The End of the New NHL?

[devilman]

I don't know if this was discussed before.

Is TB runing the business of the New NHL with the signings (Richards, Lecavallier) ? --> Wave effects on the new contracts for Gaborik...and .... and.... and...

like

NYR did when they offered "I-don't-know-how-much-but-like-1-billion $ and 20 1st rounders" for RFA Joe Sakic in the old NHL? (that's when the financial madness started in the old NHL)

Click to read more...

 

[Hasbro]

Well there are caps on teams and individual salaries now, so only so much damage can be done to the finite space they have.

I'm sure there will be teams that overpay for talent and get tied down by the cap, but they should be an example for other teams and an advantages as there will be less teams bidding for talent. Under the last system when the Rangers or other teams screwed up on a free agent more often than not they dove in again and raised the bar on salary again.

Who suffers the most is the middle and low class players who salary gets canabalized for the stars. I wish the max salary had been set lower (like 15-17.5% or $5.85-6.8 million of this cap) but the NHLPA was fighting for the guys at the top more than those below them.

 

[Sotnos]

I don't know if this was discussed before.

You're kidding, right?

 

[Magnus Fulgur]

Last time I checked, Vinny and Brad were terrific younger players that many teams would be happy to build around and who are very good in the playoffs. So they'll have to trade Martin St. Louis. Big deal.

 

[Transported Upstater]

You're kidding, right?

Sotnos, you're delusional.

No one has ever, at any point, discussed Jay Feaster's signings on this board.

It must just be in your head. You know, all that heat in Tampa isn't good for your health!

 

[Sotnos]

Sotnos, you're delusional.

No one has ever, at any point, discussed Jay Feaster's signings on this board.

It must just be in your head. You know, all that heat in Tampa isn't good for your health!

I guess you're right, and it's gotten so bad I'm seeing things!

 

[Stephen]

I don't know if this was discussed before.

Is TB runing the business of the New NHL with the signings (Richards, Lecavallier) ? --> Wave effects on the new contracts for Gaborik...and .... and.... and...

like

NYR did when they offered "I-don't-know-how-much-but-like-1-billion $ and 20 1st rounders" for RFA Joe Sakic in the old NHL? (that's when the financial madness started in the old NHL)

They aren't ruining anything. They've shot themselves in the foot, or have potentially shot themselves in the foot by allocating so much money to so few, but aside from that, the cap is still there and it is up to teams to budget accordingly.

 

[GirardIsStupid]

what did you expect to happen...that player salaries wouldn't continue to rise dramatically? this will always be the case as long as the cap is rising and the amount of revenue sharing is minimal.

 

[BobbyClarkeFan16]

what did you expect to happen...that player salaries wouldn't continue to rise dramatically? this will always be the case as long as the cap is rising and the amount of revenue sharing is minimal.

You know something, I don't mind there being a cap in place. As for revenue sharing though, I have a huge problem with that. It means that teams with poor ownership, poor management and who do a poor job of marketing their team can dip into the revenue sharing pool. I don't have a problem if the money is going to a team that really needs it. And that's the problem with revenue sharing. Any team can claim hardship and the next thing you know, the New Yorks, the Philadelphias, the Detroits, the Torontos, and you can even put the Ottawas, the Calgarys, the Vancouvers, are all on the hooks the bail these teams out. Where does it end with revenue sharing?

If there is a model in place like the NFL, then it's alright because players alaries come specifically from the TV contract and owners can make their own money. However, I'm willing to bet some ******* like Jacobs or Wurtz would even use that part of the TV contract to line their coffers. And that's another problem with revenue sharing. Whose to say that an owner won't pocket the revenue sharing money instead of putting it back into the team?

I know I'm in the minority on here because my team is large market team. What people fail to forget though is that Ed Snider and the Philadelphia Flyers put a lot of hard work into cultivating the market for their team and they put a lot of work into marketing the team for the fans. I don't get why they should be penalized because some owner chooses not to market his team. What the NHL needs to do is to get a marketing firm in place in to market each team. Then, there's no need for revenue sharing and teams can become self sufficient. Until teams become self sufficient, revenue sharing is nothing more than welfare for owners.

 

[Ogopogo*]

I don't know if this was discussed before.

Is TB runing the business of the New NHL with the signings (Richards, Lecavallier) ? --> Wave effects on the new contracts for Gaborik...and .... and.... and...

like

NYR did when they offered "I-don't-know-how-much-but-like-1-billion $ and 20 1st rounders" for RFA Joe Sakic in the old NHL? (that's when the financial madness started in the old NHL)

There's still a cap. It makes no difference if a team chooses to have 3 big money players or none. They still can't go over the cap. The signings are not going to have a significant negative impact on the league.

 

[Fugu]

There's still a cap. It makes no difference if a team chooses to have 3 big money players or none. They still can't go over the cap. The signings are not going to have a significant negative impact on the league.

You make it sound like a dynamic cap is the same thing as a static cap. Use Calgary and Toronto as your examples. Then explain how a hard cap at $31 million, $39 million and $46 million affects each team under those three scenarios.

 

[I Am Chariot]

Teams will over extend themselves suffer and learn. Eventually it will all even out. Rebirth is biatch

 

[hockeydadx2*]

I know I'm in the minority on here because my team is large market team. What people fail to forget though is that Ed Snider and the Philadelphia Flyers put a lot of hard work into cultivating the market for their team and they put a lot of work into marketing the team for the fans. I don't get why they should be penalized because some owner chooses not to market his team. What the NHL needs to do is to get a marketing firm in place in to market each team. Then, there's no need for revenue sharing and teams can become self sufficient. Until teams become self sufficient, revenue sharing is nothing more than welfare for owners.

What do you care? It's not your money, it's theirs. They are going to spend up to the cap every year regardless, whether or not there is revenue sharing, and not a penny more. Unless you are one of the Sniders, what difference does it make to you personally how much money ends up in the profit column when there is a spending limit in place? Other than their take-home profit, how precisely are the very large market teams hurt by having to participate in revenue sharing?

 

[Jonjmc]

You know something, I don't mind there being a cap in place. As for revenue sharing though, I have a huge problem with that. It means that teams with poor ownership, poor management and who do a poor job of marketing their team can dip into the revenue sharing pool. I don't have a problem if the money is going to a team that really needs it. And that's the problem with revenue sharing. Any team can claim hardship and the next thing you know, the New Yorks, the Philadelphias, the Detroits, the Torontos, and you can even put the Ottawas, the Calgarys, the Vancouvers, are all on the hooks the bail these teams out. Where does it end with revenue sharing?

If there is a model in place like the NFL, then it's alright because players alaries come specifically from the TV contract and owners can make their own money. However, I'm willing to bet some ******* like Jacobs or Wurtz would even use that part of the TV contract to line their coffers. And that's another problem with revenue sharing. Whose to say that an owner won't pocket the revenue sharing money instead of putting it back into the team?

I know I'm in the minority on here because my team is large market team. What people fail to forget though is that Ed Snider and the Philadelphia Flyers put a lot of hard work into cultivating the market for their team and they put a lot of work into marketing the team for the fans. I don't get why they should be penalized because some owner chooses not to market his team. What the NHL needs to do is to get a marketing firm in place in to market each team. Then, there's no need for revenue sharing and teams can become self sufficient. Until teams become self sufficient, revenue sharing is nothing more than welfare for owners.

I have a problem with revenue sharing too.... that there is not enough of it.

10 teams this year still lost money. The new cba still favors the large market teams in a few ways.... not the least of which is payroll. One team with a payroll of 39 mil competing with another team with a payroll of 23 is not an even playing field. The cba also forces small market teams to spend up to the floor, regardless of if that is economically possible or not.

As for your NFL model.... the source of the revenue doesnt matter, its how it is distributed. Without meaningful revenue sharing the league would only consist of the large market teams.... maybe thats ok with you, for most I'm sure its not.

There is a sticky thread in the business section that gives the basics of revenue sharing.

http://hfboards.com/showthread.php?t=162356

from that post......


Clubs in markets with more than 2.5 mill. TV households are ineligible for revenue sharing
By the third year of the deal, clubs will have to grow revenues faster than the league avg. and have attendance of 75% of capacity to be eligible for their full revenue-sharing allotment
By the fourth year, the required attendace capacity increases to 80%

So the lack of marketing concerns you expressed are taken care of and built into the system. And it is only the true small maket teams (under 2.5 mil tv homes) that are even eligible for revenue sharing.

And the bulk of the revenue sharing actually comes from the players. This is what the escrow account is for. This is where my concerns come in..... if the reported revenue this year will be in the 2.1 billion range (this is the figure the players were given at the last meeting), then the players not only keep all the escrow money, but the owners may still owe the players more money. Meaning the teams that actually do need the revenue sharing arent getting it.

 

[Stephen]

I have a problem with revenue sharing too.... that there is not enough of it.

10 teams this year still lost money. The new cba still favors the large market teams in a few ways.... not the least of which is payroll. One team with a payroll of 39 mil competing with another team with a payroll of 23 is not an even playing field. The cba also forces small market teams to spend up to the floor, regardless of if that is economically possible or not.

You know, the idea of revenue sharing is so ridiculous. Why should small market teams should be entitled to more handouts just because they don't make enough money to justify their own existence. The league shut itself down for a whole season to implement this system that all owners agreed upon. If you still can't make money or comfortably field a $23 million payroll, maybe you shouldn't be in business at all.

It makes no sense that the big market teams with its loyal fanbases should have to pay the bills of franchises that are basically unviable. You didn't see MLB neutering the Yankees' economic advantages so the unpopular Expos with their 200 fans survive.

 

[Jonjmc]

You know, the idea of revenue sharing is so ridiculous. Why should small market teams should be entitled to more handouts just because they don't make enough money to justify their own existence. The league shut itself down for a whole season to implement this system that all owners agreed upon. If you still can't make money or comfortably field a $23 million payroll, maybe you shouldn't be in business at all.

It makes no sense that the big market teams with its loyal fanbases should have to pay the bills of franchises that are basically unviable. You didn't see MLB neutering the Yankees' economic advantages so the unpopular Expos with their 200 fans survive.

Let me preface this by saying that I'm a huge hockey fan. But that being said, the NHL and hockey in general is a fringe sport at best.

Why do you think the NFL has surpassed MLB as Americas #1 sport.... a level playing field. Do you think the NFL owners are complaining about "carrying" Green Bay as a market? Without the meaningful revenue sharing in the NFL, Green Bay couldnt support an NFL team, let alone compete. MLB is a joke, and certainly not a good example to cite for much of anything except how much money one team can make when all they care about is themselves.

A large part of the new cbas purpose was to grow the sport, hence making the owners and players "partners" in the new NHL. If you believe that an ideal NHL is one with 16 - 20 teams, then your argument has merit. Let only those who can fend for themselves have a team..... but even then you would see your 16 or 20 team league shrink as individual teams go through down periods and their revenues go down.... making them an unviable business.

 

[GSC2k2*]

Have you people been living under a rock for the past couple of years? All of this stuff has been hashed and rehashed. Anyone with an IQ of forty can, with the smallest amount of reflection, understand why revenue sharing is a necessary ingredient of any and every profesisonal sport that seeks to locate franchises outside of the top five or six major north american cities. The above objections of Bobbyclarkefan and others above are so trite that they are not worthy of consideration.

If you can't figure it out on your own, there is little help for you, to be frank.

 

[Colorado Avalanche]

Every team just wants to sign their superstars, so they don't lose them for nothing. I'm pretty sure Tampa will trade one of their stars.

 

[Ted Hoffman]

10 teams this year still lost money. The new cba still favors the large market teams in a few ways.... not the least of which is payroll. One team with a payroll of 39 mil competing with another team with a payroll of 23 is not an even playing field. The cba also forces small market teams to spend up to the floor, regardless of if that is economically possible or not.

The Blues supposedly lost about $25 million this year with a payroll of about $30 million. Of course, much of that was because their owner alienated much of the fan base by deciding to sell the team and imposing a limit on payroll while stating that there would be no long-term contracts (b/c they would make the team less attractive to potential new owners), which forced the trade of Chris Pronger. Their attendance for the first three home games was approximately 18,400 ... 15,000 .... and 13,000. It didn't get much better the rest of the year.

The CBA didn't help them turn a profit this year, but that wasn't because there was a problem with the CBA. There was a problem with the owner.

 

[Stephen]

Have you people been living under a rock for the past couple of years? All of this stuff has been hashed and rehashed. Anyone with an IQ of forty can, with the smallest amount of reflection, understand why revenue sharing is a necessary ingredient of any and every profesisonal sport that seeks to locate franchises outside of the top five or six major north american cities. The above objections of Bobbyclarkefan and others above are so trite that they are not worthy of consideration.

If you can't figure it out on your own, there is little help for you, to be frank.

By your logic, the NHL would be better off if it had 50 markets with profitable teams footing the bill for every disinterested market and every inadequate market. Surely it would have a bigger audience if Tulsa, Moose Jaw, Halifax and Key West had local teams funded by all the big market teams. Maybe we could put in a system where big market teams have to pay a certain percentage of their payrolls...

I just don't support the propping up of unviable teams continual league handouts and the artifical handicapping of big markets to keep economically dysfunctional teams around. The survival of Team X has nothing to do with the good of the game. It's all about the interests of individual owners, and maybe their individual fanbases. It doesn't affect anybody outside of that organization and city. When Hartford lost its team, who in the NHL was affected by it? Nobody.

The idea of 'growing the game' through the growth of the league in non traditional markets is just a pile of nonsense. Hockey is not popular because of cultural reasons. A lot of the continental United States does not play hockey and there is no tradition of the sport. The NFL is popular not because it has revenue sharing, but because Americans love their football. They play it at the grassroots level, in the universities and in the professional ranks. It's everywhere, from New England to South Texas to Florida to the mid west, to California. It's just a bigger part of American life than hockey, and anybody who thinks a salary cap in an already obscure league is suddenly going to make hockey popular in New Mexico is just a moron.

As a fan sitting at home, I couldn't care less about the profit margins of the owners. I couldn't care less if the NHL was acknowledged as a major sport. So long as someone is playing hockey somewhere, I'm going to watch. People need to stop identifying with the financial interests of the owners.

 

[Randall Graves*]

Boy those 2nd/3rd/4th line type players must be really happy they had a year of pay stolen from them just so the stars could keep getting rich.

 

[72projectmgr]

Here's angle that might not have been looked upon yet. The cap is only enforciable when the team is iced or actually playing. Tampa Bay may actually have gambled on the Free Agent Market being rather like a bidding war on many of the players including Lecavier and St. Louis, so to give the Team time and bargaining power locked up those rights.

They may trade those rights right up to September 17-and be then accountable to the salary cap-its a gamble but it could pay off. None of the players have a NO Trade contract and movement is likely for at least one of the players. The contracts are usually set up in a way of yearly $$ and Insentive $$ and signing bonus $$ which would make the contracts look big from the outside but lets say they Tampa Bay trade one player now for another or two players-All they would have to pay is the signing bonus and maybe a small portion of the first year salary but and cannot be liable for insentive money (CBA rule of etthics).

Since most teams will need players, it actually gives Tamba Bay more chips to gamble with but in all likelyhood Goalies and Defencemen are going to be the big ticket after July 1st, 2006. I think you will find a goalie being Tamba Bays priority and a few defencemen being involved in the trade package-just my observations for the spendasures in Tampa Bay.

 

[pandabear*]

tampa shot themselves in the foot by signing brad richards to such a large contract.

I wouldn't have signed him for that much.

 

[TehDoak]

I don't know if this was discussed before.

Is TB runing the business of the New NHL with the signings (Richards, Lecavallier) ? --> Wave effects on the new contracts for Gaborik...and .... and.... and...

like

NYR did when they offered "I-don't-know-how-much-but-like-1-billion $ and 20 1st rounders" for RFA Joe Sakic in the old NHL? (that's when the financial madness started in the old NHL)

Ah, the joys of the inevitable market correction. I think there will be some salary bloating for a little bit. Teams will overpay their young players, and eventually, thanks the cap, it will drive down the salary of veteran players as less teams will be vying for for the UFAs because of less cap room, then soon, the young big contract guys will start becoming UFA and opening up more room and veterans will start getting big paydays again.

 

[missK]

They may trade those rights right up to September 17-and be then accountable to the salary cap-its a gamble but it could pay off. None of the players have a NO Trade contract and movement is likely for at least one of the players. The contracts are usually set up in a way of yearly $$ and Insentive $$ and signing bonus $$ which would make the contracts look big from the outside but lets say they Tampa Bay trade one player now for another or two players-All they would have to pay is the signing bonus and maybe a small portion of the first year salary but and cannot be liable for insentive money (CBA rule of etthics).

Since most teams will need players, it actually gives Tamba Bay more chips to gamble with but in all likelyhood Goalies and Defencemen are going to be the big ticket after July 1st, 2006. I think you will find a goalie being Tamba Bays priority and a few defencemen being involved in the trade package-just my observations for the spendasures in Tampa Bay.

FYI St. Louis has a no-trade clause which kicks in July 1st this year and Richards has a no-trade clause which kicks in July 1st 2007. The only one of the 3 that doesn't have a no-trade clause is Vinny.