Ted Saskin has some nerve...salary cap would not rise as revenues rises????

Status
Not open for further replies.

shayne

Registered User
Feb 27, 2003
668
0
ontario
Visit site
so they won't take linkigage but they will accept a high salry cap that gets higher every year as he expects the revenues to increase.

The PA has got some flipping nerve. They want all the rewards but none of the risks.

I hope the NHL nevers offers a better deal then the 42.5 million dollar cap.
I beleive people like Brian Burke when they say that the NHL offered the best deal they could based on the future health of the game not the best short term deal to save a season or whatever.

Burke was screaming at the TV for the players to realize the clear situation and idiots like healy don't get it. I do get it, i am on the owners side and hope the PA crashes and burns.
 

Jarqui

Registered User
Jul 8, 2003
1,966
83
Visit site
Look at Goodenow's last letter to Bettman before the season was canceled. clause #7. It was hypocritical.

And the owners offered a cap that never moves to giggle the NHLPA logic.
 

Jobu

Registered User
Nov 17, 2003
3,264
0
Vancouver
Visit site
cleduc said:
Look at Goodenow's last letter to Bettman before the season was canceled. clause #7. It was hypocritical.

And the owners offered a cap that never moves to giggle the NHLPA logic.

Why the hell would anyone accept a cap without any increase from year to year? The PA would likely take $500k or $1m or whatever year over year, but the owners should be more willing to acccept upward linkage than that since the precise increase would reflect revenues.

Hyopcritcal? Hardly. If anyone thinks any league's players would or should accept the same cap number over six years, they're insane.
 

NYFAN

Registered User
Jul 8, 2004
361
0
Long Island
Jobu said:
Why the hell would anyone accept a cap without any increase from year to year? The PA would likely take $500k or $1m or whatever year over year, but the owners should be more willing to acccept upward linkage than that since the precise increase would reflect revenues.

Hyopcritcal? Hardly. If anyone thinks any league's players would or should accept the same cap number over six years, they're insane.
I agree wholeheartedly and have been arguing that fact most of the afternoon!
 

OilerNut*

Guest
But don't you agree the cap should go down when league revenues are down and not just stay the same?
 

Isles72

Registered User
Feb 27, 2002
4,520
465
Canada
Jobu said:
Hyopcritcal? Hardly. If anyone thinks any league's players would or should accept the same cap number over six years, they're insane.

ok , fair enough then .

start the cap at 37 for 0405 and raise it by 1 mil per season for 6 years

Some people need to believe it when Bettman says that 42.5 is really stretching it
 

Jobu

Registered User
Nov 17, 2003
3,264
0
Vancouver
Visit site
OilerNut said:
But don't you agree the cap should go down when league revenues are down and not just stay the same?

No. The league wants a salary cap, they get one. The players have no interest in linkage. The point is, due to inflation and growth in resources, the cap level should rise... whether the rise is linked to revenues or not doesn't matter, but given their refrain for the past months, the owners should be more interested in linkage since the rise would be negligent or non-existent if revenues actually did decrease.

Again, to expect the players to accept the same level of cap for 6-8 years is nonsensical.
 

GKJ

Global Moderator
Feb 27, 2002
185,669
37,463
If the owners are so committed to their belief that linkage is the way to go, why don't they put their money where their mouth is and do it. I goes up in basketball and football...every year.


This works both ways.



That said, linkage is a joke. Up or down. I would accept linkage if it was to only be done with ticket sales, as my own personal concession.
 

Jobu

Registered User
Nov 17, 2003
3,264
0
Vancouver
Visit site
Isles72 said:
ok , fair enough then .

start the cap at 37 for 0405 and raise it by 1 mil per season for 6 years

Some people need to believe it when Bettman says that 42.5 is really stretching it

Why not start at $42.5 and raise it $1m for 6 years? After all, $42.5m is what the owners can afford NOW.
 

OilerNut*

Guest
ScottyBowman said:
No. Why should it? Its the owners responsibility to get revenue up.

If it is the owners responsibility to get the revenue up, why should they pay that extra revenue to the players?
 

Jobu

Registered User
Nov 17, 2003
3,264
0
Vancouver
Visit site
OilerNut said:
If it is the owners responsibility to get the revenue up, why should they pay that extra revenue to the players?

They don't have to. Revenue is a red herring; players would rather have it increased $x each year but because of the owners' fixation, they offered an increase linked to revenues. Either way, the cap has to increase... call it linked to revenues or don't, it doesn't matter.
 

OilerNut*

Guest
Jobu said:
They don't have to. Revenue is a red herring; players would rather have it increased $x each year but because of the owners' fixation, they offered an increase linked to revenues. Either way, the cap has to increase... call it linked to revenues or don't, it doesn't matter.

Why does it have to increase, just because? No one knows at what rate the NHL will grow, so how do you base a % increase for each year?
 

AlexGodynyuk

Registered User
Feb 3, 2005
170
0
go kim johnsson said:
If the owners are so committed to their belief that linkage is the way to go, why don't they put their money where their mouth is and do it. I goes up in basketball and football...every year.


This works both ways.



That said, linkage is a joke. Up or down. I would accept linkage if it was to only be done with ticket sales, as my own personal concession.
Wrong, not sure about the NFL, but the NBA has full linkage.
Last year when they signed a new TV contract with ABC that was backloaded, revenues decreased and the cap went from ~43M to ~40M, it is based on a percentage of basketball income. It just so happens that in competently managed sports, the revenues will tend to rise every year.
 

txomisc

Registered User
Mar 18, 2002
8,348
62
California
Visit site
ScottyBowman said:
No. Why should it? Its the owners responsibility to get revenue up.
Is it 100%? I'd say if the players want to call themselves the product they are pretty responsible for getting revenue growth. So if they are the product, why don't play the game better and increase revenue.
 

ScottyBowman

Registered User
Mar 10, 2003
2,361
0
Detroit
Visit site
txomisc said:
Is it 100%? I'd say if the players want to call themselves the product they are pretty responsible for getting revenue growth. So if they are the product, why don't play the game better and increase revenue.

Good luck trying to raise revenue in Chicago or Boston. As soon as a player becomes good and costs more, they ship him out.
 

X8oD

Registered User
Feb 27, 2002
7,619
138
612 Warf Ave.
alexmorrison said:
Wrong, not sure about the NFL, but the NBA has full linkage.
Last year when they signed a new TV contract with ABC that was backloaded, revenues decreased and the cap went from ~43M to ~40M, it is based on a percentage of basketball income. It just so happens that in competently managed sports, the revenues will tend to rise every year.

NFL is linked

the New TV deal they just signed has prompted rumors that Not this coming season, but the following, the NFL Cap may hit 100 Million Dollars, due to the exorbant amount of money that was brought in from thier new TV Deal.
 

me2

Go ahead foot
Jun 28, 2002
37,903
5,595
Make my day.
ScottyBowman said:
Good luck trying to raise revenue in Chicago or Boston. As soon as a player becomes good and costs more, they ship him out.

As soon as a player got too overpriced they ship him out. The NHLPA already conceded that the players were overpriced when they offered the 24% rollback!
 

PhillyNucksFan

Registered User
Dec 27, 2002
2,650
0
Philadelphia
ScottyBowman said:
No. Why should it? Its the owners responsibility to get revenue up.


last time I checked, I think it was NHLPA said that, its the players that fan pay for to SEE..

But corret me if i am wrong, are you implying Players has NOTHING to do with the revenue here???

If yes, why the hell is players asking for a piece of the pie here?

what a joke.
 

PhillyNucksFan

Registered User
Dec 27, 2002
2,650
0
Philadelphia
me2 said:
As soon as a player got too overpriced they ship him out. The NHLPA already conceded that the players were overpriced when they offered the 24% rollback!


temporary solution, nothing more.

Salary will still end up higher, assuming old CBA rules remain relatively the same
 

Chayos

Registered User
Mar 6, 2003
4,922
1,152
Winnipeg
ScottyBowman said:
No. Why should it? Its the owners responsibility to get revenue up.

Yes but what incentive is there on teh owners part to grow the game if the players cap escalator is going to kill it!
 

Chayos

Registered User
Mar 6, 2003
4,922
1,152
Winnipeg
PhillyNucksFan said:
last time I checked, I think it was NHLPA said that, its the players that fan pay for to SEE..

But corret me if i am wrong, are you implying Players has NOTHING to do with the revenue here???

If yes, why the hell is players asking for a piece of the pie here?

what a joke.

No actually the Fans are paying to see teh brand of eg: Detroit rewings or Toronto mapleleafs. Teh players are paid by the owners of teh Team to play hockey for them. The fans may get entertainment out of the better players but in teh end the NHLpa thinks tehy are bigger than the game and their approval rating are showing what fans think of that!
 

PhillyNucksFan

Registered User
Dec 27, 2002
2,650
0
Philadelphia
Chayos1 said:
No actually the Fans are paying to see teh brand of eg: Detroit rewings or Toronto mapleleafs. Teh players are paid by the owners of teh Team to play hockey for them. The fans may get entertainment out of the better players but in teh end the NHLpa thinks tehy are bigger than the game and their approval rating are showing what fans think of that!


Is this the best argument you can think of by saying the NHL revenues have nothing to do with the players?

:lol

The fans are paying the dollars to see the teams only, huh?

The fans are playing to see the "rivalry" huh?

I guess you do not follow hockey at all, and I thought i was a casual fan..

:joker:
 

Seachd

Registered User
Mar 16, 2002
24,937
8,946
Jobu said:
They don't have to. Revenue is a red herring; players would rather have it increased $x each year but because of the owners' fixation, they offered an increase linked to revenues. Either way, the cap has to increase... call it linked to revenues or don't, it doesn't matter.
Do you actually belive anything you're saying?

Tell me why the players should expect the cap to go up, if they're not willing to let it go down. Why the hell would the league do that? An equivalent offer from the owners' side would be to cut salaries every year of the agreement.

How much sense does that make?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad

-->