Brooklyndevil
Registered User
Although some big market teams may be unhappy with aspects of the completed CBA, all 30 are expected to approve the pact.
Could it be the honoring of 2004/2005 contracts? Any other guesses?
Although some big market teams may be unhappy with aspects of the completed CBA, all 30 are expected to approve the pact.
Probably a lot to do with the extent of the revenue sharing. If you're the Leafs, you wouldn't be too happy with having to give some of your revenue to the Flames/Oilers/Hurricanes/Coyotes/Sabres/whoever either.Brooklyndevil said:Could it be the honoring of 2004/2005 contracts? Any other guesses?
so if a team like toronto or philly fails to make the playoffs, would they get some of the playoff revenue from the smaller clubs?BobMckenzie said:04-05 contracts won't be honored; revenue sharing will be relatively painless because it's likely to come mostly from playoff monies, not regular season revenue. The big boys will have to share the gravy, but not the meat and potatoes.
Deebo said:so if a team like toronto or philly fails to make the playoffs, would they get some of the playoff revenue from the smaller clubs?
or does the revenue sharing only go one way?
BobMckenzie said:more often than not, one way. wealthy teams won't be entitled to receive, only give...no details obviously, but big boys will be able to protect the meat and potatoes and only have to share the gravy.
The Iconoclast said:Nice analogy. I think that is very applicable. So I would like you to clarify something that has been on going in another thread. There will be revenue sharing and Nick Kypreos was confused (it probably doesn't take much) when he reported that there would be no revenue sharing, correct?
PecaFan said:I'm pretty sure Kypreos said there would be no *tax*, not no revenue sharing. IE, there's not going to be a dollar for dollar tax above $30 million payroll, etc.
BobMckenzie said:After that, the league re-opens for business, but probably in stages (i.e. first few days may be only buyouts allowed, small window to sign 2003 and 2004 draft choices, etc., leading up to the unrestricted free agent frenzy, the draft in early August etc.)
BobMckenzie said:more often than not, one way. wealthy teams won't be entitled to receive, only give...no details obviously, but big boys will be able to protect the meat and potatoes and only have to share the gravy.
PepNCheese said:Kypreos knows nothing.
PepNCheese said:Kypreos knows nothing.
i remember him breaking the kasparitis to colarado deal tooBurke's Evil Spirit said:You think so? While I find he's not the smartest hockey journalist out there, his sources are impeccable. Fun fact: last year both Alexei Kovalev and Geoff Sanderson got traded near the deadline. In both cases, Kypreos called the player telling them they were traded before their own GM did.
Mat said:i hope the players shoot it down
that's be funny
and really get the owners back for all they caused
Hold itTimmy said:Yeah, that's be real awesome.
What's be even more funny is if the the next season was cancelled, the owners finally caved, and half the teams folded in the next ten to fifteen years.
The Messenger said:Hold it
Lets not dismiss this so quickly.
Its has some real merit here..
nomorekids said:Timmah, as an up and coming young poster, I think it's important that you learn that people like "Mat" are not to be taken seriously.
Yeah, throw another billion dollars out the window. That'll show'em that the players mean business!Mat said:i hope the players shoot it down
that's be funny
and really get the owners back for all they caused
Timmy said:The fact that it would be funny to lose another season?
I don't think that has much merit at all, unless you're a bigger fan of poker and hot-dog eating contests than NHL hockey.
It has merit to "get the owners back" for all they've caused?
Which owners? All of them? Why is it "funny" to punish a McCaw, who had people running an exciting, profitable club on a budget before the lockout? What did he "cause?"
Or the merits of a status quo, where the league continues to lose more and more money at an unsustainable rate so that corporations look at their Sports and Entertainment Divisions and decide that their hockey team isn't really doing much except dragging down profits, and start offloading them at firesale prices to new owners who may not have the financial means to keep the team afloat?
Please explain the merits of Mat's post that I am, in my cave-dwelling and dimwitted way, missing.