) keep the league healthy, (2) put more $$ in the players' pockets. If the union negotiators have any sense they will insist that there be a clause written into the 600-page CBA that will require that revenue sharing/luxury tax money be specifically targeted for the on-ice product, be it for players' salaries or to pay debts the team was unable to meet on its own. If this bargaining point is agreed to by the owners and included in the new CBA, they will have no choice but to comply.

Just my opinion, of course, but if I was negotiating for the union I'd be pretty insistent on this.

 

[GirardIsStupid]

Just my opinion, of course, but if I was negotiating for the union I'd be pretty insistent on this.

I'm totally on board with your beliefs that the shared money go towards the team. But with the large market teams blinging, wouldn't it be fair for these teams to also make some extra cash themselves?

 

[mr gib]

the players are gonna do a massive freakout when they see this

 

[Boltsfan2029]

I'm totally on board with your beliefs that the shared money go towards the team. But with the large market teams blinging, wouldn't it be fair for these teams to also make some extra cash themselves?

"These teams" being the "large market" teams or the ones receiving the shared funds? I'm not sure which you mean. But keep in mind that "large market" teams aren't the only ones that make money.

First off, perhaps I should clarify that, IMO, revenue sharing will go from the teams that have "excess" money to the teams that fall below a certain level. I don't think it will be a pool that will be split among all 30 teams. (I could be wrong, of course, but it's what I'm hoping for, anyway.)

In that light, if you're asking if it would be fair for the teams that receive the shared money to make some extra cash themselves, well, IMO that's something they need to work at and accomplish on their own. If they're in the red & need the extra money to be bailed out, then, no, I don't think those owners deserve to put a cent of that into their personal accounts. That would be a reward for financial shortcomings and I don't think that's what the revenue sharing is about. I think it's to ensure the health of the franchises, so if the owners want to pocket $$ they need to earn it.

 

[ColoradoHockeyFan]

i think you missed my point. why would they be forced to spend the money derived from revenue sharing? as far as I've heard, the only obligations these owners have is to pay up to that 22 M floor. any extra money from there on is fair game to go into the owners' pockets. after all, these small market owners are also looking to make a tidy profit themselves. would you like to be told how to spend your money?

however, you can also make the case you're only entitled to this cash if it only goes towards the team payroll. but that would mean the cap floor for these teams would have to be 26-28 M.

Shouldn't revenue be shared only to the extent that it allows each team to meet the floor, though? I mean, isn't that really the point of revenue sharing... to enable every team to meet the salary range requirements agreed to by both sides? As opposed to pouring excess money beyond this level just for owners on the receiving end to pocket?

 

[GSC2k2*]

"These teams" being the "large market" teams or the ones receiving the shared funds? I'm not sure which you mean. But keep in mind that "large market" teams aren't the only ones that make money.

First off, perhaps I should clarify that, IMO, revenue sharing will go from the teams that have "excess" money to the teams that fall below a certain level. I don't think it will be a pool that will be split among all 30 teams. (I could be wrong, of course, but it's what I'm hoping for, anyway.)

In that light, if you're asking if it would be fair for the teams that receive the shared money to make some extra cash themselves, well, IMO that's something they need to work at and accomplish on their own. If they're in the red & need the extra money to be bailed out, then, no, I don't think those owners deserve to put a cent of that into their personal accounts. That would be a reward for financial shortcomings and I don't think that's what the revenue sharing is about. I think it's to ensure the health of the franchises, so if the owners want to pocket $$ they need to earn it.

You guys are both missing the point. What drives everything is the guaranteed percentage that will go to the players - 54%. If teams try to pocket their cash but the league goes under 54%, the cash is going to be topped up by the teams. If it is more, the teams get it back.

Judging by published reports, I doubt the extra cash will do much but allow some teams to break even in the best case scenario.

Plus, keep in mind that teams are sometimes short on money not due to their abilitiers, but their geographic realities at the time. THe revenue sharing addresses that. That is the raison d'etre of revenue sharing - to correct accidents of geography, to coin a phrase.