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

Status
Not open for further replies.

Tawnos

A guy with a bass
Sep 10, 2004
28,820
10,397
Charlotte, NC
shayne said:
The PA has got some flipping nerve. They want all the rewards but none of the risks.

But isn't that what the league wants by wanting linkage as well? Cost certainty is about not having the risk of a team losing money... so therefore, the owners want all the rewards by none of the risks.
 

Scheme

Registered User
Feb 14, 2003
284
0
Vancouver
Visit site
Tawnos said:
But isn't that what the league wants by wanting linkage as well? Cost certainty is about not having the risk of a team losing money... so therefore, the owners want all the rewards by none of the risks.

What are you talking about? Linkage/cost certainly does not guarantee profit - it links revenues to salaries. Even with cost certainty, the players don't lose money - they can only make as much as revenues justify, even if the owner's losing money. That's more than fair for the player. :banghead:
 

Tawnos

A guy with a bass
Sep 10, 2004
28,820
10,397
Charlotte, NC
Umm... the whole point of cost certainty is to insure the profit of the league. Where have you been for the last 2 years that you don't know this?
 

bcrt2000

Registered User
Feb 17, 2005
3,499
3
Lemieux and Gretzky had a lot of class on Saturday. If they were to stoop to PA tactics, they'd say that upwards linkage was an absolute insult to them.
 

Scheme

Registered User
Feb 14, 2003
284
0
Vancouver
Visit site
Tawnos said:
Umm... the whole point of cost certainty is to insure the profit of the league. Where have you been for the last 2 years that you don't know this?

I suggest you learn the difference between revenues and profits before you argue your point. :shakehead
 

me2

Go ahead foot
Jun 28, 2002
37,903
5,595
Make my day.
Tawnos said:
Umm... the whole point of cost certainty is to insure the profit of the league. Where have you been for the last 2 years that you don't know this?

False. The whole point of cost certainty is to control and maintain control over player expenses. Different kettle of fish. Why do think there was a big debate about poor clubs being able to afford the proposed $32m salary floor?
 

Seachd

Registered User
Mar 16, 2002
24,937
8,946
Tawnos said:
Umm... the whole point of cost certainty is to insure the profit of the league.

No it's not.

I realize that's already been said, but it deserves to be said again.
 

Tawnos

A guy with a bass
Sep 10, 2004
28,820
10,397
Charlotte, NC
me2 said:
False. The whole point of cost certainty is to control and maintain control over player expenses. Different kettle of fish. Why do think there was a big debate about poor clubs being able to afford the proposed $32m salary floor?

Why do you want control over player expenses? To insure profit. They aren't unrelated issues.
 

Phanuthier*

Guest
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.
Why doesn't te league put their money where their mouth is and commit to linkage? Huh?
 

HockeyCritter

Registered User
Dec 10, 2004
5,656
0
ScottyBowman said:
No. Why should it? Its the owners responsibility to get revenue up.
Again, it makes the players appear unwilling to take an risk assoicated with growing their sport . . . they'll let the owners do that as they collect their checks and go on their merry way.
 

HockeyCritter

Registered User
Dec 10, 2004
5,656
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.
The owners linkage did go up and down based on revenue (the percentage remained the same) - - the PA's proposal linkage, erm excuse me "indexing" only went UP if revenues went up but they did not go DOWN if revenues went down.
 

Beukeboom Fan

Registered User
Feb 27, 2002
15,392
1,189
Chicago, IL
Visit site
Tawnos said:
But isn't that what the league wants by wanting linkage as well? Cost certainty is about not having the risk of a team losing money... so therefore, the owners want all the rewards by none of the risks.

The owners are not guaranteed a profit with a salary cap. As it's been noted, many teams lost money with payrolls substantially below where the cap is.

The issue to me is that the owners were willing to absorb the punishment the league has with the lockout. I believe the $42.5M cap number is what they feel they can do with the league having revenue streams equal to the $2.1B they had in 2003-04. No one knows how much damage has been done to the NHL, but I think that everyone agrees it is significant.

The PA's proposal had the "index year" 2005-06, which is going to be much lower due to the damage from the lockout. That would give the players the benefit as the league recovers from the damage, which the owners balked at because they are the ones absorbing the pain in their offer without linkage. I think it's also important to note that I have not seen anything from the PA but their original offer. There have been posters and journalist talking about having the cap go up by $500K or $1M per year, but I never saw that in come from the PA.
 

Beukeboom Fan

Registered User
Feb 27, 2002
15,392
1,189
Chicago, IL
Visit site
Tawnos said:
Why do you want control over player expenses? To insure profit. They aren't unrelated issues.

But without linkage (and even with linkage) profits aren't ensured.

Very few if any of the overhead expenses fluctuate with the revenues. Teams still have to lease their building, pay scouts & management, incur travel costs, etc. If revenues fall by 30% because of the lockout, NONE of the costs change at all.
 

DuklaNation

Registered User
Aug 26, 2004
5,682
1,544
Jobu said:
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.

If cap increases the following years as revenues increase, that is a linked cap. Conclusion, players want the upside not any downside. That is hypocrisy.
 

GKJ

Global Moderator
Feb 27, 2002
185,689
37,483
HockeyCritter said:
The owners linkage did go up and down based on revenue (the percentage remained the same) - - the PA's proposal linkage, erm excuse me "indexing" only went UP if revenues went up but they did not go DOWN if revenues went down.


Well, the owners are so confident that it will go up at some point, why not just do it? The players may have just offered it when it goes up, but they called the owners bluff in doing it.
 

Phanuthier*

Guest
go kim johnsson said:
Well, the owners are so confident that it will go up at some point, why not just do it? The players may have just offered it when it goes up, but they called the owners bluff in doing it.
Huh? I don't get you gkj. Do you or don't you think the PA should take linkage?
 

txomisc

Registered User
Mar 18, 2002
8,348
62
California
Visit site
go kim johnsson said:
Well, the owners are so confident that it will go up at some point, why not just do it? The players may have just offered it when it goes up, but they called the owners bluff in doing it.
The Cap the owners proposed is already at the absolute max they seem to think they can afford. So if revenues go up the cap should go up too and stay at a level where owners can barely scrape by. Hardly seems fair. Especially if revenue goes done or, even worse in this scenario, spikes in a particular year and then returns to normal. The cap would have risen permanently whereas revenue would have risen temporarily.
 

shakes

Pep City
Aug 20, 2003
8,632
239
Visit site
me2 said:
False. The whole point of cost certainty is to control and maintain control over player expenses. Different kettle of fish. Why do think there was a big debate about poor clubs being able to afford the proposed $32m salary floor?


Actually, there was no salary floor... revenue sharing would decrease over time.. (but I guess thats ok you pro owner people now isnt it), they changed the structure of salary arbitration and qualifying offers as well. Apparently, the salary cap didnt even come into play on Saturday.


TSN
 

arnie

Registered User
Dec 20, 2004
520
0
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.

That, my friend, is an excellent and insightful comment.

I thought that I was the only one who made those.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad

-->