This is why a cap neccessary

[Biggest Canuck Fan]

Actually according to Stats Can the 2004 population for the Vancouver Census Metropitan Area is 2,173,100.
http://www.statcan.ca/english/Pgdb/demo05a.htm

so I was off by 327K. Sue me

Point is, Vancouver is not small market compared to most NHL cities.

 

[Biggest Canuck Fan]

Then fix the NHL through growing revenues and revenue sharing, not by capping salaries.

Revenue sharing would fix the system as it is, but the NHL does not participate in any type of meaningful revenue sharing, nor does it propose to. That is the biggest problem.

Now there is major truth in your voice, and let me tell ya that is the biggest problem.

Earlier I said the NHLPA cannot point to baseball's system cause it doesn't work. Now I am also saying the NHL cannot point to the NFL, because in the NFL all the owners care about the well being of the other francises not just their own. They are a family.

Remember why the Bruins signed Lapointe for a ludicrous amount? The owner did it just to piss off Ilich.

Neither side can point to anything other than themselves.

 

[likea]

Then fix the NHL through growing revenues and revenue sharing, not by capping salaries.

Revenue sharing would fix the system as it is, but the NHL does not participate in any type of meaningful revenue sharing, nor does it propose to. That is the biggest problem.

revenue sharing alone would not fix the system at all

Forbes who NHLPA people hang onto like its their lifejacket in white water even said the NHL is lost 100 million dollars last year as a whole

for those that are slow

every team in the NHL put together lost 100 million last season according to Forbes, according to NHL its 250 million

EITHER WAY the NHL is losing money

so please explain how revenue sharing in your opinion will fix it????

 

[kerrly]

stop whining. i've said it in this thread already, but i'm going to do it again- this lockout is not, in any way, shape, or form, happening to make the league more competitive. it is taking place because the owners want to make more money.

the owners have seemed to have done a good job fooling the general public about this though.

Then under your principles and thought process, the players will not concede to any form of cap to make more money. Simple as that and it is fact according to you.

 

[Wetcoaster]

so I was off by 327K. Sue me

Point is, Vancouver is not small market compared to most NHL cities.

I was simply pointing out the actual figure. I said nothing about whether or not Vancouver is or is not a small market.

The Canucks have however referred to themselves as a small market team in the NHL in the past.

 

[Wetcoaster]

revenue sharing alone would not fix the system at all

Forbes who NHLPA people hang onto like its their lifejacket in white water even said the NHL is lost 100 million dollars last year as a whole

for those that are slow

every team in the NHL put together lost 100 million last season according to Forbes, according to NHL its 250 million

EITHER WAY the NHL is losing money

so please explain how revenue sharing in your opinion will fix it????

Forbes was very conservative as is their bent. They credited the Canucks with a $.3 million profit in 2002-03 and $1.7 million in 2003-04. The Canucks have stated publicly that they in fact made $20 million profit in 2003-03 and $25 million profit in
2003-04.

We do not know the actual loss or profit because the owners control access to those figures.

According to Chairman of the Board of the Flyers Ed Snyder said under the Levitt report the Flyers lost money but according to President of the Flyers Ron Ryan they made a profit.

Who knows?????

The NHL owners have a history of misleading the players on financial matters.

 

[likea]

Forbes was very conservative as is their bent. They credited the Canucks with a $.3 million profit in 2002-03 and $1.7 million in 2003-04. The Canucks have stated publicly that they in fact made $20 million profit in 2003-03 and $25 million profit in
2003-04.

We do not know the actual loss or profit because the owners control access to those figures.

According to Chairman of the Board of the Flyers Ed Snyder said under the Levitt report the Flyers lost money but according to President of the Flyers Ron Ryan they made a profit.

Who knows?????

The NHL owners have a history of misleading the players on financial matters.

Forbes also insanely counted the property around the arenas, other arena non hockey events, and how much the team was worth

all things that have no business even being discussed with the players

the NHLPA pointed to the Forbes report, not me

and it also stated taxes, loan interest and other things were not included in the Forbes report

taxes on a 100 million dollar team, payroll, arena, ect has to be alot...

along with the loan interest these guys take out...

so you can say what you want about it, either way it shows the NHL is losing a ton of money

oh, and if the owners were not losing money but making money like you seem to think

would they not have accepted the players offer?????

 

[SENSible1*]

Mods,

Is there not a policy against repeating the same post in multiple threads?

I'm sure anyone who was interested in Wetcoaster PA propoganda pamphlet has had ample opportunity to read it the first 5 times he posted it. How many more times will this be allowed?

 

[PecaFan]

Funny everyone I have heard has refered to Vancouver as a small market team. Our population is far smaller than half the cities considered to be small market

Not by anyone who knows what they're talking about. Population is irrelevant. Vancouver is an upper middle hockey market, because there's a ton of support for hockey here (fans have stuck by their team for 35 years, despite it being the worst franchise *ever* in the NHL), there is a lot of corporate support, etc.

it would be better to be STL or BOS who have been in the playoffs every year but have never even get a sniff ?

Of course. St. Louis and Boston have made more money during that time, and have a more solid fan base.

Making one long playoff run once a decade is practically useless. As many here like to point out, Carolina is two years removed from being in the finals, and attendance has fallen dramatically.

Carolina would have been far better off making the playoffs every year for the last five, and not ever getting past the second round.

 

[Icey]

revenue sharing alone would not fix the system at all

Forbes who NHLPA people hang onto like its their lifejacket in white water even said the NHL is lost 100 million dollars last year as a whole

for those that are slow

every team in the NHL put together lost 100 million last season according to Forbes, according to NHL its 250 million

EITHER WAY the NHL is losing money

so please explain how revenue sharing in your opinion will fix it????

Put a revenue sharing system like the NFL (60/40 gate receipt split) has and it will solve the problems. But that won't happen and you know why, because the OWNERS won't go for it, not the players. First you have a team like Phoenix who last season spent 106% of their revenues on player salaries. How does a team like that even begin to think that they could make money is beyond me, but look at it this way.

Edmonton goes to Toronto to play. In todays NHL system Toronto gets close to 100% of the teams revenue from that game (mostly because most of team revnue in the NHL is locally generated), Edmonton gets little to nothing. Last season the Leafs pulled in $117M in revenue, Edmonton had $55M. Now give Edmonton a portion of the leaf's $117M and a portion of Detroits $97M, Colorado's $99M, NY Rangers $119M and Dallas $103M and their revenue numbers go up. They now have more money to spend on player salaries and teams like Detroit, Toronto, Colorado etc. have less.

Take a team like Pittsburgh ($52M) who plays Philadelphia in Philadelphia ($106M) three times during the regular season. All the sudden Pittsburgh has more money and Philadelphia has less. That in itself will lower salaries when the big spending teams all the sudden are sending millions of revenue dollars to the poorer teams. They no longer have that extra money to spend on salaries. Now Eddie Belfour gets a $6M contract instead of $8 and the downward spiral begins.

Problem is the league has no real interst in revenue sharing because it doesn't want to make the top teams mad, that was obvious by their revenue sharing proposal when they said it would be funded primarily from the Stanley Cup Playoffs. They relie heavily on Toronto, NY Rangers, Philadlephia, Colorado, Dallas, Detroit, so they put forth the joke of the revneue sharing programs that they do. "Meaningful" revenue sharing is what the league keeps saying, but they fail to give any real specifics. In their last proposal most of revenue sharing was off playoff revenues. Rangers have no problem with that, they haven't been to the playoffs in 7 years, Detroit, Colorado, Dallas and Toronto haven't advanced past the second round in the last two years, they don't have a problem, Philadelphia hasn't advanced past the conference finals in years, sot they don't have a problem. Who would this actually hurt. The teams that advance. So instead of it helping teams likes Tampa Bay, Calgary, San Jose, Minnesota, Nashville, it would actually hurt them. And what did the league propose to do to teams that did not grow their revenue ? Absolutely nothing. Yet the players said they had to meet specifice guidelines.

Tell me again how the NHL has the small market teams in their best interest. Revenue sharing does work and like I said if the NHL concentrated a little more on revenue sharing and a little less on salary caps, then this league wouldn't be in the problems they are in.

 

[likea]

Put a revenue sharing system like the NFL (60/40 gate receipt split) has and it will solve the problems. But that won't happen and you know why, because the OWNERS won't go for it, not the players. First you have a team like Phoenix who last season spent 106% of their revenues on player salaries. How does a team like that even begin to think that they could make money is beyond me, but look at it this way.

Edmonton goes to Toronto to play. In todays NHL system Toronto gets close to 100% of the teams revenue from that game (mostly because most of team revnue in the NHL is locally generated), Edmonton gets little to nothing. Last season the Leafs pulled in $117M in revenue, Edmonton had $55M. Now give Edmonton a portion of the leaf's $117M and a portion of Detroits $97M, Colorado's $99M, NY Rangers $119M and Dallas $103M and their revenue numbers go up. They now have more money to spend on player salaries and teams like Detroit, Toronto, Colorado etc. have less.

Take a team like Pittsburgh ($52M) who plays Philadelphia in Philadelphia ($106M) three times during the regular season. All the sudden Pittsburgh has more money and Philadelphia has less. That in itself will lower salaries when the big spending teams all the sudden are sending millions of revenue dollars to the poorer teams. They no longer have that extra money to spend on salaries. Now Eddie Belfour gets a $6M contract instead of $8 and the downward spiral begins.

Problem is the league has no real interst in revenue sharing because it doesn't want to make the top teams mad, that was obvious by their revenue sharing proposal when they said it would be funded primarily from the Stanley Cup Playoffs. They relie heavily on Toronto, NY Rangers, Philadlephia, Colorado, Dallas, Detroit, so they put forth the joke of the revneue sharing programs that they do. "Meaningful" revenue sharing is what the league keeps saying, but they fail to give any real specifics. In their last proposal most of revenue sharing was off playoff revenues. Rangers have no problem with that, they haven't been to the playoffs in 7 years, Detroit, Colorado, Dallas and Toronto haven't advanced past the second round in the last two years, they don't have a problem, Philadelphia hasn't advanced past the conference finals in years, sot they don't have a problem. Who would this actually hurt. The teams that advance. So instead of it helping teams likes Tampa Bay, Calgary, San Jose, Minnesota, Nashville, it would actually hurt them. And what did the league propose to do to teams that did not grow their revenue ? Absolutely nothing. Yet the players said they had to meet specifice guidelines.

Tell me again how the NHL has the small market teams in their best interest. Revenue sharing does work and like I said if the NHL concentrated a little more on revenue sharing and a little less on salary caps, then this league wouldn't be in the problems they are in.

did you even read my post????

instead of the big markets teams spending the money that the NHL doesn't have the small market teams will spend it....

makes a ton of sense and it will def lower salaries.....lol

re-read what I wrote and re-read what you wrote, it makes zero sense man

 

[Chayos]

The fact that 10 years ago Pittsburg had the highest payroll and was driving up salaries with the Mario Lemieux contract, but the Av's (Quebec) were going bankrupt proves that bottom feeding teams can rebound.

Yah the owners of the pens did a bang up job keeping that franchise doing well too. Didn't lemieux have to take over the team or risk losing his deferred salary to bankrupcy?

 

[Chayos]

OK so we agree that buying teams is not acceptable. But neither is the destruction of teams so that they can stay under a cap. You are dooming teams to exactly what you are going through simply because of success. So we punish those that succeed so Chicago can succeed. Not interested. How would you like it if this year your team after spending years trading successfully and developing rookies, had to dismantle your team and give your good players to Calgary, just cause we need to level the playing field, you would be p*ssed.

I don't see how a cap will hurt VCR at all right now. I did some model at each stage of negotiations to see where certain teams would sit and VCR mix of salaries is always there as a Model of how team will operate just under the cap. Teams like NYR, DET, TOR, Dall, Philly and St louis who have been robbing player off small markets teams for years would suffer under a cap.

Well BOOHOO, if they have any complaints about that then they should take it up with WE don't give a crap commission.

A cap will work to make the league a more entertaining game with mid week game of Carolina and PIT normally hurting revenues, now you could have a real quality game which would draw more fans. Who really wants to come out and watch their team play an opponent with 1/5 th the talent.

The bottom line is if the league has 30 healthy franchises teh players have job security. The players will have a quality opponent on most night instead of sticking in neutral till the next big team comes to town.

 

[YellHockey*]

Not by anyone who knows what they're talking about. Population is irrelevant. Vancouver is an upper middle hockey market, because there's a ton of support for hockey here (fans have stuck by their team for 35 years, despite it being the worst franchise *ever* in the NHL), there is a lot of corporate support, etc.

Then why isn't Calgary an upper middle hockey market? After all there's a ton of support for hockey there, the fans have stuck by their team for years and it is has the second most corporate headquarters in Canada. Also household and disposable incomes are higher then Vancouver while taxation is lower.

So why isn't Calgary considered a bigger hockey market then Vancouver if population is irrelavant?

 

[Brent Burns Beard]

Then why isn't Calgary an upper middle hockey market? After all there's a ton of support for hockey there, the fans have stuck by their team for years and it is has the second most corporate headquarters in Canada. Also household and disposable incomes are higher then Vancouver while taxation is lower.

So why isn't Calgary considered a bigger hockey market then Vancouver if population is irrelavant?

Calgary proved in the playoff that it might be best NHL market in the entire NHL.

CGY is one of the biggest losers in this work stoppage. edit: if TOR made it to the finals, you would see pandamoneum, nothing like CGY could provide. They truly are the biggest hockey market in the entire world.

However, NYR and TOR are two of the biggest winners.

But this lock out is about saving markets like CGY. Cant you tell ?

DR

 

[PecaFan]

Then why isn't Calgary an upper middle hockey market?

I have no idea, I don't live in Calgary. Maybe all those corporations don't buy hockey seats. Maybe fans choose to invest their money, and not spend it on hockey. For whatever reason, the revenues simply aren't there.