TSN article: Harsh fines over 60 mil?

Status
Not open for further replies.

hockeytown9321

Registered User
Jun 18, 2004
2,358
0
Pepper said:
Are you kidding US? 70% of Cups won by only 3 different teams in the last 10 years. The point of every NHL team is to win the cup, very few can do it.

So under a cap they're going to award 2 or 3 Cups a year?

Sure its hard to win. Thats the point.
 

Guest

Registered User
Feb 12, 2003
5,599
39
If you look back at the past 30 years of the Stanley Cup, in 10 year spans there were never more teams winning in that 10 year span than in the 90's. Since then, the numbers are coming back down. You'd almost expect one of NJ, COL, DET, DAL, TB to win the Cup again next just to keep the trend going. If you look, the competition was the greatest during the 90's, but other than that, it's historically less like it is now.
10 Yr Span : Cup Winners
1971-1980: 4
1972-1981: 4
1973-1982: 3
1974-1983: 3
1975-1984: 4
1976-1985: 3
1977-1986: 3
1978-1987: 3
1979-1988: 3
1980-1989: 4
1981-1990: 4
1982-1991: 5
1983-1992: 5
1984-1993: 4
1985-1994: 5
1986-1995: 6
1987-1996: 7
1988-1997: 8
1989-1998: 8
1990-1999: 8
1991-2000: 7
1992-2001: 7
1993-2002: 6
1994-2003: 5
1995-2004: 5
 

Brent Burns Beard

Powered by Vasiliev Podsloven
Feb 27, 2002
5,575
570
triggrman said:
It's not just about winning the cup, it's also about having exciting players. Any team can clutch and grab their way to the cup.

if any team can, whats the problem ? clearly not any team can anyway, its hard to win a cup for a reason.

dr
 

iagreewithidiots

Registered User
Mar 2, 2002
1,524
0
Visit site
A luxury tax will do nothing but help the very deepest pocketed of owners.

The teams that are hurt are the mid to upper mid level spenders. Teams like New York and Toronto will spend more and pay the tax if they have to.

A team, say Vancouver, that may be able to increase payroll by winning and increasing attendance will not be able to increase revenue enough to cover a tax.

Low spending teams wont have a thing change. They will never receive enough in tax handouts to increase payroll anything more then a marginal amount.

A luxury tax will do nothing to change the current situation. If you are against a cap you are against a cap but please dont suggest a luxury tax as a good alternative.
 

hockeytown9321

Registered User
Jun 18, 2004
2,358
0
triggrman said:
It's not just about winning the cup, it's also about having exciting players. Any team can clutch and grab their way to the cup.

I'd say Calgary proved otherwise last year.
 

shakes

Pep City
Aug 20, 2003
8,632
239
Visit site
iagreewithidiots said:
A luxury tax will do nothing but help the very deepest pocketed of owners.

The teams that are hurt are the mid to upper mid level spenders. Teams like New York and Toronto will spend more and pay the tax if they have to.

A team, say Vancouver, that may be able to increase payroll by winning and increasing attendance will not be able to increase revenue enough to cover a tax.

Low spending teams wont have a thing change. They will never receive enough in tax handouts to increase payroll anything more then a marginal amount.

A luxury tax will do nothing to change the current situation. If you are against a cap you are against a cap but please dont suggest a luxury tax as a good alternative.

I dont know why everyone is arguing about how many cups were won by how many different teams. I'm pretty sure this is about COST CERTAINTY, not about making the league a fairer place to play.

Let's put it this way, if the NHL could devise a way to make all teams make money while still letting the rich teams spend then they would. The NHL could care less that Detroit has won the cup x many times in the past 10 years.
 

me2

Go ahead foot
Jun 28, 2002
37,903
5,595
Make my day.
shakes said:
I dont know why everyone is arguing about how many cups were won by how many different teams. I'm pretty sure this is about COST CERTAINTY, not about making the league a fairer place to play.

Let's put it this way, if the NHL could devise a way to make all teams make money while still letting the rich teams spend then they would. The NHL could care less that Detroit has won the cup x many times in the past 10 years.

I tend to agree. You don't see the league pushing for major changes to the free agency rules that particular reason. I think a lot of people get too caught up in that side of the debate.

NHLPA-backers "The league is good because its competitive, but a hard cap is bad because its competitive" [like that makes sense]
NHL-backers "The league is uncompetitive.....blah blah blah."

The problems are definitely money related more than with the draft/reserve/UFA age. Attempts at cup buying are extremely damaging to the league even if they are not overly successful (a point missed by many pro-NHLPA who only look at the failure of the strategy not the overall effects, though it has worked more often than low priced teams winning)

If they can

a) distribute a little from the rich to the poor via a luxury tax, this helps the poor and hinders the richer
b) ensures poorer teams can stay together longer and rich teams rebuild on shorter time scales*
c) cut down on silly spending and attempts at cup buying, and provides more realisitic salaries

I think that is a relatively good outcome.

*The window for teams like Calgary and Tampa needs to be kept open so they can make good long cup runs, not just one or two years. The rich teams will always have a fiscal advantage and be able to stay at the top longer (benefit of being rich). The balance just needs to be a little better tuned. Teams continuing past their used by date by throwing around cash doesn't do the league much good: it ties up playoff spots, drives up salaries, denies aspiring teams playoff experience, etc.
 

hockeytown9321

Registered User
Jun 18, 2004
2,358
0
me2 said:
NHLPA-backers "The league is good because its competitive, but a hard cap is bad because its competitive" [like that makes sense]
NHL-backers "The league is uncompetitive.....blah blah blah."

I guess you'd call me an NHLPA backer, though I'm mainly on their side because I think a cap would be a disaster and I think they've been alot willing to negotiate a fair deal. That said, to me the bad part of the cap isn't so much that the competitive balance will increase(I don't buy that the league isn't competitive now) but that it will increase at the expense of the game. Just look at football. Its more competitive than ever, but why should the Detroit Lions have any shot at the playoffs with a 5-7 record at this point? Its parity by mediocrity.
 

me2

Go ahead foot
Jun 28, 2002
37,903
5,595
Make my day.
hockeytown9321 said:
I guess you'd call me an NHLPA backer, though I'm mainly on their side because I think a cap would be a disaster and I think they've been alot willing to negotiate a fair deal. That said, to me the bad part of the cap isn't so much that the competitive balance will increase(I don't buy that the league isn't competitive now) but that it will increase at the expense of the game. Just look at football. Its more competitive than ever, but why should the Detroit Lions have any shot at the playoffs with a 5-7 record at this point? Its parity by mediocrity.


Detroit Lions have a shot with a losing record? Same thing happens in the NHL, 30 teams & 16 playoff spots means one average one team will have a losing record.
 

hockeytown9321

Registered User
Jun 18, 2004
2,358
0
me2 said:
Detroit Lions have a shot with a losing record? Same thing happens in the NHL, 30 teams & 16 playoff spots means one average one team will have a losing record.

So you think its OK that a team as bad as the Lions could win the SuperBowl? :eek:
 

I in the Eye

Drop a ball it falls
Dec 14, 2002
6,371
2,327
hockeytown9321 said:
I guess you'd call me an NHLPA backer, though I'm mainly on their side because I think a cap would be a disaster and I think they've been alot willing to negotiate a fair deal. That said, to me the bad part of the cap isn't so much that the competitive balance will increase(I don't buy that the league isn't competitive now) but that it will increase at the expense of the game. Just look at football. Its more competitive than ever, but why should the Detroit Lions have any shot at the playoffs with a 5-7 record at this point? Its parity by mediocrity.

I'm quite content with the current competitive balance... IMO, it should be very difficult to (1) first have a shot at the playoffs; and (2) ultimately win the Stanley Cup... I don't want to see every team have an equal chance... IMO, that cheapens the accomplishment... I want to see well-built teams win the cup... and for the most part, that is what has happened throughout the history of the NHL... IMO, very few teams have been able to buy a cup... It doesn't work... IMO, history has shown that only well-built teams (combined with hard work and luck) come the closest and ultimately win the Stanley Cup... They build over several years from a solid and young core...

Some teams sometimes have been able to buy a playoff spot, however... Perhaps they trade for a big name player at the deadline, have a late season run, and get into the playoffs... Yet, these teams when matching up against a proper built team far more often than not, lose... They can't match the chemistry of a well-built team... Combine chemistry, with team experience (history winning and losing together as a team), with hardwork, with luck (key ingredient for any success)... and my money is always on the well-built team over a team of stars who were recently assembled...

There's an old saying in the NHL - Once you're in the playoffs, anything can happen... That, to me, is an admission of proper competitive balance... As long as the underdog has a properly built core, the underdog has a fighting chance to beat the favourite...

The fact that the Canuck sucked for so many years in our history (and some will argue still suck) makes our current success and our quest for winning the cup so much more satisfying... I wouldn't want it to be any easier... It cheapens the value of the Stanley Cup... It cheapens the many years I've spent following the Canucks as a fan... It lowers the current excitement I have for Canucks hockey... One day, if the Canucks do win the cup, at that moment, I could see myself doing the "Shawshank" (face covered in s***, standing in a lake, rain pouring down, arms outstretched to the heavens)... It's been since the 80's I've wanted the Canucks to win the cup!

The "Shawshank" is only reserved for seemingly impossible things... In a hard cap league (one where the Canucks have a much greater chance to win the cup every year - along with the majority of other team), I'd perhaps crack a smile and give a high five... but doing the Shawshank in this situation would be rather silly...
 

me2

Go ahead foot
Jun 28, 2002
37,903
5,595
Make my day.
hockeytown9321 said:
So you think its OK that a team as bad as the Lions could win the SuperBowl? :eek:

A team as bad as the Lions could be in 16th place and be able to win the stanley cup (very, very unlikely but possible). The key difference is multigame series. Unless the NFL introduces multiple game series (like hockey/baseball/basketball) then it is fundamentally more prone to end of year upsets. Any time you have enoughplayoff spots (and or division/conference reseved spot) that weak teams quaifiy you open yourself up to this sort of thing.
 

hockeytown9321

Registered User
Jun 18, 2004
2,358
0
me2 said:
Any time you have enoughplayoff spots (and or division/conference reseved spot) that weak teams quaifiy you open yourself up to this sort of thing.

But is that good or bad?
 

hockeytown9321

Registered User
Jun 18, 2004
2,358
0
I in the Eye said:
I'm quite content with the current competitive balance... IMO, it should be very difficult to (1) first have a shot at the playoffs; and (2) ultimately win the Stanley Cup... I don't want to see every team have an equal chance... IMO, that cheapens the accomplishment

It absolutely cheapens the accomplishment. In 100 years people are going to look at the list of Superbowl champions and deduce that the 2002 Tamba Bay Bucs were as good as the 1982 49'ers. I don't want that to happen to the Stanley Cup.

Any team that wins in any sport should win because they are the best. The point of playing is to determine who is the best. I don't know why so many people don't want the best team to win.
 

no13matssundin

Registered User
May 16, 2004
2,870
0
Makaveli_The_Don said:
Just like the NBA soft cap, thats what I've been saying in so many threads. The NBA system can work in the NHL.

Uh, newsflash bud, but the NBA is going to have a workstoppage next year because of the NBA system as it is right now...

how can the NBA system work in the NHL when it cant even work in the NBA? :lol:
 

PecaFan

Registered User
Nov 16, 2002
9,243
520
Ottawa (Go 'Nucks)
me2 said:
A team as bad as the Lions could be in 16th place and be able to win the stanley cup (very, very unlikely but possible). The key difference is multigame series. Unless the NFL introduces multiple game series (like hockey/baseball/basketball) then it is fundamentally more prone to end of year upsets. Any time you have enoughplayoff spots (and or division/conference reseved spot) that weak teams quaifiy you open yourself up to this sort of thing.

The funny thing is though, the NFL has far less upsets. With the way they structure their playoffs, invariably it's the top teams fighting it out for the conference championships, and the Super bowl. I believe the worst team ever to win had a 9-7 record.

Someone said this to me the other day, and I think it's very astute: The reason the players don't want to tie salary to revenues is that they know the NHL has peaked. Revenues are as high as they're going to be for a *very* long time. Alternate revenue streams have been pretty much tapped out. Pay per view, luxury boxes, licensing jerseys etc, tv revenue, building new arenas, lotteries, taxing players like Alberta, tons of fans have already been priced out with ticket price increases, you name it.

So it's pretty much all down hill from here. Hitching on to that as a percentage means that player salaries will be going down a lot, and for a long time. Thus, they fight tooth and nail to hold on to the gravy train they already have.

Thus, the meaningless one time salary reduction offer, and a luxury tax that simply shifts the owners money around, and doesn't impact the players at all.
 

Motown Beatdown

Need a slump buster
Mar 5, 2002
8,572
0
Indianapolis
Visit site
PecaFan said:
The funny thing is though, the NFL has far less upsets. With the way they structure their playoffs, invariably it's the top teams fighting it out for the conference championships, and the Super bowl. I believe the worst team ever to win had a 9-7 record.


Tell that to Eagle fans or viking fans.
 

Brent Burns Beard

Powered by Vasiliev Podsloven
Feb 27, 2002
5,575
570
PecaFan said:
The funny thing is though, the NFL has far less upsets. With the way they structure their playoffs, invariably it's the top teams fighting it out for the conference championships, and the Super bowl. I believe the worst team ever to win had a 9-7 record.

Someone said this to me the other day, and I think it's very astute: The reason the players don't want to tie salary to revenues is that they know the NHL has peaked. Revenues are as high as they're going to be for a *very* long time. Alternate revenue streams have been pretty much tapped out. Pay per view, luxury boxes, licensing jerseys etc, tv revenue, building new arenas, lotteries, taxing players like Alberta, tons of fans have already been priced out with ticket price increases, you name it.

So it's pretty much all down hill from here. Hitching on to that as a percentage means that player salaries will be going down a lot, and for a long time. Thus, they fight tooth and nail to hold on to the gravy train they already have.

Thus, the meaningless one time salary reduction offer, and a luxury tax that simply shifts the owners money around, and doesn't impact the players at all.

actually, considering their poor TV deal and lack of interest in many US markets, isnt it true that the revenue can grow quite substantially ? i mean, its not like the TV contract can get worse right ?

if hockey takes off in the markets that are struggling, revenue grows. if it doesnt take off, can it get worse ?

seems like there is a plenty of room for growth.

dr
 

IWD

...
May 28, 2003
6,139
86
Visit site
Pepper said:
And only an idiot would think there's competetive balance when 3 teams have won 70% of the Cups during the last 9 years.

Not to nitpick, but controlled salaries don't really guarentee competetive balance. Look at the 80's. Two teams won 80% of the cups. Or the even the 70's. 100% of those cups were won by only 3 teams.
 

Pepper

Registered User
Aug 30, 2004
14,693
269
Icewind Dale said:
Not to nitpick, but controlled salaries don't really guarentee competetive balance. Look at the 80's. Two teams won 80% of the cups. Or the even the 70's. 100% of those cups were won by only 3 teams.

Yes but they were under the previous CBA.

Controlled salaries mean that teams aren't disadvantaged by their smaller markets as much as currently. If some teams are moe competetive it's more likely because of good management than unlimited resources.
 

PecaFan

Registered User
Nov 16, 2002
9,243
520
Ottawa (Go 'Nucks)
JWI19 said:
Tell that to Eagle fans or viking fans.

Philly? Because they've recently lost to an 11-5 team in Carolina, or 12-4 Tampa, or 14-2 St. Louis?

Those aren't upsets, those are being beat by an equally good, in fact better team.

DementedReality said:
actually, considering their poor TV deal and lack of interest in many US markets, isnt it true that the revenue can grow quite substantially ? i mean, its not like the TV contract can get worse right ?

The current tv contract has hundreds of millions of dollars less than they had in the past five, eight years or so. It'll probably be 20 years before they can get to those totals again.

Remember, they haven't even started playing under the new lousy contract. Last year was the last of the great contract.
 

thinkwild

Veni Vidi Toga
Jul 29, 2003
10,813
1,464
Ottawa
PecaFan said:
The reason the players don't want to tie salary to revenues is that they know the NHL has peaked. Revenues are as high as they're going to be for a *very* long time. Alternate revenue streams have been pretty much tapped out. Pay per view, luxury boxes, licensing jerseys etc, tv revenue, building new arenas, lotteries, taxing players like Alberta, tons of fans have already been priced out with ticket price increases, you name it.

So it's pretty much all down hill from here.

Nonsense. I think this same quote was repeated in 1918, 1945, 1962, 1975, 1987, 1994. In a market like Edmonton, the revenue stream called winni9ng in the playoffs for a couple of years hasnt even been broached yet.

I think everyone sees the revenues rising, not falling.



PecaFan said:
The current tv contract has hundreds of millions of dollars less than they had in the past five, eight years or so. It'll probably be 20 years before they can get to those totals again.

Where are you getting that from? I heard, that there was no up fronts rights fee, and the league was entering into a revenue sharing agreement with that network. It could be a very creative patnership, hard to track in Hockey Related Revenue, possibly more profitable agreement than before. I havent heard any of the other networks suggesting they wont be paying up front rights fees.
 

IWD

...
May 28, 2003
6,139
86
Visit site
Pepper said:
Yes but they were under the previous CBA.

Controlled salaries mean that teams aren't disadvantaged by their smaller markets as much as currently. If some teams are moe competetive it's more likely because of good management than unlimited resources.

That's not really what my point. You pointed out that 3 teams winning 70% of the last decade's cups meant that competative balance was not happening. I simply pointed out that a lack of balance has been occurring far longer than the problem of esculating salaries. I'm not trying to prove any more or any less. The lack of balance in the NHL shouldn't be blamed on the lack of controlled salaries.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad

-->