Who here actually supports the NHLs proposal?

[Mat]

Who here actually supports the NHL's proposal? That is *roughly* 37-45m cap (all expenses included) with no revenue sharing?
Who here actually thinks this will help smaller market clubs in any way?

I'm not asking this to alienate or say pro-owner people are wrong, I just havn't heard any legitimate arguments for hard cap agreements that do not include meaningful revenue sharing.

Click to read more...

 

[Pepper]

The answer to your question ("how NHL's proposal will help the small teams") has been rehashed over here soooo many times that I'm not gonna start writing it again. Look it up, it has been explained about one million times before.

 

[Lanny MacDonald*]

I don't suport any proposal where a hard and fast number for a cap is suggested. I feel the only system that is fair for both sides is one that includes linkage to revenues and places equal responsibility on both sides (the league and the PA) to grow and safeguard the game. I have yet to hear a single legitimate argument against such a proposal.

 

[SENSible1*]

Who here actually supports the NHL's proposal? That is *roughly* 37-45m cap (all expenses included) with no revenue sharing?
Who here actually thinks this will help smaller market clubs in any way?

I'm not asking this to alienate or say pro-owner people are wrong, I just havn't heard any legitimate arguments for hard cap agreements that do not include meaningful revenue sharing.

Your cap is too high.

 

[letsgojackets]

I don't suport any proposal where a hard and fast number for a cap is suggested. I feel the only system that is fair for both sides is one that includes linkage to revenues and places equal responsibility on both sides (the league and the PA) to grow and safeguard the game. I have yet to hear a single legitimate argument against such a proposal.

The PA has provided that arguement by saying they will never link salaries to revenue. But I agree that linkage is the fairest and safest way to settle this whole thing.

 

[Motown Beatdown]

I don't suport any proposal where a hard and fast number for a cap is suggested. I feel the only system that is fair for both sides is one that includes linkage to revenues and places equal responsibility on both sides (the league and the PA) to grow and safeguard the game. I have yet to hear a single legitimate argument against such a proposal.

As someone who sides with the PA i agree with you. A linked system is the best for all parties involved.

 

[Seachd]

As someone who sides with the PA i agree with you. A linked system is the best for all parties involved.

I've been saying it all along. If the players actually believe the sport can support their tremendous salaries, why wouldn't they accept linkage? If the players and league both contribute together to make the league healthier, both salaries and revenues could grow in ways that would be very generous for everyone.

The players even half-recognized that in their latest proposal, when they included that ridiculous "salaries-must-go-up-with-revenue-but-can't-come-down" clause. That just goes to show that the players have no interest in making the league better by working with the owners. I'm not holding my breath, but hopefully they clue in soon enough to get next season in.

 

[Motown Beatdown]

I've been saying it all along. If the players actually believe the sport can support their tremendous salaries, why wouldn't they accept linkage? If the players and league both contribute together to make the league healthier, both salaries and revenues could grow in ways that would be very generous for everyone.

The players even half-recognized that in their latest proposal, when they included that ridiculous "salaries-must-go-up-with-revenue-but-can't-come-down" clause. That just goes to show that the players have no interest in making the league better by working with the owners. I'm not holding my breath, but hopefully they clue in soon enough to get next season in.

Can you blame them for an upward linkage system? I mean it's whats best for them. As for linkage that bring ups the trust issue and i think thats been beatin like a dead horse.

 

[shnagle]

I don't suport any proposal where a hard and fast number for a cap is suggested. I feel the only system that is fair for both sides is one that includes linkage to revenues and places equal responsibility on both sides (the league and the PA) to grow and safeguard the game. I have yet to hear a single legitimate argument against such a proposal.

My problem with the league's linkage proposal is the way they calculate the salary range, specifically the floor. The league proposes basing the range on total league revenue is inherently flawed because there is such great revenue disparity between teams. Let's take the league's proposal based on the 2.1 bil revenue which meant that the average team's revenue would be 70 million. If you are an average revenue team that spends 35.7 mil on payroll than you are at 51%, however if you are a small revenue team at 56 mil revenue and are forced to spend 35.7 than your ratio is at 63% just to meet the floor. Conversely a large revenue team at 85 mil could spend up the cap of 40 mil and still have a ratio below 50%. How are small revenue teams supposed to survive with this ratio and perhaps more importantly why would the NHL force it's small revenue teams into the very ratio it is trying to get the league out of?

 

[Lanny MacDonald*]

My problem with the league's linkage proposal is the way they calculate the salary range, specifically the floor. The league proposes basing the range on total league revenue is inherently flawed because there is such great revenue disparity between teams. Let's take the league's proposal based on the 2.1 bil revenue which meant that the average team's revenue would be 70 million. If you are an average revenue team that spends 35.7 mil on payroll than you are at 51%, however if you are a small revenue team at 56 mil revenue and are forced to spend 35.7 than your ratio is at 63% just to meet the floor. Conversely a large revenue team at 85 mil could spend up the cap of 40 mil and still have a ratio below 50%. How are small revenue teams supposed to survive with this ratio and perhaps more importantly why would the NHL force it's small revenue teams into the very ratio it is trying to get the league out of?

That's where the league's undisclosed revenue sharing comes into play. The league will have revenue sharing that will bring the small market teams up to a standard where they are on a level playing field (the salary floor). After that it is up to them to grow their markets accordingly and become self-sufficient. Of course that is the plan. What is done in execution is a different story, but I think that the NHL will indeed follow through on what they have proposed in support of the small market clubs. I put my support behind the plan that has the best common sense solution, and to date this is the one that meets that criteria. If the PA comes to the table with a better solution, that meets the common sense test and addresses the problems of the game, then I will quickly change sides of this argument. Fix the problems of the game and everyone should be happy.

 

[FLYLine27*]

Please...80% of the pro owners only support the hard cap so there team has an equal playing field when it comes to spending...the other 20% support it so there team doesn't go bankrupt.

 

[PeterSidorkiewicz]

Heres a question about linkage though, shouldn't there be a linkage "floor" sort of speak? I mean if revenues get so so bad where linkage causes the payroll to be like 30 million then I absolutely put NO blame on the people playing the game. If there was linkage id like to see something where as the hard cap can't drop under 34 million or something like that. I mean don't you think at some point if no one is showing up to games that the owners need to take SOME responsibility? I mean if the NHLPA actually accepted linkage this is something that would have to be done.

 

[Master Shake*]

Can you blame them for an upward linkage system? I mean it's whats best for them. As for linkage that bring ups the trust issue and i think thats been beatin like a dead horse.

Hows it a trust issue when the proposal included an independent third party year auditor that is mutally agreed upon by the players and owners and teams caught lying are severely punished?

The players are idiots.

 

[Lanny MacDonald*]

Heres a question about linkage though, shouldn't there be a linkage "floor" sort of speak? I mean if revenues get so so bad where linkage causes the payroll to be like 30 million then I absolutely put NO blame on the people playing the game. If there was linkage id like to see something where as the hard cap can't drop under 34 million or something like that. I mean don't you think at some point if no one is showing up to games that the owners need to take SOME responsibility? I mean if the NHLPA actually accepted linkage this is something that would have to be done.

No, there should be no linkage floor. If the industry revenues drop to the point where a $30 million salary structure cannot be supported then a $30 million salalry cannot be supported. Setting a floor does nothing but insuring problems in the future. Or do you give your kid a $100 a week allowance when things are good, and then continue to do so when you're between jobs and can't pay your light and water bills? Common sense is obviously in extremely short supply.

 

[shnagle]

That's where the league's undisclosed revenue sharing comes into play. The league will have revenue sharing that will bring the small market teams up to a standard where they are on a level playing field (the salary floor). After that it is up to them to grow their markets accordingly and become self-sufficient. Of course that is the plan. What is done in execution is a different story, but I think that the NHL will indeed follow through on what they have proposed in support of the small market clubs. I put my support behind the plan that has the best common sense solution, and to date this is the one that meets that criteria. If the PA comes to the table with a better solution, that meets the common sense test and addresses the problems of the game, then I will quickly change sides of this argument. Fix the problems of the game and everyone should be happy.

I understand your point about small revenue teams growing their revenue and that the NHL has "guaranteed" that revenue will be shared so each team can meet the floor as long as they meet "an acceptable level of business performance within their respective markets". While it would be nice to think that a few small revenue teams will grow their revenue and that the owners will share their revenue these are far from "certainties" and the league has made it abundantly clear that it will only accept a deal that with "cost certainty" for all 30 franchises.
For the most part small revenue teams will always be small revenue teams relative to "big" revenue teams and their costs as a fixed percentage of revenue will almost always remain at a level the league has said it can not sustain. Again, why would the league start with a formula that puts or keeps small revenue teams in such a financial bind?

 

[PecaFan]

I don't suport any proposal where a hard and fast number for a cap is suggested. I feel the only system that is fair for both sides is one that includes linkage to revenues and places equal responsibility on both sides (the league and the PA) to grow and safeguard the game. I have yet to hear a single legitimate argument against such a proposal.

I don't tie myself to one or the other, either type of system will work. You have a solid argument for linkage, and I believe the players would be better off in the future by choosing it, but if they don't, it just means the owners get all the future "goodies" if the league grows. Frankly, I couldn't care less if the players "get theirs".

A properly set low salary cap, *without exceptions and loopholes*, is enough alone to fix the system. It addresses salaries, by simply not allowing them to inflate, and competitiveness, by not allowing big teams to spend significantly more than small clubs.

 

[Mat]

Your cap is too high.

my cap is the same one as the last two proposed by the nhl. the most recent being 37.5 and the one before that being 42.5 (45 with all added costs)

 

[Mat]

Please...80% of the pro owners only support the hard cap so there team has an equal playing field when it comes to spending...the other 20% support it so there team doesn't go bankrupt.

it doesnt make an even playing field. big market teams will still find loop holes to get over the cap and sign big name players, and lower market teams will will still lose out
the only thing a hard-cap does is allow for large-market clubs to increase their yearly revenue, rather than lose it to revenue-sharing or taxes or just to play costs


which leads me to find that most of the posts in this thread are off topic as linkeage has nothing to do with this. i'm talking about a non-linked hard cap with no sharing; how can people support this over a raised figure (say, 50m cap) but with A LOT of taxes, where this money would go to lower market teams and create some sort of parity

 

[ResidentAlien*]

Your cap is too high.

Ya but it has a really neat propeller on top

 

[Mat]

Ya but it has a really neat propeller on top

 

[ResidentAlien*]

Thank you, I'll be here all week

 

[PeterSidorkiewicz]

No, there should be no linkage floor. If the industry revenues drop to the point where a $30 million salary structure cannot be supported then a $30 million salalry cannot be supported. Setting a floor does nothing but insuring problems in the future. Or do you give your kid a $100 a week allowance when things are good, and then continue to do so when you're between jobs and can't pay your light and water bills? Common sense is obviously in extremely short supply.

The whole point is if you WANTED to give your kid a $100 a week is that you should be able to. If it gets to a point where 30 million salary structure cannot be supported then it should be up to the OWNERS to not support it and deal with it themselves. This is my exact point here, how bad does it have to get where you have to hold the owners hands and tell them what and what they can't spend money on? I definitely think if the NHL got so bad where linkage caused the cap to be around 30 million it should not be ever set that low. Lets say there WAS a linkage threshold where the hard cap cant go below 35 million. Lets say the following year the salary structure is only able to support 32 million. Heres an idea, spend only 32 million.

 

[thinkwild]

It seemed last summer that the majority opinion on these boards was for a stiff luxury tax as the most sensible and fair way to go. I never hear that opinion anymore.

 

[Mat]

It seemed last summer that the majority opinion on these boards was for a stiff luxury tax as the most sensible and fair way to go. I never hear that opinion anymore.

of the few threads ive dabbled in here that seems to be the overall consensus of what i've read

which made me make this thread because i see so many pro-owner people, but ive never read anyone explain how a hard cap will help the NHL and create an even playing field (esopecially when most small market teams struggle to pass the 30m mark, then again, these franchises should never have been put in where they are and should have had more of a screening on ownership, like they failed to do with NYI a few years ago)

 

[Timmy]

of the few threads ive dabbled in here that seems to be the overall consensus of what i've read

which made me make this thread because i see so many pro-owner people, but ive never read anyone explain how a hard cap will help the NHL and create an even playing field (esopecially when most small market teams struggle to pass the 30m mark, then again, these franchises should never have been put in where they are and should have had more of a screening on ownership, like they failed to do with NYI a few years ago)

Okay, one more time.

A cap means that teams cannot simply sign every player that becomes available, which puts downwards pressure on salary demand from people like Iginla, without the illegality of collusion.

If no one else can sign Iginla, he has to stay with Calgary.

Calgary is a better team with Iginla.

So when Calgary plays a team that ordinarily would have Iginla in their lineup under the old CBA, now it does not, and Calgary does.

The team Calgary playing would be a better team with Iginla in their lineup.

Since Calgary has Iginla in it's line up, it has a shot against the team that was unable to sign him.

The field has become more level.


And regarding the franchises, they're already there, and they do have fans in those cities. Too bad, but they are not going anywhere anytime soon..