'Team by team payrolls'

[nyr7andcounting]

I don't think it is at all. If all thirty teams have the same payroll cap what is the incentive for any team to increase their revenue? Absolutly nothing because it doesn't mean they can spend more on players, it just means the owner gets richer and that doesn't help the sport or the fans.

Their incentive is to make more money, which is why every owner owns a team isn't it? If the owners didn't care about annual bottom lines, than why did they present the Levitt Report as their justification for a lockout? They have a clear reason to increase revenues with a leaguewide cap...make more money that year AND the more revenues your team brings in, the more it's going to sell for.

I agree the owners shouldn't be making ridiculous amounts of money because it doesn't help the sport or the fans...that's why I have always been against a restrictive cap if there is no revenue sharing involved.

And the same for the flip side of the equation, a teams revenues could go down season after season and their cap would never change. A team by team salary cap based on revenue makes sure owners and GM's continue to grow the sport and it rewards those who do TO A LIMIT, and I think the limit is key. It's not saying Toronto and Philadelphia can continue to spend whatever they want on payroll, but it says that since they are making more than their share of the revenues, they can spend a set amount more on payroll. This doesn't allow them to sign every FA on the market, it allows them to sign maybe one or two top notch players.

Their cap would never change but they would lose a hell of a lot of money. There's probably going to be a floor around $25M-$35M, so your revenues keep dropping and you are going to be bankrupt pretty soon...not to mention you can't sell a team with no revenues for much. Seems like owners have enough incentives to create revenues already. You seem to be underestimating the importance of $$$ to these owners.

And I agree that teams making more should be able to spend more, but how is that not taken care of in a $30M-$50M payroll range? The more you make, the more you can spend, but to a reasonable amount. If the Oilers are spending $35M, the same is true...the more they make the more they can spend without losing money.

It's one thing to put a restrictive cap on the league to control the big spenders...but the idea of each team having a different cap based on their revenues is ridiculous. If each team had a cap at 55% of THEIR revenues, tell me this. How is that any different than each owner being fiscally responsible and ticking to a budget (which they might determine is at 53% or maybe 58% of their revenues)? Are you telling me these owners are THAT stupid, that we need to set their budget for them AND cap it, so they can't spend beyond that? If that's the case, and this is the deal, than I will be very very pissed. Everyday it seems more and more to me like these owners could have solved their problems themselves but they knew that a CBA with a cap and linkage would boost their franchise values, and if they had to run over the PA and the fans to get it they were going to. I mean you want to legally set their budgets....they could have done that themselves if they had half a brain. The league needs revenue sharing...the owners could have solved that on their own a long time ago. Had the owners done that and slapped on a $50M cap just so NYR, DET etc would stop driving a market that's way too high for other team's budgets...maybe made adjustments to QO's and arbitration...seems to me it could have worked. The two biggest changes, budgets and revenue sharing, could have been instituted in a day and almost without any interaction with the PA...but I guess sticking to a budget doesn't do much for the value of your franchise.

 

[WC Handy*]

I know that the NHL (or more specifically Gary Bettman) is in love with the idea of a perfectly level playing field. But since the NHLPA seems to be in favor of a team-by-team cap, I don't believe they 'agree.' And certainly the owners don't believe in it, or the would've engaged in 100% revenue sharing long before now.

Your logic has more holes in it than swiss cheese.

The idea of 100% revenue sharing is absurd. That's why the NHL hasn't engaged in it. And make no mistake about it, this lockout is as much about decreasing payroll disparity as it is about limiting salaries. Feel free to read quotes from Bettman as far back as 1999 if you need any proof of that.

 

[Icey]

Their incentive is to make more money, which is why every owner owns a team isn't it? If the owners didn't care about annual bottom lines, than why did they present the Levitt Report as their justification for a lockout? They have a clear reason to increase revenues with a leaguewide cap...make more money that year AND the more revenues your team brings in, the more it's going to sell for.

Actually no. Owners who own sports teams do not own the team to make money, they own the team to win. If the owners are saying otherwise they are just fooling themselves and you. There are however exceptions to every rule including this, an owner like Wirtz couldn't care less about winning, he just wants to make money and proves that season after season. He trades his talent away, not because he can't afford them, but rather because they cost him money. He doesn't broadcast his home games. Why? Because he's cheap and doesn't care about the team or the fans, he only cares about his bottom line. And if the owners were only concerned with making money then why do they keep talking about parity and evening the playing field so that every team has the same shot at winning the stanley cup? Not because they want to make money, but because they want to win. Granted they don't want to be taken to the cleaners as they have in the past, but they want to win.

Their cap would never change but they would lose a hell of a lot of money. There's probably going to be a floor around $25M-$35M, so your revenues keep dropping and you are going to be bankrupt pretty soon...not to mention you can't sell a team with no revenues for much. Seems like owners have enough incentives to create revenues already. You seem to be underestimating the importance of $$$ to these owners.

I am not underestimating the almighty $$$ to the owners, but I think you are overestimating it. I guarantee you that if you went to every owner in the NHL right now and asked them if they could chose between making money and winning the Stanley Cup which would they rather have, most if not all (except of course for Wirtz) would say winning the Stanley Cup.

Now they certainly want to the value of their franchise to increase, but I think most want to win it all.

And if there is a $35M floor, this league will be in big trouble. How are teams like Carolina, Nashville, Atlanta, Edmonton, Pittsburgh, Florida, etc ever going to be able to afford a $35M floor, especially with a 24% rollback of salaries? And if that's your floor, what on earth is your cap?

A more realistic floor IMO is $15-22M.

And I agree that teams making more should be able to spend more, but how is that not taken care of in a $30M-$50M payroll range? The more you make, the more you can spend, but to a reasonable amount. If the Oilers are spending $35M, the same is true...the more they make the more they can spend without losing money.

I think you and I are interpreting this floating cap differently. I took this floating cap to mean that no team would be allowed to spend over the $50M mark, but it was the point where the luxury tax kicked in that would differ. So a team like Toronto might not have the luxury tax kick in until $44M because they have the revenues, but a team like Nashville that doesn't have the revenues would have it kick in at $33M.

I don't think that any teams should be able to go over the $50M point, but I think the point where the luxury tax kicks in should vary based on your revenues. And as much as most don't want to admit it, the NHL needs to throw the big market/big revenue teams a bone. They just lost an entire year of revenue, they will have to now share the revenue they make with the teams who can't manage to do it on their own, so do you think they were willing to do this to get nothing in return? This is their bone.

It's one thing to put a restrictive cap on the league to control the big spenders...but the idea of each team having a different cap based on their revenues is ridiculous. If each team had a cap at 55% of THEIR revenues, tell me this. How is that any different than each owner being fiscally responsible and ticking to a budget (which they might determine is at 53% or maybe 58% of their revenues)? Are you telling me these owners are THAT stupid, that we need to set their budget for them AND cap it, so they can't spend beyond that? If that's the case, and this is the deal, than I will be very very pissed. Everyday it seems more and more to me like these owners could have solved their problems themselves but they knew that a CBA with a cap and linkage would boost their franchise values, and if they had to run over the PA and the fans to get it they were going to. I mean you want to legally set their budgets....they could have done that themselves if they had half a brain. The league needs revenue sharing...the owners could have solved that on their own a long time ago. Had the owners done that and slapped on a $50M cap just so NYR, DET etc would stop driving a market that's way too high for other team's budgets...maybe made adjustments to QO's and arbitration...seems to me it could have worked. The two biggest changes, budgets and revenue sharing, could have been instituted in a day and almost without any interaction with the PA...but I guess sticking to a budget doesn't do much for the value of your franchise.

That is not what I am suggesting at all and I have no idea how you came to that conclussion. What I am suggesting is that the big market teams be allowed a higher cap within the payroll range. So if your cap is $35-50M then the leafs luxury tax portion might not kick in until $44M because they create more revenues. The Predators on the other hand who create very little revenues luxury tax portion would kick in at $38M. They would force each owner to be more fiscally responsible, while still giving them the freedom to spend within a limit. It rewards the high revenue teams, which IMO is not a bad thing. It also means that if a teams revenues drop, the number at which the luxury tax kicks in the following year gets lowered. Of course like the cap their is a minimum that the number can fall to. In this example the luxury tax minimum is $35M so no team would have a luxury tax kick in below $35M. If the high revenue teams aren't rewarded, what incentive does that team have to contine and what incentive does the lower revenue team have to increase revenues if they get nothing more in return except te risk of losing their additional revenue to revenue sharing?

And yes, I do think most owners are that stupid. If they weren't they could have controled their own spending years ago and we could have avoided this entire mess we are in today. But they couldn't. They didn't know how to set a budget and stick to it. They didn't know how to spend within their means, so now they need a CBA to force them to a payroll limit. It really is quite sad if you think about it. Men who are well educated and can make money and business decisions in their other investments just turn to mush when it comes to hockey decisions. Why? Because like I said earlier, its more important for them to win then to make money.

 

[nyr7andcounting]

Actually no. Owners who own sports teams do not own the team to make money, they own the team to win. If the owners are saying otherwise they are just fooling themselves and you. And if the owners were only concerned with making money then why do they keep talking about parity and evening the playing field so that every team has the same shot at winning the stanley cup? Not because they want to make money, but because they want to win. Granted they don't want to be taken to the cleaners as they have in the past, but they want to win.

I have to disagree. After witnessing this lockout I just can't believe that any of these owners care more about winning, the fans or the players than they do about bottom lines and franchise values. If I assume the opposite, and they care most and almost solely about winning, than I can't come up with a reasonable response to these questions.
1. Why invest hundreds of millions in something that you don't plan to make money on?
2. Why present the Levitt Report as your justification for a lockout, if it is an accounting report focuses on the leagues bottom line? If they cared most about winning and evening the playing field, why even bother with a Levitt Report? Just come out with the fact that smaller markets are much less succesful than bigger markets
3. The owners aren't talking much about parity and evening the playing field. They are talking most about this % and that %. Any focus on parity or an even playing field is simply for financial reasons. If your team is better relative to other teams your fans have more hope, you make the playoffs, you might win a cup...all increase revenues. To me, the biggest reason that small markets want a cap and all is to make their $30M more competative...not so they can win the cup but so they can have a little more hope and bring in some more money.
4. IF the owners cared most about competition, parity etc...why not just share 100% of regular season revenues? This way every team starts the season with the same resources and if your good enough to win, you make some playoff money at the same time. Wouldn't that be the easiest solution to the competition problem?

And if there is a $35M floor, this league will be in big trouble. How are teams like Carolina, Nashville, Atlanta, Edmonton, Pittsburgh, Florida, etc ever going to be able to afford a $35M floor, especially with a 24% rollback of salaries? And if that's your floor, what on earth is your cap?

A more realistic floor IMO is $15-22M.

I meant $25M-$30M. $15M on normal revenues is wayyyyyy too low. The lowest spenders under the old CBA spend at least $25M (with maybe 1 or 2 exceptions in the last couple of years)...and they weren't even the teams losing all the money. So why are they spending half of what they previously were if they are going to be more competative at $30M anyway?

I think you and I are interpreting this floating cap differently. I took this floating cap to mean that no team would be allowed to spend over the $50M mark, but it was the point where the luxury tax kicked in that would differ. So a team like Toronto might not have the luxury tax kick in until $44M because they have the revenues, but a team like Nashville that doesn't have the revenues would have it kick in at $33M.

I don't think that any teams should be able to go over the $50M point, but I think the point where the luxury tax kicks in should vary based on your revenues. And as much as most don't want to admit it, the NHL needs to throw the big market/big revenue teams a bone. They just lost an entire year of revenue, they will have to now share the revenue they make with the teams who can't manage to do it on their own, so do you think they were willing to do this to get nothing in return? This is their bone.

We are. This interpretation is a lot more realistic. Up until the point when I first posted in this thread, everyone was talking about a team-by-team hard cap that would move with each teams revenues....and that was also what the quoted article made it sound like. That seems to be what everyone else is suggesting and that's what I was replying to.

If the luxury tax is what is on a team-by-team basis than that is a little more realistic. As long as the hard floor and cap are the same for every team than I don't have a problem with it. All the teams need to be in the same market, having completely different caps for each team doesn't do that. But if it's everyone between $30M and $50M with a floatin luxury tax than that's not that bad.

There are still 2 problems I have with it.
1. The minimum for the luxury tax needs to be so high that it almost doesn't make sense, you might as well just have one constant amount. You are saying $35M which sounds about right, not team should be taxed if they are below that no matter what their revenues are...but with a $50M cap, the leaguewide luxury tax would probably be right around there anyway. This is why although your interpretation does make more sense, it's not what I believe they are doing because it has almost not affect on anything. The leaguewide luxury tax would probably be $38M or $40M, why move it down to $35M for some small market teams?
2. If every team is at a different tax, there's no telling who's going to go over and who's not. In fact, small markets might be more inclined to pay a tax than big markets, especially if their tax is low enough where they feel they need to spend over it just to stay competative. So who gets the money? It doesn't make much sense to tax small markets, but even if you do who gets the money? You can give it to whichever teams didn't pay a tax that season, but those would be a different set of teams each year and wouldn't really mean they are the weakest financially either. You might end up with Nashville paying a luxury tax because they are spending $38M and it's going into NYR's pocket because they stopped spending at $44M.

And yes, I do think most owners are that stupid. If they weren't they could have controled their own spending years ago and we could have avoided this entire mess we are in today. But they couldn't. They didn't know how to set a budget and stick to it. They didn't know how to spend within their means, so now they need a CBA to force them to a payroll limit. It really is quite sad if you think about it. Men who are well educated and can make money and business decisions in their other investments just turn to mush when it comes to hockey decisions. Why? Because like I said earlier, its more important for them to win then to make money.

But then wouldn't you agree that they could have solved the problems almost entirely on their own? If the problem was purely competition...share a ton of revenues. My point was that IF the deal was a team-by-team hard cap, it would essentially be setting a budget for each owner...and if they needed to screw everyone over and miss a season in order to get each other to stick to a budget than I wouldn't be very happy.

 

[Weary]

Your logic has more holes in it than swiss cheese.

The idea of 100% revenue sharing is absurd. That's why the NHL hasn't engaged in it. And make no mistake about it, this lockout is as much about decreasing payroll disparity as it is about limiting salaries. Feel free to read quotes from Bettman as far back as 1999 if you need any proof of that.

Hmmm. You accuse me of faulty logic and then fail to provide even a single example of logical faultiness. You say 100% revenue sharing is absurd but fail to give a reason why. Then you ask for me to go back and read Bettman quotes about how he favors limiting revenue disparity. But if you read the post you are allegedly replying to, you would see that I said Bettman was in favor of that.

 

[WC Handy*]

Hmmm. You accuse me of faulty logic and then fail to provide even a single example of logical faultiness. You say 100% revenue sharing is absurd but fail to give a reason why. Then you ask for me to go back and read Bettman quotes about how he favors limiting revenue disparity. But if you read the post you are allegedly replying to, you would see that I said Bettman was in favor of that.

I didn't give you a reason why 100% of revenue sharing is absurd because I assumed it was obvious to everyone. I guess I'll have to explain it to you.

Teams have different operating costs. It costs the Rangers more to put an advertisement on TV in their market than it does for the Canucks. It costs the Islanders more to hire an office manager than it does for the Blue Jackets.

And most importantly... owners paid different amount for their teams. The ones that paid more deserve the additional revenue and potential profit.

 

[Weary]

I didn't give you a reason why 100% of revenue sharing is absurd because I assumed it was obvious to everyone. I guess I'll have to explain it to you.

Teams have different operating costs. It costs the Rangers more to put an advertisement on TV in their market than it does for the Canucks. It costs the Islanders more to hire an office manager than it does for the Blue Jackets.

If the league is ready to tie player payrolls to a percentage of revenues, shouldn't they do the same for office payrolls? It would seem to be just as fair.

If the owners decided it wasn't fair, they could also engage in 100% expense sharing. That way every team has the same amount of money left over to pay players.

And most importantly... owners paid different amount for their teams. The ones that paid more deserve the additional revenue and potential profit.

And shouldn't those same owners have the more successful teams as well? If I lay out the cash for I Corvette and my friend buys a Kia, I think it's reasonable for me to expect to beat him in a race. That's what I paid the extra money for after all.

 

[WC Handy*]

If the league is ready to tie player payrolls to a percentage of revenues, shouldn't they do the same for office payrolls? It would seem to be just as fair.

If the owners decided it wasn't fair, they could also engage in 100% expense sharing. That way every team has the same amount of money left over to pay players.

And shouldn't those same owners have the more successful teams as well? If I lay out the cash for I Corvette and my friend buys a Kia, I think it's reasonable for me to expect to beat him in a race. That's what I paid the extra money for after all.

I don't even know why I, or anyone for that matters, bothers trying to hold a conversation for you. You are either extremely dense or you say very, very stupid stuff on purpose. I'd really like to believe it's an act...

 

[Weary]

I don't even know why I, or anyone for that matters, bothers trying to hold a conversation for you. You are either extremely dense or you say very, very stupid stuff on purpose. I'd really like to believe it's an act...

Interesting the ad-hominem attack. If you refer back, you might realize that all I was doing was taking your own logic and reframing it to point out the inconsistencies. But instead of trying to defend your point, you attempted to attack me, not even realizing you were engaging in self-ridicule.

 

[WC Handy*]

Wow. Guess it isn't an act after all. That's disappointing.

 

[joepeps]

Wow. Guess it isn't an act after all. That's disappointing.

you seem to never have an answer to a question... yet you always ridicule people..

why is that?? Are you not happy with yourself? Did you have a painful childhood?

 

[WC Handy*]

you seem to never have an answer to a question... yet you always ridicule people..

why is that?? Are you not happy with yourself? Did you have a painful childhood?

Man. You are a really funny guy. A painful childhood... I really wish I could have come up with that myself.

What I never have an anwer to are absurd questions that don't even warrant a response. The idea of capping office employee salaries = absurd. The idea of 100% revenue sharing = absurd. The idea of handing teams an advantage = absurd. If you dont' see this, then I'm not going to explain it to you because nothing I say is going to change your 'opinoin'.

 

[joepeps]

Man. You are a really funny guy. A painful childhood... I really wish I could have come up with that myself.

What I never have an anwer to are absurd questions that don't even warrant a response. The idea of capping office employee salaries = absurd. The idea of 100% revenue sharing = absurd. The idea of handing teams an advantage = absurd. If you dont' see this, then I'm not going to explain it to you because nothing I say is going to change your 'opinoin'.

I never said anything about 100% :S lol.. all I said is that you refude to answer questions... on any board..

 

[WC Handy*]

I never said anything about 100% :S lol.. all I said is that you refude to answer questions... on any board..

I refused to answer two dumb questions. That's hardly the same thing as always refusing to answer questions.

 

[joepeps]

I refused to answer two dumb questions. That's hardly the same thing as always refusing to answer questions.

How is rewarding a team for making a profit a dumb question????

 

[Mess]

How is rewarding a team for making a profit a dumb question????

Not a bad question to ask those 19 teams that showed a operating loss according to Levitt report

 

[CGG]

The idea of capping office employee salaries = absurd. The idea of 100% revenue sharing = absurd. The idea of handing teams an advantage = absurd.

The idea of capping player expenses is equally absurd, but it's going to happen. If you can argue you need teams on a "level playing field" for player salaries, why is it absurd to argue that teams need to be on a "level playing field" for office salaries? Why should Toronto get to spend 10X what Nashville spends on scouting, coaching, and a GM but not be able to spend more on players?

 

[Timmy]

The idea of capping player expenses is equally absurd, but it's going to happen. If you can argue you need teams on a "level playing field" for player salaries, why is it absurd to argue that teams need to be on a "level playing field" for office salaries? Why should Toronto get to spend 10X what Nashville spends on scouting, coaching, and a GM but not be able to spend more on players?

Because the players are the product, not the GM, scouts, or coaches. They want to cap the amount each team can spend on its product, in order to level the playing field.

Kinda like the NFL and NBA, and kinda like MLB will try to do.

 

[hockeytown9321]

And most importantly... owners paid different amount for their teams. The ones that paid more deserve the additional revenue and potential profit.

Yet you're in support of salary cap. Doesn't this create any cognitive dissonance for you?

 

[Crazy_Ike]

If you can argue you need teams on a "level playing field" for player salaries, why is it absurd to argue that teams need to be on a "level playing field" for office salaries? Why should Toronto get to spend 10X what Nashville spends on scouting, coaching, and a GM but not be able to spend more on players?

Because its not scouting, coaching and a GM that is taking up nearly fourth fifths of revenues and making it so hard for smaller markets to compete with those throwing around huge bucks earned from other interests. The amount spent total on all those put together isn't significant enough to be a problem for other teams to compete with - in other words, everyone can afford the best, or nearly the best, in each, and the effect of having the 'best' vs 'above average', in other words the difference between the two, is far less than it is with players.

Put another way, every team is perfectly able to hire any GM or coach it wants. Not every team budgets enough money for hiring some of the most expensive since the return on it is pretty iffy... but every one of them COULD if they thought it was worth it, because the cost isn't that extreme. The same can't be said for player contracts, hence salary caps for fairness.

You guys try to take analogies too far. This whole claim was nonsense from the beginning, which is why the other fellow is getting tired of putting up with the baloney.

 

[CGG]

Because its not scouting, coaching and a GM that is taking up nearly fourth fifths of revenues and making it so hard for smaller markets to compete with those throwing around huge bucks earned from other interests. The amount spent total on all those put together isn't significant enough to be a problem for other teams to compete with - in other words, everyone can afford the best, or nearly the best, in each, and the effect of having the 'best' vs 'above average', in other words the difference between the two, is far less than it is with players.

Put another way, every team is perfectly able to hire any GM or coach it wants. Not every team budgets enough money for hiring some of the most expensive since the return on it is pretty iffy... but every one of them COULD if they thought it was worth it, because the cost isn't that extreme. The same can't be said for player contracts, hence salary caps for fairness.

You guys try to take analogies too far. This whole claim was nonsense from the beginning, which is why the other fellow is getting tired of putting up with the baloney.

But it is a problem of teams being able to compete, or at least it can be. The Leafs spend the big bucks on players for two reasons: (1) because they can, and (2) because they think it makes their team better. Under a salary cap they won't be able to spend $8 million on a 40-year old goalie any longer. In fact they'll have to cut their payroll by $20-$25 million. So why wouldn't they invest half of that into the front office to get any advantage that they can?

Let's say Hitchcock is universally considered the best hockey coach on the planet, and Philly fires him for some unknown reason. The Leafs want him. Nashville also desperately wants him to fill their coaching vacancy. The Leafs can offer him $5 million a year, Nashville can only afford $800k. Is that fair? How is that different than the Leafs going out and getting Leetch to bolster the D when Nashville can't afford a guy like that? A salary cap will fix the Leetch problem, but not the coaching problem.

Coaching does matter, and the Leafs might be pushed over the top with a guy like Hitchcock behind the bench, while Nashville could suffer because the only coach they can afford is Michel Therrien.

Basketball coaches routinely make $5 million a year. Hockey could very well end up like that as well. Add in another $5 million or so for a GM and assistants and all of a sudden the number definitely is "significant".

 

[hockeytown9321]

But it is a problem of teams being able to compete, or at least it can be. The Leafs spend the big bucks on players for two reasons: (1) because they can, and (2) because they think it makes their team better. Under a salary cap they won't be able to spend $8 million on a 40-year old goalie any longer. In fact they'll have to cut their payroll by $20-$25 million. So why wouldn't they invest half of that into the front office to get any advantage that they can?

Let's say Hitchcock is universally considered the best hockey coach on the planet, and Philly fires him for some unknown reason. The Leafs want him. Nashville also desperately wants him to fill their coaching vacancy. The Leafs can offer him $5 million a year, Nashville can only afford $800k. Is that fair? How is that different than the Leafs going out and getting Leetch to bolster the D when Nashville can't afford a guy like that? A salary cap will fix the Leetch problem, but not the coaching problem.

Coaching does matter, and the Leafs might be pushed over the top with a guy like Hitchcock behind the bench, while Nashville could suffer because the only coach they can afford is Michel Therrien.

Basketball coaches routinely make $5 million a year. Hockey could very well end up like that as well. Add in another $5 million or so for a GM and assistants and all of a sudden the number definitely is "significant".

Good points. Look at when Detroit hired Demers in 1986. They gave him something like $1 million to leave St. Louis, an amount few coaches have touched since. They also got Bowman becuase of a huge money offer.