SuperUnknown
Registered User
habitué said:
Teams can pay their players in whatever currency they want. However, since it's a competing market out there and players demand to be paid in $US, then the teams must pay in $US.
- Status
Teams can pay their players in whatever currency they want. However, since it's a competing market out there and players demand to be paid in $US, then the teams must pay in $US.
Cawz
Registered User
Digger12
Gold Fever
Mat said:
As an Oiler fan I'd be all for revenue sharing, but as an NHL fan I'm having a hard time seeing how it would help the overall economic health of the league.
Whether one believe the numbers of Forbes or Leavitt, the general consensus is that the NHL is an OVERALL money loser. Robbing Peter to pay Paul only serves to spread the losses over more teams IMO. The only winners at the end are the players, because with more teams with money to spend would likely result in more competition for their services...ergo higher salaries.
The NHL is hemmoraging red ink, and by far their largest expense is player costs. A hard salary cap does a lot more to rectify this than enhancing revenue sharing.
Both need to be part of the next CBA, but if I had to jettison one to get the other I have no problem deciding which one gets the boot first.
Digger12 said:
there should be a cieling, if thats what you're suggesting
even so, the cap in entirety will do nothing in the end. the high teams spend the most, the lower markets wont and will continue to not make much money (location not taken into consideration) but everyones heard this side of things
but a meaningful revenue sharing program helps all teams losing money. simply capping things does nothing to "fix the system" as gary calls it
and i have to disagree with you that a cap does more. what if theres a 100% tax from 40 up, and detroit spends 65m that year. that would mean 25m would go into the pool. and lets think the other top 9 teams went over the cap by 10m, thats over $100m to be divided by say the bottom 15, which is at least 10m more to spend on their rosters, improve their teams, and improve the market in general
how is this a bad thing? how does a hard cap with no floor help?
Tawnos
A guy with a bass
Cawz said:
It's a figure of speech. The fans are just as locked out of the NHL as the players are.
Tawnos
A guy with a bass
Digger12 said:
Revenue sharing means that teams aren't going to have to worry as much about spending too much on player costs, because a $40m Cap still doesn't mean that Edmonton is going to be able to afford Bill Guerin. The more high-quality players a team can acquire and/or keep, the more money they'll make. That's as much why they're trying to level the financial playing field with cost certainty as because they're losing money. Revenue sharing means increased revenues for all teams.
In response to jaws,
1. Do you actually think that after ruining a $2.1 billion dollar industry into a deficit/debt and lockout, other rich people will go head over heals to invest in a NHLPA league?
And where would these rinks be? Where would they play?
Also, given the limited number of arena's and locations they could play, would it not break the union when you have a, say, 230 player league, while anothe 300 are in need of jobs? Who gets to decide who those special 230 players are that have jobs and a play to play hockey?
And how would the quality of hockey be when they are playing shinny? I know I for one would rather watch an AHL or WHL game then a game of shinny, ala. All-Star Game or the NHLPA's last attempt of creating a league (Old-time stars or something) where scores were 19-12.
2. Well, why is the cap bad? The NHLPA has already tried to downplay the cap... its not a free market... it creates alot of player movement and its hard for fans to get atteched to a player... blank...
3. I agree that revenue sharing could be a card the NHLPA could play to split the league.
4. Well what is this history you are getting at?
5. I agree that "revenue" is something that the two sides have to hammer out, and a 3rd party could definatly help that cause. If and when the NHL does get linkage like they want, I'll put on my Pro-PA cap and say the NHLPA should milk the owners all they are worth for "revenue." Just like a band playing at a bar, whatever the players help the owners make, they should get a share of it.
(6. Also agree the fans are the biggest bargaiining chip. However, right now, it will be hard to sway the fans to the PA side. Judging by the sentiment of the public right now, I'd say for probably the first time in major sport league history, the players are siding with the owners.
Right now, the best thing the PA could do to swing fans in their favour is shut up some of the morons like Jeff O'Niell, who said he was a "little guy" making *only* $3.5 million. Or Derian Hatcher, Chris Chelios or Bryan McCabe. Get a guy who's respected among the fans - Steve Yzerman, Joe Sakic, Jarome Iginla, Nicklas Lidstrom. We've heard from Martin Brodeur already, too bad he crapped the bed on that one, as he's one of the most popular players in the league.)
1. Do you actually think that after ruining a $2.1 billion dollar industry into a deficit/debt and lockout, other rich people will go head over heals to invest in a NHLPA league?
And where would these rinks be? Where would they play?
Also, given the limited number of arena's and locations they could play, would it not break the union when you have a, say, 230 player league, while anothe 300 are in need of jobs? Who gets to decide who those special 230 players are that have jobs and a play to play hockey?
And how would the quality of hockey be when they are playing shinny? I know I for one would rather watch an AHL or WHL game then a game of shinny, ala. All-Star Game or the NHLPA's last attempt of creating a league (Old-time stars or something) where scores were 19-12.
2. Well, why is the cap bad? The NHLPA has already tried to downplay the cap... its not a free market... it creates alot of player movement and its hard for fans to get atteched to a player... blank...
3. I agree that revenue sharing could be a card the NHLPA could play to split the league.
4. Well what is this history you are getting at?
5. I agree that "revenue" is something that the two sides have to hammer out, and a 3rd party could definatly help that cause. If and when the NHL does get linkage like they want, I'll put on my Pro-PA cap and say the NHLPA should milk the owners all they are worth for "revenue." Just like a band playing at a bar, whatever the players help the owners make, they should get a share of it.
(6. Also agree the fans are the biggest bargaiining chip. However, right now, it will be hard to sway the fans to the PA side. Judging by the sentiment of the public right now, I'd say for probably the first time in major sport league history, the players are siding with the owners.
Right now, the best thing the PA could do to swing fans in their favour is shut up some of the morons like Jeff O'Niell, who said he was a "little guy" making *only* $3.5 million. Or Derian Hatcher, Chris Chelios or Bryan McCabe. Get a guy who's respected among the fans - Steve Yzerman, Joe Sakic, Jarome Iginla, Nicklas Lidstrom. We've heard from Martin Brodeur already, too bad he crapped the bed on that one, as he's one of the most popular players in the league.)
shveik
Registered User
Splatman Phanutier said:
With the cap, there will be teams that have 8 mil under the cap, and the teams that do not. It is not guaranteed that the team that holds the star player's rights will have the cap room to sign him. Basically the cap sets the hard salary budget for all the teams, so it is not so different from the no-cap. With the exception that now more teams have affordable budgets, and it would be possible for 20+ teams to bid on a player if they do have cap room. In fact, that could increase the star player's bargaining power. The cap will really do a number on the 3rd/4th liner salaries though.
There are so many revenue sharing proposals, I am not sure which one it is. Myself, I would like to see 70-80% gate revenue sharing (between the two teams that play a particular game, so for example Detroit will get 60% and Carolina 40% from Det-Car game in Detroit), and 30-40% local TV/radio revenue sharing.
jaws
Registered User
In response to Splatman Phanutier,
While the league has "apparently" been struggling since 94, Columbus, Atlanta, Nashville, Minny, and a few others have boughten into a league that continues to "lose money". Roy Melacker continues to state on the Team1200 that there have been 24 new owners since 94-trying to prove how bad the business of hockey is. YET IF PEOPLE CONTINUE TO BUY INTO THE LEAGUE, IT OBVIOUSLY ISN'T DOING THAT BAD IS IT ROY!?!?! To add to my anti-Roy rant, Forbes says club values increase last year by 6%. Anyways, the WHA has twice tried to re-create its glory days as well, proving that there are people willing to gamble on pro hockey.
They'd play in CHL rinks across the country, putting teams in Saskatoon, Halifax, Quebec City, St. John's, St. John or Fredytown, Hamiliton (they'd play at Copps), Winnipeg, and then fill out the northern NHL cities. You could probably have around 20 teams. Sure that'll leave out some guys, those who probably wouldn't want to play anyway, guys who were getting 2 minutes a game, and others who want to enjoy the time off with their family.
To create incentive, make it so the players put some money on the line. Winner takes all. Also, how about this for a fan friendly idea: have the fans in those cities pick the teams (or at least the top 6-10 guys). During the draft, you have everyone that has internet, or at the draft, or on the phone, or whatever, pick one player each round and whomever gets the most votes gets picked. That way it really feels like the fans are a part of the team. (I can't believe I didn't say that earlier, man that'd be awesome)!
Why is it bad: high turnover, teams still can't keep their guys (it becomes more about "cap room" than "budget room", and if you look at the last NHL proposals, the number may be 42.5 but its more like 30ish because of all its clauses. I'd love to go into detail here but its crunch time in University. In the meantime go here, its brief but its a start. I've also posted several reasons why a cap sucks in other posts.
Perils of a Cap:
http://proicehockey.about.com/b/a/123613.htm
Jack Adams, Conn Smyth, the Norrises, Campbell, Zeigler, Eagleson, etc. (I know the Eagle was the starter of the PA, but he stole just as much as the owners did and is still celebrated by the NHL, although not so much publically). True, these crooks are all long gone, but three still remain, Wirtz, Jacobs, and Snider. The first two are the worst by far, as both have a nice history of criminal activity.
Espo has a nice little piece of what Jacobs was doin with the Bruins in his book and for Writz, well, just google Bill Wirtz and you'll see what I mean.
For recent history, look at Eugene Melnik and Charles Wang. For guys who recently got kicked out, see the former Buffalo owners (Adelphia?) and Bruce MacNal (sp?). Like how can anyone trust a league that continues to allow guys like this into their business???
You're right, it'll be very tough to get the fans back on the players side. But I think even if they did just start my plan now, they'd at least get a few back. Maybe if they apologized first, then go with my plan...people love it when people apologize....
Agreed. However, if they decided to "shut-up" their guys just as the league did theirs, I'd be just as angry. If your so united, why need a gag order? Again, these questions weren't really asked by the media, as they, like the majority of fans, are pro-owner as well.
While the league has "apparently" been struggling since 94, Columbus, Atlanta, Nashville, Minny, and a few others have boughten into a league that continues to "lose money". Roy Melacker continues to state on the Team1200 that there have been 24 new owners since 94-trying to prove how bad the business of hockey is. YET IF PEOPLE CONTINUE TO BUY INTO THE LEAGUE, IT OBVIOUSLY ISN'T DOING THAT BAD IS IT ROY!?!?! To add to my anti-Roy rant, Forbes says club values increase last year by 6%. Anyways, the WHA has twice tried to re-create its glory days as well, proving that there are people willing to gamble on pro hockey.
They'd play in CHL rinks across the country, putting teams in Saskatoon, Halifax, Quebec City, St. John's, St. John or Fredytown, Hamiliton (they'd play at Copps), Winnipeg, and then fill out the northern NHL cities. You could probably have around 20 teams. Sure that'll leave out some guys, those who probably wouldn't want to play anyway, guys who were getting 2 minutes a game, and others who want to enjoy the time off with their family.
To create incentive, make it so the players put some money on the line. Winner takes all. Also, how about this for a fan friendly idea: have the fans in those cities pick the teams (or at least the top 6-10 guys). During the draft, you have everyone that has internet, or at the draft, or on the phone, or whatever, pick one player each round and whomever gets the most votes gets picked. That way it really feels like the fans are a part of the team. (I can't believe I didn't say that earlier, man that'd be awesome)!
Why is it bad: high turnover, teams still can't keep their guys (it becomes more about "cap room" than "budget room", and if you look at the last NHL proposals, the number may be 42.5 but its more like 30ish because of all its clauses. I'd love to go into detail here but its crunch time in University. In the meantime go here, its brief but its a start. I've also posted several reasons why a cap sucks in other posts.
Perils of a Cap:
http://proicehockey.about.com/b/a/123613.htm
Jack Adams, Conn Smyth, the Norrises, Campbell, Zeigler, Eagleson, etc. (I know the Eagle was the starter of the PA, but he stole just as much as the owners did and is still celebrated by the NHL, although not so much publically). True, these crooks are all long gone, but three still remain, Wirtz, Jacobs, and Snider. The first two are the worst by far, as both have a nice history of criminal activity.
Espo has a nice little piece of what Jacobs was doin with the Bruins in his book and for Writz, well, just google Bill Wirtz and you'll see what I mean.
For recent history, look at Eugene Melnik and Charles Wang. For guys who recently got kicked out, see the former Buffalo owners (Adelphia?) and Bruce MacNal (sp?). Like how can anyone trust a league that continues to allow guys like this into their business???
You're right, it'll be very tough to get the fans back on the players side. But I think even if they did just start my plan now, they'd at least get a few back. Maybe if they apologized first, then go with my plan...people love it when people apologize....
Agreed. However, if they decided to "shut-up" their guys just as the league did theirs, I'd be just as angry. If your so united, why need a gag order? Again, these questions weren't really asked by the media, as they, like the majority of fans, are pro-owner as well.
In response to jaws,
As well, its one thing to get interest from a few cities (Columbas, Atlanta, Nashville, Minnisota are the only 4 since 1996). How much more interest is there? Portland is the only one I know of. Winnipeg might be looking to regain a team, but I hear the Manitoba Moose are quite happy being the prime residents and arn't looking for a NHL team or NHLPA team taking over.
Also, these teams expanded under different spotlights in regards to financial troubles: Back then, it made 12th page in the Sports section. Seeing as how the pro league in NA to cancel an entire season, and given the Levitt lockout, I can't see many investers flooding the gates investing in an industry that saw its former collapse.
Easy way to counter it: Have a stipulation on the cap where players who are with the franchise for more then 3 years get a leeway of 10%. Maybe a similar system to teams' own draftee's.
Not a good idea
I think the best thing the NHL and NHLPA could do is shut their players up. To fight for fan leverage, go out into the community, contribute and make it look like your side are the "good guys."
First off, many of these expansion teams were committed before 1994. When these teams were entering the league, financial contraints weren't such a media headline as they are now.
As well, its one thing to get interest from a few cities (Columbas, Atlanta, Nashville, Minnisota are the only 4 since 1996). How much more interest is there? Portland is the only one I know of. Winnipeg might be looking to regain a team, but I hear the Manitoba Moose are quite happy being the prime residents and arn't looking for a NHL team or NHLPA team taking over.
Also, these teams expanded under different spotlights in regards to financial troubles: Back then, it made 12th page in the Sports section. Seeing as how the pro league in NA to cancel an entire season, and given the Levitt lockout, I can't see many investers flooding the gates investing in an industry that saw its former collapse.
Are these cities willing to commit? I know alot of CHL teams, fearing loses to the number of CHL fans, won't want competition in their small town. Thats why the Edmonton Ice never surivived in Edmonton. That's why Calgary isn't putting a NHL, WHL and AHL all in one city. These small towns likely won't be on board with risking their resident CHL franchise to bankrupcy, as the NHLPA league will collapse when NHL play resumes.
Besides the fact that the NHLPA league won't create much income as it is (they're better off playing in the UHL and the tier 4 French league) you think players would be willing to spend MORE and risk their career AND income? Doubtful.
As nice as that sounds, I can't see that possibly working.
So in other words, what I said.
Easy way to counter it: Have a stipulation on the cap where players who are with the franchise for more then 3 years get a leeway of 10%. Maybe a similar system to teams' own draftee's.
Fair enough. The NHLPA could play that card (I don't follow the off-ice crap of crimes and fraud and whatnot) but the NHL could counter by putting the spotlight on Dany Heatley, Mike Danton, Todd Bertuzzi and other NHL criminals. The end result? Everyone loses, and the gong-show of a circus runs the NHL down into a tier 2 sport below WWE's farm league wresting.
Not a good idea
Take note, Bob Goodenow.
I think the best thing the league ever did was put on a gag order. Alot of the players look nothing but stupid, and turn the fans off more and more.
I think the best thing the NHL and NHLPA could do is shut their players up. To fight for fan leverage, go out into the community, contribute and make it look like your side are the "good guys."
Smail said:
I think you did not understand my point (or read it properly). If the players are willing to have a rollback of 24% of their salaries, having players on CDN teams being paid in CDN $ makes sense.
me2
Go ahead foot
Tawnos said:
Why penalise Tampa? A big point of the luxury tax is encourage less well off teams to compete with richer teams. Taxing Tampa just makes its much, much hard for them. If you are deterimined to "keep salaries down" then just bring in a low hard cap. If you want a high cap + tax them have the tax heavy but only at the very top (ie $40m+).
I agree. It also shouldn't count towards a team's revenue sharing contribution.
Its a great idea, just ask Russ Conway. It levels the playing field in ways that money doesn't.
If they had a winning team I'd agree. If they had the crap they had for the last few years, I doubt it.
Its not meant to be a compehensive road block to spending. If you want one one those just bring in a low hard cap. It is meant to make teams think about pointless overspending (hello NYR). To give teams the option to spend extra but suffer the consequences (something monetary fines for wealthy teams are not likely to do).
How? It all goes back into the same bucket of money.
How many 25-30th overall picks is Crosby worth?Elite players are still worth the 5 1st rounders. They need some kind of penalty but they have to set the pay scale so that only the highest salaries draw 5 picks.
If Detroit gave up 5 1st rounders (25-30th overall) for Crosby that would be overpayment? I don't think so. The scale needs fixing not removing.
me2 "Its a great idea, just ask Russ Conway. It levels the playing field in ways that money doesn't."
i love russ conways proposal. it would be amazing if this were true. it allows teams to spend high on big players, but also limits the amount you can get as well and keeps spending in line with all other teams
god thatd be amazing
i love russ conways proposal. it would be amazing if this were true. it allows teams to spend high on big players, but also limits the amount you can get as well and keeps spending in line with all other teams
god thatd be amazing
me2
Go ahead foot
Mat said:
Why not have a hard cap at $40 and then just tax Detroit $25m? Just as much tax, lower payrolls and more even competition.....
habitué said:
No.. that doesn't make sense... because why would teams want to sign with CDN teams if they get paid less? Plus, taxes are higher in Canada than the US so its a double whammy. It won't matter too much with rookies but once u get to to free agency and even restricted free agency (i'll explain below), you'll have a problem because players would rather play for an american team than a canadian team
about the restricted free agency, the player can argue that yes he will get paid CDN money but to make it equivalent to their US counterpart, they want more.. teams will probably do the same sense all contracts are signed nowadays by comparing one player's contract to another's. So just save the hectic paperwork by keeping all salaries under the same dollar.
Tawnos
A guy with a bass
me2 said:
A low hard Cap doesn't keep salaries down, it destroys them. And if Tampa can't afford to be where they are, then they need to not be in that bracket. When they move out of that bracket, they don't lose in the luxury tax. Having a scaled tax keeps teams where they can afford to be and having a hard ceiling keeps teams from drastically outspending other teams. Oh, and I was using your example of Tampa spending $40m... if you're going to tax teams heavily from that number on, doesn't that affect the Bolts as well? It does, and worse so than my system. Under my system, I would be willing to guarantee that average league payrolls would average out at around $34-$35m. The teams that can afford more will spend more like they want to. The teams that are in the middle, like the Tampa Bays of the world, will be able to compete in the FA market in the offseason because of the lower salary scale. The teams that can't afford to will spend less and still be able to improve their teams with the money they receive from the luxury tax. All teams get what they want, and the players aren't reduced to a pittance.
me2 said:
I refuse to accept the idea of punishing a teams on-ice product (and therefore the fans) simply because the team that can spend is trying to improve that very on-ice product. It's self-defeating, as bad as the serpent that's eating it's own tail in Paradise Lost.
me2 said:
Right now? I wouldn't trade more than two first round picks in any slot for Crosby. Considering that I can package three first round picks in a series of moves that will improve at least 2 positions (1st line forward, and 1st paid Dman, easy) on my team, it's just simply not worth it. I'm sure Crosby will be great, but one player doesn't make a team and doesn't turn the Red Wings into Cup winners. Detroit, who competes for the Cup every season, knows better than to trade 2 first round picks for him when they know that they can turn those just one of those first round picks and a prospect into a number one center (Robert Lang). Or just one of those first round picks, a second round pick and a prospect for one of the top 5 defensemen in the league (Sergei Gonchar). Honestly, I think the Red Wings as they stand have a better shot at the Cup with those 2 players than they do with just Crosby.
kdb209
Registered User
- Jan 26, 2005
- 14,870
- 6
Tawnos said:
I think the examples of Lang and Gonchar are the exception rather than the rule. Washington was in complete self destruct salary dump mode anticipating a new CBA regime with a cap. You generally do not see that quality player go for just a low 1st round pick - except in the case of pending UFA rent-a-players. Under normal circumstances you would have seen a bidding war at the trade deadline and they would have gone for well more that the picks, but no one wanted to pick up a high salary player (particulary Lang with 3 more years on his contract) going into the lockout. You cannot expect to pick up a Lang or a Gonchar every year with a pick - any you suddenly expect the Wings to get both.
If and when NHL play resumes under a cap, I think you will find draft picks, especially first rounders will become much more valuable. You will not have the big spending teams able to pick up the high salary players for draft picks due to cap space issues, and teams will value draft picks since the ELS system will make good young picks a relative bargain.
That said, 5 late 1st rounders for Crosby would be a bargain, especially since you would lock him up for 3 years with a cap negligible ELS max contract of < $1M.
me2
Go ahead foot
Tawnos said:
How is your system noticably fairer to Tampa than your system modified to include the lose of draft picks for overspend a certain number (ie $40m)? Taking draft picks increases the chances of teams on lesser payrolls.
Why is it self defeating? It isn't. As for punishing the on ice product, well if a team wants to spend so much money as to buy themselves an on-ice advantage then taking draft picks is a great equaliser. Teams can make the choice, overspend into the penalty range (luxury tax $ + picks) or stay under. Teams choice.
If it makes it easier for you to understand don't think of it as being taxed a pick. Think of it as a team buying extra salary cap. Imagine a hard cap at $40m, with the clause that a team may buy addition cap space by giving up its draft pick that year.
Lose the pick through tax or give it up to buying more cap space: at the end of the day it produces an identical result.
[quoute]Right now? I wouldn't trade more than two first round picks in any slot for Crosby.[/quote]
I'd love to know how many other feel the same way (<5% at best guess)
If the wings are rebuilding (and they will be soon) Crosby would be a brilliant building block. They would be stupid not to pick him up. And if not the wings, then some other team would do it in an second.
If the Wings want to pay their picks away in exchange for the right to exceed the cap, then so be it. Taking picks though forces the wings to rebuild rebuilding earlier, since its harder to do deadline deals with no prospects/picks left. This establishes a much more balanced market place, lots of teams in various stages of growth and decay, unlike the current system where money props everything up years after its used by date.
chriss_co said:
It is very easy to make rate change conversion. The players would not be penalized a penny.
Tawnos
A guy with a bass
me2 said:
Noticeably? My system actually deals with salary. Read this carefully: making teams give up picks isn't going to stop them from over-spending. It won't create a a salary drag... ever. Salary drags stop salaries from ballooning. If a team wants Jerome Iginla, and is willing to spend $10m in a season to get him, charging a draft pick over $40m isn't going to make them think twice. If you make it so that in order to get Iginla, it's going to cost them $25m in one season, they'll never ever do that. Since that's the case a team would spend more around the $6m range... and that sets the market. Nobody that's on a lower level than Iginla is going to ask for $6m, and people on the same level will ask for around the same amount. If a team on a lowest taxed bracket says "we'd like Iginla and we have $8m in our budget to get him," then they're not going to offer him $8m, they're gonna offer him $6m. Again, salary drag... charging draft picks doesn't do a damn thing there.
me2 said:
I'm not touching this one, we've already been over this.
me2 said:
Don't talk down to me, I know how what you said works. I think it's ridiculous.
me2 said:
The Red Wings will not be rebuilding soon because they have a young core that they can just re-tool around. And having those picks as trade bait is a much better situation than having Crosby. And any team that IS rebuilding would be extremely foolish to give up their only means of rebuilding in exchange for one player.
me2 said:
Taking the Wings picks away only keeps the Wings in the same cycle. They can't start rebuilding because they don't have the draft assets, so therefore they must re-tool constantly through free agency. Think these things through.
The current system does encourage rebuilding teams to trade those missing pieces for draft picks. The choices already exist. NYR can adopt the free agent stratefy while Tampa Bay can adopt the development one and Tampa can get to a cup faster. Det, Col, and NJ developed their teams, and although many tried, none could knock off one of the developed great teams by buying UFAs. All got knocked out by teams that had developed cheaply. Every one of them.
jaws
Registered User
In response to Splatman Phanutier,
Incorrect. According to Gil Stein, former head of the NHL and author of Power Plays, he states that "in June of 1997, the NHL followed the precedent of the Plan of Third Expansion when it announced a new 3-phase plan, expanding to Nashville in 1998, to Atlanta in 1999, and to St. Paul, Minnesota and Columbus, Ohio, in 2000 (Stein, 64). Furthermore, financial contraints were also well known in the media. Hence CBC's "The New Ice Age", made between 1997-98, clearly documenting the rise in player salaries (http://www.whitepinepictures.com/iceage.html). Despite the whole the NHL was digging itself into, it continued to expand, despite its unhealthy (supposibly anyway) situation.
When it comes to interest in hockey, there may not be much in the US (although Kansas City is rumoured once again), but I can guarantee that there is in Canada. Despite the Moose's success, Winnipeg is still dieing for an NHL team. Same with Saskatoon and Quebec City and others.
I fail to see your point about back paged financial troubles and its impact on whether to expand or not. The bottom line is the NHL knew as well as the business community, yet they still expanded, for the most part, to untraditional cities.
The Hitmen are pretty profittable last time I checked. In fact, since they're owned by the Flames, they're making them money while they don't even play. If CHL teams are worried about fans leaving, then have the PAHL work with them. Have double hitters-fans tickets go to both the players league and the CHL matchup. I'd go for the 2 for 1 deal. Also, if the CHL team owns the rink, that PAHL team has to pay rent, giving the CHL team more money.
Are they really better off in the Uhaul league? I'd say there more at risk from some wacko mifted at the players. It'll be tough to create, but if they are committed, it'll work. If they created and gave 112% into their league, it would truly show the fans what they really play and stand for.
Why not? We got the technology. I think it'd be the greatest lure for fans to come and watch, as it really would be their team. Heck, even get them to make a payrole or something. Create a minimum salaray for players, then let the fans decide who gets most of their money. Fantasy pools come to life.
Then you create an even worse situation, especially for the small market teams. Three years and players could be gone, especially if he can go to a team that can offer and pay his full 10% leeway. Caps are no good, period. Full out revenue sharing is the key and the only right way to go.
You should. By not following their criminal history, you're allowing these unjustices to occur. Heck, your allowing them to steal from you.
Owner: "We're so poor, we have to raise prices to compete..."
Fan: "Well I guess I better support my Blackhawks, even though the owner has hurt himself by blacking out home games and getting no one worth seeing."
Knowing their history, would you believe their crys of poverty now?
And what happened to those players? Danton's in jail, Bertuzzi still can't play, and Heatley got off only because of Snyder's parents. Besides, having 3 guys, or even a bit more in law trouble, out of 700 is a pretty good ratio; much better than what the owners have.
Hey I didn't say it would happen. But imagine if it did. Coming from an unpopular guy like that, I think it'd mean an awful lot.
Well, on the one hand it forces unity, but on the other it looks like they're hidding something. But again, having the media not blow this gag order up in their face is a big reason for why its done so well.
Incorrect. According to Gil Stein, former head of the NHL and author of Power Plays, he states that "in June of 1997, the NHL followed the precedent of the Plan of Third Expansion when it announced a new 3-phase plan, expanding to Nashville in 1998, to Atlanta in 1999, and to St. Paul, Minnesota and Columbus, Ohio, in 2000 (Stein, 64). Furthermore, financial contraints were also well known in the media. Hence CBC's "The New Ice Age", made between 1997-98, clearly documenting the rise in player salaries (http://www.whitepinepictures.com/iceage.html). Despite the whole the NHL was digging itself into, it continued to expand, despite its unhealthy (supposibly anyway) situation.
When it comes to interest in hockey, there may not be much in the US (although Kansas City is rumoured once again), but I can guarantee that there is in Canada. Despite the Moose's success, Winnipeg is still dieing for an NHL team. Same with Saskatoon and Quebec City and others.
I fail to see your point about back paged financial troubles and its impact on whether to expand or not. The bottom line is the NHL knew as well as the business community, yet they still expanded, for the most part, to untraditional cities.
The Hitmen are pretty profittable last time I checked. In fact, since they're owned by the Flames, they're making them money while they don't even play. If CHL teams are worried about fans leaving, then have the PAHL work with them. Have double hitters-fans tickets go to both the players league and the CHL matchup. I'd go for the 2 for 1 deal. Also, if the CHL team owns the rink, that PAHL team has to pay rent, giving the CHL team more money.
Are they really better off in the Uhaul league? I'd say there more at risk from some wacko mifted at the players. It'll be tough to create, but if they are committed, it'll work. If they created and gave 112% into their league, it would truly show the fans what they really play and stand for.
Why not? We got the technology. I think it'd be the greatest lure for fans to come and watch, as it really would be their team. Heck, even get them to make a payrole or something. Create a minimum salaray for players, then let the fans decide who gets most of their money. Fantasy pools come to life.
Then you create an even worse situation, especially for the small market teams. Three years and players could be gone, especially if he can go to a team that can offer and pay his full 10% leeway. Caps are no good, period. Full out revenue sharing is the key and the only right way to go.
You should. By not following their criminal history, you're allowing these unjustices to occur. Heck, your allowing them to steal from you.
Owner: "We're so poor, we have to raise prices to compete..."
Fan: "Well I guess I better support my Blackhawks, even though the owner has hurt himself by blacking out home games and getting no one worth seeing."
Knowing their history, would you believe their crys of poverty now?
And what happened to those players? Danton's in jail, Bertuzzi still can't play, and Heatley got off only because of Snyder's parents. Besides, having 3 guys, or even a bit more in law trouble, out of 700 is a pretty good ratio; much better than what the owners have.
Hey I didn't say it would happen. But imagine if it did. Coming from an unpopular guy like that, I think it'd mean an awful lot.
Well, on the one hand it forces unity, but on the other it looks like they're hidding something. But again, having the media not blow this gag order up in their face is a big reason for why its done so well.
- Status
Ad
Upcoming events
-
Pinguins Bremerhaven @ Eisbaren Berlin - Pinguins Bremerhaven leads series 1-0Event closes- Updated:
-
-
2024 SoFi NBA Play-In Tournament Chicago Bulls @ Miami HeatWagers: 1Staked: $10.00Event closes- Updated:
-
-
