Would the league accept the rumored deal?

Discussion in 'The Business of Hockey' started by Crows*, Feb 18, 2005.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
View Users: View Users
  1. Crows*

    Crows* Guest

    Do you think the League will accept the rumored 42 million dollar soft cap with a still luxery tax of 100 pecent and a 45-46 hard cap?
     
  2. Cropduster

    Cropduster Registered User

    Joined:
    Aug 22, 2004
    Messages:
    1,149
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    California
    what offer? This isnt official, correct?
     
  3. Egil

    Egil Registered User

    Joined:
    Mar 6, 2002
    Messages:
    8,838
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    129
    Home Page:
    No, but they would negotiate it to 44 or so I think. If the players offer a 46 cap with 100% tax above $42M, the owners would move up, and we would quickly get a deal. ASSUMING clasue #7 is gone.
     
  4. Flyers Hockey

    Flyers Hockey Registered User

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2005
    Messages:
    26
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I think they would. All they need is a certain number of teams to reach the cap number and it goes right back down to 42.
     
  5. oil slick

    oil slick Registered User

    Joined:
    Feb 6, 2004
    Messages:
    7,593
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    84
    Impossible to say. If that nasty positive linkage to the 2005-2006 season was included like in the last proposal, I'd say no. If not, I'd say yes.
     
  6. X0ssbar

    X0ssbar Guest

    Exactly what I was thinking.
     
  7. legardien91

    legardien91 Registered User

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2004
    Messages:
    450
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Occupation:
    Corporate Buyer
    Location:
    Deerfield Beach, FL
    And let's say, for argument's sake, they did accept an offer where the cap would be reduced to 42M if 8 teams reach 46... I'd be willing to bet 8 teams would get to that level on purpose, take some losses for a year, just so the cap is lowered to 42.
     
  8. trahans99

    trahans99 Registered User

    Joined:
    Apr 7, 2004
    Messages:
    1,443
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Occupation:
    Accountant
    Location:
    Home of the 2005 Memorial Cup
    How many teams would be at or close to $46m after the 24% rollback?

    Toronto, Dallas, Detroit, Philly i'm guessing, who else? STL? NYR? :lol
     
  9. ti-vite

    ti-vite Registered User

    Joined:
    Jul 27, 2004
    Messages:
    3,086
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    94
    My thoughts exact.
     
  10. Flyers Hockey

    Flyers Hockey Registered User

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2005
    Messages:
    26
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Exactly. Some teams could do that without even trying.
     
  11. leafaholix*

    leafaholix* Guest

    I think Toronto would be at $46.5M or $45.6 after a 24% rollback.

    Something like that.
     
  12. Levitate

    Levitate Registered User

    Joined:
    Jul 29, 2004
    Messages:
    25,952
    Likes Received:
    879
    Trophy Points:
    169
    the rangers are under that right now without a rollback (even if just barely, they stand at about $44 mill right now, but that's including all of Jagr's salary and I don't know how exactly that's going to fit in with a new CBA...the rangers are only paying $6 mill of the $11 mill)

    but they still will have to sign some players...don't think they'll be spending a lot though
     
  13. DownFromNJ

    DownFromNJ Registered User

    Joined:
    Mar 7, 2004
    Messages:
    2,536
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    You have to remember, if Bettman sides with a deal, it takes only 8 teams to accept it.

    Bettman would probably end up fired, but we'd see hockey ;)
     
  14. Chaos

    Chaos And the winner is...

    Joined:
    Sep 2, 2003
    Messages:
    7,948
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    139
    Location:
    Watauga, TX
    Home Page:
    Is that the one where the cap would go up if revenues went up(also known as Linkage :dunno: )?
     
  15. zamboni

    zamboni Registered User

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2003
    Messages:
    1,531
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Home Page:
    Affirmative.
     
  16. Mr Sakich

    Mr Sakich Registered User

    Joined:
    Mar 8, 2002
    Messages:
    8,901
    Likes Received:
    56
    Trophy Points:
    146
    Location:
    Motel 35
    Home Page:
    you guys are focussing on the wrong stuff. The cap of 42 or 46 doesn't matter a hill of beans to the small markets. Any deal must include severe limitations to rookie contracts and also elimination of the inflationairy arbitration system.
     
  17. Levitate

    Levitate Registered User

    Joined:
    Jul 29, 2004
    Messages:
    25,952
    Likes Received:
    879
    Trophy Points:
    169
    actually my numbers for the rangers are probably off a little bit even more...cuz that included blackburns salary and somehow i don't think the rangers are paying that any more...

    yeah there need to be changes but i think you need to keep arbitration...just make some severe changes to it to make it more fair and less inflationary
     
  18. CarlRacki

    CarlRacki Registered User

    Joined:
    Feb 9, 2004
    Messages:
    1,438
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    If Bettman sides with a deal, it takes 15 votes to accept it. If he opposes a deal, it takes eight votes to reject it. Bettman did this (with the owners' backing) to prevent the owners from going behind his back and cutting a deal he opposed as was the case in the '94 lockout.
     
  19. stumpy

    stumpy Registered User

    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2002
    Messages:
    26
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Home Page:
    I don't think they should be making any more proposals, if the PA and Owners want to make a deal they should work on it together and come to a agreement.

    Everytime they make a proposal the otherside just comes up with a counter-offer which we have no time for if we want to play this year
     
  20. wazee

    wazee Registered User

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2002
    Messages:
    1,140
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Home Page:
    I think the owners would accept a deal with a hard cap of 45M provided there weren't any 'gotcha' clauses...
     
  21. Lateralous

    Lateralous Registered User

    Joined:
    Jun 17, 2003
    Messages:
    1,681
    Likes Received:
    90
    Trophy Points:
    146
    Occupation:
    Architect
    Location:
    Abington, PA
    Home Page:
    I'm not so sure about that, the teams that could actually reach 46 million with the tax probably aren't that eager to get rid of one of their only remaining advantages over the small and medium market teams. After all, isn't the speculation around here that the small market teams are the ones driving this whole thing.
     
  22. BLONG7

    BLONG7 Registered User

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2002
    Messages:
    20,478
    Likes Received:
    2,288
    Trophy Points:
    231
    Location:
    Nova Scotia
    Home Page:
    Exactly...which would mean Goodenow couldn't be involved since he is the guy that always sticks some gotcha stuff in the fine print...
     
  23. MrMackey

    MrMackey Registered User

    Joined:
    Aug 7, 2003
    Messages:
    3,061
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    cgy
    Home Page:
    Um, I think you mean "indexing".
     
  24. rockon83

    rockon83 Registered User

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2004
    Messages:
    271
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    64
    Location:
    Manhattan(MA native)
    $42 million cap x 30 teams = $1,260 million / 700 players = $1.8M avg. salary.

    Aren't we currently at $1.8M avg salary and teams are losing money? Wasn't the goal $1.3M avg salary, requiring a cap at $30M???

    If the cap is $42M aren't we going to see teams disappear? Didn't the Canadians come out and say they couldnt survive at a cap of $42M? How on earth could the smaller markets survive?
     
  25. Strong Island

    Strong Island Registered User

    Joined:
    Jun 6, 2004
    Messages:
    2,841
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Long Island, NY
    They'll spend 34 million instead and will still be able to compete in the free agent market due to the lower market value for free agents, and will make up for any minor losses through revenue sharing.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page

monitoring_string = "358c248ada348a047a4b9bb27a146148"