TSN: NHLPA meetings have concluded quietly

[mooseOAK*]

I think that unless things improve with the way the game is received, Corporate support (especially south of the border) will trickle back pretty slowly. Corporations don't support the NHL because they love the it. They do it either to entertain customers, or as a form of advertising.

One thing to consider - the NHL forced the corporations to spend their money elsewhere this year. Who is to say that whatever they spend their money on instead won't get the $'s instead of the NHL next year?

I remember several articles on Slam about small business owners that were spending the $20K their tickets were on other things, and getting a hell of a lot better return on their investment. Those are the types of things that should make the owner (and ultimately the players) REAL nervous.

That is why, if the Sportsnet story is to be believed, the NHLPA should jump on that de-linked proposal by April 8 and try to negotiate off of that. No, it isn't going to be what they want and a lot less than they had or could have had with previous NHL proposals but it gives all of the financial hit backlash from the lockout directly to the owners. Linked, they suffer also.

 

[Mess]

Best to do research and know the situation before making a comment such as this. Now, I don't know exactly who you are refering to when you say others are pushing for a low cap, but I can take a pretty fair guess. Including those three you mentioned specifically, it is fair to say that your assessment of each individual ownership situation leads you to believe that those teams are hanging on by a thread.

Now, I don't know the status of most teams in the league. But I have a pretty good idea of one and it happens to be one you mentioned specifically, Atlanta. And you probably couldn't be more wrong. New ownership took over just a year ago; changes near the top were made, more money was given to spend on the team, etc. These new guys in charge are actually taking a hands-on approach, which is worlds different from the robotic-like orders give from previous ownership (AOL/TW).

I'm sure the new owners in Atlanta would like a decently low cap. Even with their new found spending, the payroll this year would have been right around $35M (no rollback in that). Safe in whatever event might occur. But they do seem willing to throw caution to the wind a bit and with a large group of successful businessmen in this new ownership group, they certainly aren't hurting for money.

Ask yourself this. Of the teams you had in mind, do you think there could be other situations that you don't know of in terms of a team's ownership, its attitude, its finances, its economic viability, and so forth and so on? That answer is a resounding yes. You jumped to conclusions to try and make a point, but it won't stick that way. Not enough meat on the bone.

I was actually thinking of this article : http://www.philly.com/mld/philly/sports/hockey/10830353.htm

The members of the Eight Man Salary Cap Band not only support a hard cap, they support Bettman's idea of revenue-sharing based only on playoffs and not the regular season. That's because none of the eight wants to share his overall money with anyone else.

The Eight Man Salary Cap Band - Wirtz, Jacobs, Craig Leipold in Nashville, Peter Karmanos in Carolina, Cal Nichols in Edmonton, Harley Hotchkiss in Calgary, Ted Leonsis in Washington, and Alan Cohen in Florida - wants a system in which the wealthiest teams are reduced to their teams' minimal payroll level - and minimal on-ice success.

So while your team is not in that list you can certainly agree that the Lower the Cap the better it is for your team in the NEW NHL as the Thrashers have one of the lowest payrolls in the NHL ??

 

[codswallop]

I was actually thinking of this article : http://www.philly.com/mld/philly/sports/hockey/10830353.htm

The members of the Eight Man Salary Cap Band not only support a hard cap, they support Bettman's idea of revenue-sharing based only on playoffs and not the regular season. That's because none of the eight wants to share his overall money with anyone else.

The Eight Man Salary Cap Band - Wirtz, Jacobs, Craig Leipold in Nashville, Peter Karmanos in Carolina, Cal Nichols in Edmonton, Harley Hotchkiss in Calgary, Ted Leonsis in Washington, and Alan Cohen in Florida - wants a system in which the wealthiest teams are reduced to their teams' minimal payroll level - and minimal on-ice success.

So while your team is not in that list you can certainly agree that the Lower the Cap the better it is for your team in the NEW NHL as the Thrashers have one of the lowest payrolls in the NHL ??

I pretty much said they would like a low cap. No doubts there. Gives them a chance to break even for the time being, and hopefully start to turn a profit if the team has some success.

With Heatley and Kovalchuk still unsigned and both likely to hit the $4M mark in salary, that gets the payroll to $35-$36M. Still in the bottom tier, but escalating as ever.

My feeling is more that many teams are in financial trouble. Some don't seem to mind losing money, while others most definitely do. Another component of why this particular industry (along with its very artificial nature) is quite strange and unique. Normally, you run a business to achieve maximum profits. But here there is another concern that can trump your goals of profit, especially if you have the extra millions to give up in pursuit of that. Doesn't make for the most stable model to follow, just adds to the differences in business practices from this industry to that of a more normal (and much less artificial) industry.

But if you don't believe that everyone deserves a chance to attain a more stable financial footing, then so be it. And from past discussions I have seen enough assumption and faulty logic and bias to know that I can't dent your stance on this. Whether you or I or anyone else likes it or not, there are 30 teams. And the deal that gets done involves each and every one of them, and they deserve equal consideration. That's the reality. The fantasy part comes up quite often here; who should be contracted or moved or etc. And how that could actually help this situation. But the reality is going to stay the same, 30 teams in equally. Much more constructive to argue from that premise than coming up with something out of the air.

And remember, I couldn't care any less who wins here. As long as each team is given the chance to be financially viable, it's all good to me.