Why doesn't Goodenow try this...
- Thread starter BLONG7
- Start date
- Status
Russian Fan said:
Because there are owners who would spend up to that $49 million and that would have an affect on the salaries of the rest of the league.
Now with revenue sharing it can be done, because even if 5-8 teams spent that extra 7 million in cap room, the smaller markets would still be able to at least compete. That would make it possible, but the owners don't want revenue sharing despite the many many positive affects of it. Until the owners will share revenues any cap above $45 million is simply too high for the smaller markets.
The way I see it if I am the PA...
You ask the NHL to move from 37.5 to 39.5
and Raise the floor from 22 million to 23.5...
Ask for all IR players to be cap exempt.
Place all Bonus's under cap..(give the league what it wants here)
Keep UFA age at current Level
Use the NHL's Entry level system(the NHL and NHLPA's ideas here are close, so why not let the owners "win" here)
Alow teams to take a player to arbitration ONCE in their carrier..Old rules apply to players here..... A twist for me would be to allow a losing side in an arbitration case to pick if they want the contract to be a one, two, or three year deal....
Minor league contracts over 100k count against the cap..(slightly up from the NHL's last offer, and reasonable IMO)
Hard cap increases by 100k a season, or if the NHL's standards in their last offer are met, the cap increases by whatever variable they outlined.
and call it..
the 1.5 million increase to the floor adds an aditional 45 million that MUST be paid to the players(not that most teams would not spend over 23.5 million anyways, but is more added insurace)
39.5 is better than 37.5, but not a number that the NHL can simply dismiss...its a potentially extra 60 mill in player funds(unlikely that all teams will spend that high, but its there)
IR players are exempt, but for them to return the team must be under the cap...allows teams to spend to replace players on IR for season.. more money for PA..
If the NHL rejects that... another notch in the PA's cap for the courts, if they accept...a "fair" deal IMO..
You ask the NHL to move from 37.5 to 39.5
and Raise the floor from 22 million to 23.5...
Ask for all IR players to be cap exempt.
Place all Bonus's under cap..(give the league what it wants here)
Keep UFA age at current Level
Use the NHL's Entry level system(the NHL and NHLPA's ideas here are close, so why not let the owners "win" here)
Alow teams to take a player to arbitration ONCE in their carrier..Old rules apply to players here..... A twist for me would be to allow a losing side in an arbitration case to pick if they want the contract to be a one, two, or three year deal....
Minor league contracts over 100k count against the cap..(slightly up from the NHL's last offer, and reasonable IMO)
Hard cap increases by 100k a season, or if the NHL's standards in their last offer are met, the cap increases by whatever variable they outlined.
and call it..
the 1.5 million increase to the floor adds an aditional 45 million that MUST be paid to the players(not that most teams would not spend over 23.5 million anyways, but is more added insurace)
39.5 is better than 37.5, but not a number that the NHL can simply dismiss...its a potentially extra 60 mill in player funds(unlikely that all teams will spend that high, but its there)
IR players are exempt, but for them to return the team must be under the cap...allows teams to spend to replace players on IR for season.. more money for PA..
If the NHL rejects that... another notch in the PA's cap for the courts, if they accept...a "fair" deal IMO..
PecaFan said:
Yep, now that the league is going to totally re-do it's system, they can't leave any loopholes like the one explained in the post you responded to. There's two easy ways of solving something like that...
- have any payouts to players that are not in the base salary or counted against the cap be taken off of the team's cap for the next season. So if the Leafs pay out $5 million bonuses to veteran players, their cap next year will be, let's say, $40 M-$5 M = $35 million. Some people might have a problem with this because it allows the teams with the most cash to throw bonuses at players and try to go for the cup one year, and worry about paying for it a year or two down the road. I say if a team has to pay for it eventually, than let them take the risk.
- or use something like the system the NFL has, or had, where all bonuses are either "Likely To Be Earned" or "Not Likely To Be Earned". Those that are likely, based on the players history, count against the cap for that year. Those that are not likely to be earned don't count against the cap.
PecaFan
Registered User
Weary said:
Oh I don't know, could it be because doing nothing *solves* nothing?
Modern day "thinking", gotta love it. "If I just ignore the problem, maybe it'll go away on it's own."
kerrly said:
I wasn't kerrly, I'm just tired of those 1-side view that Bob should do this, Bob should do that while there's a lot of worshipping towards Gary to do a lockout without REALLY FIXING THE GAME.
Some can perceive as pro-player but I never was. I still can understand why he didn't sign anything yet.
Because those bunch of clowns make offers without explaining why it would help the game. Explaining is not those PR move they do for the media & misleading fan.
I know Kerrly you can find me something that Daly or Bettman said about revenue sharing but since their last PR masterpiece, even Bob McKenzie talked about the meaningless sharing plan that goes to zip after 6 years.
After that ? They already determined that the NHL would lose 800M$ due to the lockout they create & which they were WILLING to do it. So they need to live with the consequences of their acts & start fresh.
What I have against Gary Bettman is this ETERNAL CONFRONTATIONAL way of doing things which lead to inevitably to crush Bob & the PA. I don't mind is Bob got move out of his seat because I'm NOT pro-player but I can say WITHOUT A DOUBT that the owners should stop their bu**sh*t & start MAKING A REAL PLAN ABOUT how 30 teams can work together & let the Nashville's of this world be there for 10-20 years in order to make some hockey traditions in those markets that so many want to contract.
I'm disgusted with the owners because they won this lockout & it's not enough. Not only that , there is NO PLAN to make sure all 30 teams will be ok after a cap, it's just rhetoric & philosophy & wishful thinking.
Sometimes I wonder how those 30 BILLIONNAIRES made money in the 1st place when they seem so not READY to build something serious to make hockey A GREAT SPORT AGAIN.
that my view & those who still thinks i'm pro-players.....they just don't know how to read.
kdb209 said:
Yea that's what I thought but I wasn't sure. It really is a pretty good system and closes any loopholes as far as bonuses
kerrly said:
Without revenue sharing yes, but with revenue sharing $50 million is fine. All salaries, eventually, would rise by a % of the extra $5 million that the top teams are spending...but if there were revenue sharing, small markets teams that are going to be forced to spend an extra couple million to ice the same team would take in $8-$10 million in revenue and they would easily be able to spend the extra couple of million and at the same time they are making money.
The revenues in the league are so poorly distributed right now and it is beneficial for both sides to share revenues. If you use the Levitt numbers and institute 100% revenue sharing, not that it should actually be done but just to give an idea, each team would have $40.7 million in disposable income(1.996B-775M/30). Almot every team in the league would be able to spend $38 million, make $3 million in profit for that year and the league as a whole would not lose any money. Those are pretty big numbers...the league would be able to sustain an average payroll of $40 million and not lose any money. And the best thing is it works for both sides, the league and the PA.
nyr7andcounting said:
No $50m is not fine, especially with massive revenue sharing. Revenue sharing like you propose would allow almost all teams to spend in the mid 40's. If teams received$8-10m in revenue sharing, they would pump every penny back into the system in most cases. Teams will not sit with a $30m dollar payroll and watch other teams spend $50m while at the same time still inflating salaries because the cap room is there to do so. A $50m cap is over 70% of league revenues. The break even number is at around 60% of league revenues. Of course a $70m cap would be fine too if teams had 100% revenue sharing, but it still won't stop league losses. This is something that you always seem to overlook. The league is losing real money here, and every cap number you put out is a pipe dream.
Ok here's my system based on a $40m cap from your numbers.
$1.996B / 30 teams = $66.5m per team in total revenues.
$66.5m - $40m cap = $26.5m for team operational costs.
$40m/$66.5m = 60% of league revenues are going to the players, the break even mark for the league provided the old revenues are there, which they will not be, and will be significantly less. So now after a cancelled season, even this system will likely see losses until the league rebounds back to previous revenue amounts.
I will also break down your $50m cap idea with the reported revenue number of $2.1B (even more going to the players using your league revenue numbers)
$2.1B / 30 teams = $70m per team in total revenues
$70m - $50m cap = $20m for team operational costs.
$50m/$70m = 71% of league revenues going to the players. We are in serious trouble with a system like this because the entire league would be losing money again.
There are real numbers here that factor into these equations, not just fabricated arguments. Please do not let me see another thread from you talking about a cap above $42.5m. This should be well explained to you by now. And I don't want to hear about the owners controlling themselves, especially with the massive revenue sharing you speak of, if you have learned anything in the past, all of that revenue will be thrown to the players to ice a better team. It's not realistic, and thats why the league is not leaving any room for error in their offers.
Last edited:
Take a look in the mirror, you are as one-sided as anyone on this site.Russian Fan said:
You can perceive that I'm pro-owner but I'm not, in fact i'm pro-game. And for the game's benefit I can see why they haven't agreed to a PA deal yet.
As soon as Bob Goodenow makes one of his offers and then follows it with a detailed analysis of how his deal benefits the game and the league, I will respond to this question. If you would like to explain point #7 to me of their soft cap proposal and tell me how it even comes closer to benefitting the game rather than destroying it, I will give you a thousand cash.
This I don't dispute and have said many times it was a mistake.
Is this a fabricated number, because I have not heard anything in terms of projected revenue losses. I'm not disputing the fact that they will lose loads of revenue, just had never heard an estimated number from anyone of league importance. They are living with the consequences and thats why the offers are getting worse for the PA. Still don't see a plan B from their side, and if they are waiting for Bettman to cave into a loophole filled system with a high cap set amount then they are digging their own grave. The revenues are not there, and owners are better prepared for this lock-out then the last. If they wanted to get creative with a system and experiment with different ideas, then they should have been willing to do that years ago, when Bettman approached the PA to try and stop the damage. Yet, they decided to move forward and milk the system and league to death in favor of fat pockets. They are getting no favours anymore.
And tell me, in detail preferably, how anyone of the proposed PA systems are better for the small market teams than any of the NHL's proposals.
Did it ever cross your mind for a second that this wasn't about winning or getting the PA to concede to cap, but rather about actually solving the finance problems the league is faced with. No plan, is a mis-guided opinion, and have only seen the un-linked proposal that eventually loses revenue sharing. If the PA wants revenue sharing so badly, accept the un-linked cap provided that teams share a certain amount of revenues for every year of the agreement. Like the NHL's plan to share at least $88m every season of the agreement that the NHLPA took over their own plan in one of their proposals.
Vague & pointless, to the point where I can't respond.
Yeah, you sure lay it out there in every post that you are completely objective in your opinions. You criticize one side and one side only in this mess, is it that hard to understand why people claim you are pro-player? From where I sit, I can't see it any other way, until you start calling out Bob's side as well.
Russian Fan said:
I find this quite funny since everything I have heard about Goodenow is that his MO for negotiating is to refuse to budge, just say no, if you will, until he gets what he wants. That seems to guarantee that a major confrontation will occur, unless Goodenow's opponent chooses to not stand up to him.
It just seems hypocritcal of you to blame Bettman for being confrontational, but not Goodenow...
P.S. The NHL has won nothing until they have a signed deal that gives every team at least a reasonable chance to compete for players with the teams that choose to try to spend their way to championships, but that's just my opinion....
It would allow almost all teams to spend in the mid 40's? How? There are teams that lose money on $30 million payrolls...taking in $8 million from revenue sharing will give them the choice to spend $38 million and lose even more money or to spend none of it and make a couple of million in profit for the year. That choice is up to them and it's their job to make it wisely. But considering that last year the cup was won by a team spending $34 million while some teams spent $70 million, I don't think that small markets are going to spend much more than that when the top teams are capped at $50 million. They are smarter than you give them credit for, they don't just spend anything they have on whatever they can. But either way they'll be able to compete because the top teams are only spending $15 million more, but at least they won't lose money and that's the NHL's goal isn't it?kerrly said:
kerrly said:
I'm not saying there should be 100% revenue sharing...but at least you proved my point. Do you see how revenue sharing would work? In a league with terribly low revenues in half the markets teams would still be able to spend $35-$40 million salaries. Don't you think this is a more agreeable way to give players a % of revenues, rather than giving 55% of league-wide revenues when some teams have twice as much revenues than others? It works great if you have the right amount
Again, I am not talking about 100% revenue sharing. The idea that 30 teams are going to be spending $50 million is ridiculous. Because that would never happen, 71% is way too high and not a bit accurate.kerrly said:
Yes they are real numbers which is why I don't get how you can't see how poorly revenues are distributed and that if a decent sharing system were put in place in would make more of a difference than anything else the league could do.kerrly said:
It has not been well explained to me at all how having a $45 or even a $50 million cap would not work. I agree $50 million is a little high...but the only reason anyone can give me about why $45 million is too high is that "well if 30 teams times $45 million is x% of revenues, that's too high"...well guess what there are not 30 teams in this league to spend that much, it would never happen, those are not real numbers! And after the 24% rollback there aren't even 10 teams in the league that would be spending that much in the first couple of years of the CBA, so I don't believe that decreased revenues would have a huge affect either. And how much of an increase in salaries will revenue sharing really cause? Some of the increase in small markets will be offset by a decrease in small markets. And besides, the increase in spending in small markets will also increase their revenues.
You wan't real numbers? Revenue disparity of the top five teams against the bottom five teams equals 230 percent (as opposed to 150 percent in football, 180 percent in basketball and 190 percent in baseball). Those 3 leagues have revenue sharing and football has the most revenue sharing and what do you know, they are the most succesful league. Revenue disparity is the biggest problem, how does revenue sharing solve that?
Bottom line a cap doesn't make sense for this league without revenue sharing, the cap doesn't solve any problems by itself other than huge profits in the pockets of big market owners that the players can't touch.
Maybe the owners will finally figure out that its in their best intrest to keep player salaries down and not go looking for loopholes???
If the owner's could control themselves we wouldnt be in this mess.
I miss hockey
If the owner's could control themselves we wouldnt be in this mess.
I miss hockey
- Status
