Whats the idea behind a salary "floor"?

[dem]

I guess the idea is to make teams spend a certain amount of money... but how exactly is this enforced?

Click to read more...

 

[SENSible1*]

I guess the idea is to make teams spend a certain amount of money... but how exactly is this enforced?

Quite clearly the NHL is saying to small markets--"We'll give you a level playing field, but it is up to you to generate enough revenue to prove that you belong in the league."

Enforcement? A fine in the amount the team went under the cap payable to the NHLPA should get the job done I'd think.

 

[Motown Beatdown]

I guess the idea is to make teams spend a certain amount of money... but how exactly is this enforced?

The NBA and NFL use the threat of withholding TV contract revenue. So far no team had dipped below the salary floor.

 

[waffledave]

How can teams that can't even support a $20 million payroll possibly reach the minimum salary?

 

[SENSible1*]

How can teams that can't even support a $20 million payroll possibly reach the minimum salary?

Well considering the fact that this is the owners proposal, I'm pretty sure they aren't too concerned about the trade off of some extra money for a level-playing field.

 

[waffledave]

Well considering the fact that this is the owners proposal, I'm pretty sure they aren't too concerned about the trade off of some extra money for a level-playing field.

But isn't the whole problem that the owners are losing money? This would just cause them to lose even more money.

And just because the teams would have more to spend on salary, doesn't mean they will win either. They say this creates a level playing field, but if the players go along with this, teams like Detroit and New Jersey will still keep on winning, and teams like the Pens and Chicago will still keep losing. This just forces the teams that don't have money to fork it over anyways, and the teams that do have money to not spend it.

In the end, the crappy teams will still be crappy. And crappy teams don't make money.

 

[BLONG7]

But isn't the whole problem that the owners are losing money? This would just cause them to lose even more money.

And just because the teams would have more to spend on salary, doesn't mean they will win either. They say this creates a level playing field, but if the players go along with this, teams like Detroit and New Jersey will still keep on winning, and teams like the Pens and Chicago will still keep losing. This just forces the teams that don't have money to fork it over anyways, and the teams that do have money to not spend it.

In the end, the crappy teams will still be crappy. And crappy teams don't make money.

This is where revenue sharing has to kick in, the big revenue boys like DET,PHI,TOR etc will make big money and have to fork some of it over so that Nashville and the Pens etc will have more money to spend. I think...

 

[John Flyers Fan]

This is where revenue sharing has to kick in, the big revenue boys like DET,PHI,TOR etc will make big money and have to fork some of it over so that Nashville and the Pens etc will have more money to spend. I think...

The NHL owners are against heavy revenue sharing, and would prefer to just share the national TV money and playoff revenues.

 

[Motown Beatdown]

This is where revenue sharing has to kick in, the big revenue boys like DET,PHI,TOR etc will make big money and have to fork some of it over so that Nashville and the Pens etc will have more money to spend. I think...

It's to bad thats not what the owners are proposing. Their revenue sharing is national TV money and a portion of playoff revenue. Thats all folk, so the plan isn't to bring every one a equal footing with revenue it's just to keep the large markets from spending.

 

[Taranis_24]

But isn't the whole problem that the owners are losing money? This would just cause them to lose even more money.

And just because the teams would have more to spend on salary, doesn't mean they will win either. They say this creates a level playing field, but if the players go along with this, teams like Detroit and New Jersey will still keep on winning, and teams like the Pens and Chicago will still keep losing. This just forces the teams that don't have money to fork it over anyways, and the teams that do have money to not spend it.

In the end, the crappy teams will still be crappy. And crappy teams don't make money.

If the TMLs, Wings and Rangers are over the cap and can't offer contracts to certain players, maybe even star players. Then those players will look to the Pittsburgh, Floridas and Carolinas of the league for work. This bringing up their talent level. One other thing to remember it's the star players that make the big bucks. If the new rule changes take place to let the better players play more openingly then the teams that have more star players on the team will(should) be a lot better. If this really does happen I can see the difference between the haves and have nots grow wider, there needs to be a way to force competitive balance in the league.

 

[SENSible1*]

But isn't the whole problem that the owners are losing money? This would just cause them to lose even more money.

The owners in the small markets are obviously counting on being able to sell more tickets with a better team and the real hope of icing a competitive team.

And just because the teams would have more to spend on salary, doesn't mean they will win either. They say this creates a level playing field, but if the players go along with this, teams like Detroit and New Jersey will still keep on winning, and teams like the Pens and Chicago will still keep losing. This just forces the teams that don't have money to fork it over anyways, and the teams that do have money to not spend it.

Teams that have to drop players to get under the cap will lose talent. Teams that have cap room and can sign those players (at a deflated price) will be able to assemble a more talented line-up. Caps tend to even out the talent pool.

In the end, the crappy teams will still be crappy. And crappy teams don't make money.

In the end, the teams that spend their money the best will be good and the teams that spend it poorly will be crappy. Market size won't matter.

 

[John Flyers Fan]

there needs to be a way to force competitive balance in the league.

You mean so that smaller payroll teams like Tampa, Calgary, Vancouver, San Jose and Ottawa can compete ???

 

[SENSible1*]

You mean so that smaller payroll teams like Tampa, Calgary, Vancouver, San Jose and Ottawa can compete ???

Dear John,

We know you are desperate to maintain a system that allows your Flyers to have access to all the top level talent their money can buy and the ability to spend their way out of problems created by their mistakes.

It has been clearly demonstrated, on numerous occassions, that payroll size does play a significant role in how competitive a team is over the course of the past CBA. Citing exceptions to the rule, especially ones with mid size markets and rapidly increasing payrolls is simply designed to cloud the issue and your real intentions.

Please stop with this nonsense and just be honest enough to say that you'd prefer to keep the advantage your team's money provides. Frankly I don't blame you for wanting to maintain the status quo. If you want to get angry, get mad at the Flyers owners, who are willing to trade your edge for some extra profits.

 

[Motown Beatdown]

Dear John,

We know you are desperate to maintain a system that allows your Flyers to have access to all the top level talent their money can buy and the ability to spend their way out of problems created by their mistakes.

It has been clearly demonstrated, on numerous occassions, that payroll size does play a significant role in how competitive a team is over the course of the past CBA. Citing exceptions to the rule, especially ones with mid size markets and rapidly increasing payrolls is simply designed to cloud the issue and your real intentions.

Please stop with this nonsense and just be honest enough to say that you'd prefer to keep the advantage your team's money provides. Frankly I don't blame you for wanting to maintain the status quo. If you want to get angry, get mad at the Flyers owners, who are willing to trade your edge for some extra profits.

Dear Thunder,

Bullcrap

Glen Sather



On a serious note money does help, no one would disagree with that. But there is many more factors than just a checkbook.

 

[copperandblue]

The NHL owners are against heavy revenue sharing, and would prefer to just share the national TV money and playoff revenues.

Where did you get that from?

I thought the NHL proposal included an aknowledgment the enhanced revenue sharing was on their agenda.

They just didn't specify the method and instead said they were open to negotiations with the PA on how to achieve it once the main items were established.

Too me this is just another straw man argument by the PA, much like their contention that the NHL wanted to eliminate guaranteed contracts.

 

[I.am.ca]

How can teams that can't even support a $20 million payroll possibly reach the minimum salary?

If you look at last season's payroll, alot of teams cut down to get ready for the lockout, no one was under 20mill.

 

[John Flyers Fan]

Dear John,

We know you are desperate to maintain a system that allows your Flyers to have access to all the top level talent their money can buy and the ability to spend their way out of problems created by their mistakes.

It has been clearly demonstrated, on numerous occassions, that payroll size does play a significant role in how competitive a team is over the course of the past CBA. Citing exceptions to the rule, especially ones with mid size markets and rapidly increasing payrolls is simply designed to cloud the issue and your real intentions.

Please stop with this nonsense and just be honest enough to say that you'd prefer to keep the advantage your team's money provides. Frankly I don't blame you for wanting to maintain the status quo. If you want to get angry, get mad at the Flyers owners, who are willing to trade your edge for some extra profits.

This fight is all about money and has absolutely NOTHING to do with trying to make the league competitive on the ice.

Players want money, owners want money and neight could give a damn about the fans or about how competitive the game is on the ice.

=============================================

Teams with 50+ million payrolls won a whopping 4 playoff series last year.
Teams with payroll under $38 million won 9 playoff series last year

In 2002-03 it was 6 playoff wins for the $50 million + & 7 for the $38 & unders

In 2001-02 it was 5 wins for the 50+ group and 5 wins for the 38 & unders.

So over the last 3 years teams that have spent $50 million+ in payroll have 15 playoff series victories.

Teams that have spent under$38 million have 21 playoff series victories.

 

[MojoJojo]

It has been clearly demonstrated, on numerous occassions, that payroll size does play a significant role in how competitive a team is over the course of the past CBA. Citing exceptions to the rule, especially ones with mid size markets and rapidly increasing payrolls is simply designed to cloud the issue and your real intentions.

Clearly this is not the case. There certainly is an advantage for teams with higher payroll, few 60 milion dollar teams miss the playoffs for example, but to say small market teams arent competitive? Are you serious? San Jose, Calgary, The Devils (traditionally, their payroll has crept up only recently), Tampa, Ottawa, Edmonton, Vancouver are all doing quite well despite payrolls that are generally half what the Flyers, Rangers, Wings, Avs, Leafs, Stars and Blues shell out. Thats hardly an anomoly. The only big spenders that have had success recently are Detroit and Colorado, both teams which are on the decline as their star players age.

If you are REALLY impoverished, like Pittsburg, then you have a legitimate gripe.

 

[waffledave]

It's to bad thats not what the owners are proposing. Their revenue sharing is national TV money and a portion of playoff revenue. Thats all folk, so the plan isn't to bring every one a equal footing with revenue it's just to keep the large markets from spending.

A portion of playoff revenue! And they say a Luxury tax is unpredictable? Talk about guesswork... The playoffs can be between 60 and 120 something games.

 

[John Flyers Fan]

Where did you get that from?

I thought the NHL proposal included an aknowledgment the enhanced revenue sharing was on their agenda.

They just didn't specify the method and instead said they were open to negotiations with the PA on how to achieve it once the main items were established.

The NHL proposal doesn't spell out how they will share revenue or how much, but when the NHLPA has indicated amount of revenue to be shared and how they would like the money to move from the top 10 revenue teams to the bottom 13 teams, the NHL came back saying "that's more revenue sharing than we want"

I;m not saying that the NHL won't have any revenue sharing, but they have not wanted to share as much as was in the original NHLPA proposal.

 

[Motown Beatdown]

Where did you get that from?

I thought the NHL proposal included an aknowledgment the enhanced revenue sharing was on their agenda.

They just didn't specify the method and instead said they were open to negotiations with the PA on how to achieve it once the main items were established.

Too me this is just another straw man argument by the PA, much like their contention that the NHL wanted to eliminate guaranteed contracts.

http://www.canada.com/montreal/mont....html?id=720048d3-a562-4b90-b4d1-121b128a8ddd

In a memo sent to the 30 teams yesterday, the NHL said it envisions a revenue-sharing plan that would be funded by a "portion of revenues generated in the Stanley Cup playoffs."


http://www.tsn.ca/nhl/news_story.asp?ID=107996&hubName=nhl

On the NHLPA-proposed revenue redistribution plan which would see high revenue teams provide funds for lower revenue teams, the NHL reaction is: "we envision a revenue sharing pool that will be funded primarily by a portion of revenues generated in the Stanley Cup playoffs," as opposed to revenue sharing on the basis of regular-season revenues.

 

[HckyFght*]

The NHL owners are against heavy revenue sharing, and would prefer to just share the national TV money and playoff revenues.

And this makes sense. Every NFL team gets $80 million a piece from network TV. Is it any wonder that their salary cap is $80 million? A similar situation exists in the NBA, that's why comparisons of those leagues with the NHL don't work. The NHL gambled that in the last decade it would be able to achieve this same deal, it didn't happen, and that's why we're in the fix we're in. Revenue sharing won't make sense until their national media revenues begin to climb. And that won't happen until your local NHL broadcast beats network programming in your market on any given night. SO the NHL needs to put it's financial wagons in a circle, return the game to old time hockey, and grow it's markets.
-HckyFght!

 

[Motown Beatdown]

And this makes sense. Every NFL team gets $80 million a piece from network TV. Is it any wonder that their salary cap is $80 million? A similar situation exists in the NBA, that's why comparisons of those leagues with the NHL don't work. The NHL gambled that in the last decade it would be able to achieve this same deal, it didn't happen, and that's why we're in the fix we're in. Revenue sharing won't make sense until their national media revenues begin to climb. And that won't happen until your local NHL broadcast beats network programming in your market on any given night. SO the NHL needs to put it's financial wagons in a circle, return the game to old time hockey, and grow it's markets.
-HckyFght!

But the problem is Bettman says the luxury tax system for revenue sharing is "guess work" But under their plan of playoff revenue isn't it guess work also?

 

[John Flyers Fan]

And this makes sense. Every NFL team gets $80 million a piece from network TV. Is it any wonder that their salary cap is $80 million? A similar situation exists in the NBA, that's why comparisons of those leagues with the NHL don't work. The NHL gambled that in the last decade it would be able to achieve this same deal, it didn't happen, and that's why we're in the fix we're in. Revenue sharing won't make sense until their national media revenues begin to climb. And that won't happen until your local NHL broadcast beats network programming in your market on any given night. SO the NHL needs to put it's financial wagons in a circle, return the game to old time hockey, and grow it's markets.
-HckyFght!

I know that Ed Snider and Mike Illitch certainly agree with you, as they'll pocket HUGE profits from this salary cap.

The NFL shares far more than just the National TV money.

The NFL also shares 40% of all gate receipts, among other things.

 

[SENSible1*]

This fight is all about money and has absolutely NOTHING to do with trying to make the league competitive on the ice.

Players want money, owners want money and neight could give a damn about the fans or about how competitive the game is on the ice.

Who ever said is was about anything else?

We are talking about the side effect of the system and your motivation for not wanting it implemented.

Teams with 50+ million payrolls won a whopping 4 playoff series last year.
Teams with payroll under $38 million won 9 playoff series last year

In 2002-03 it was 6 playoff wins for the $50 million + & 7 for the $38 & unders

In 2001-02 it was 5 wins for the 50+ group and 5 wins for the 38 & unders.

So over the last 3 years teams that have spent $50 million+ in payroll have 15 playoff series victories.

Teams that have spent under$38 million have 21 playoff series victories.

Wonderful spin job. Bob would be proud.

Any reason you chose hard numbers duing a period that saw over 20% inflation?
Any reason you chose just the last 3 years?

Couldn't be that it helped your case, right?

How about this.

Go back and do the whole CBA and see how many series were won by teams over the average salary and under the average salary.

When you have those meaningful results, get back to me.