Would the league accept the rumored deal?

Status
Not open for further replies.

Egil

Registered User
Mar 6, 2002
8,838
1
Visit site
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.
 

Flyers Hockey

Registered User
Feb 17, 2005
26
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.
 

oil slick

Registered User
Feb 6, 2004
7,593
0
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.
 

X0ssbar

Guest
Egil said:
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.

Exactly what I was thinking.
 

legardien91

Registered User
Mar 9, 2004
451
0
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.
 

ti-vite

Registered User
Jul 27, 2004
3,086
0
Egil said:
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.

My thoughts exact.
 

Flyers Hockey

Registered User
Feb 17, 2005
26
0
typhoontim said:
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.
Exactly. Some teams could do that without even trying.
 

leafaholix*

Guest
trahans99 said:
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
I think Toronto would be at $46.5M or $45.6 after a 24% rollback.

Something like that.
 

Levitate

Registered User
Jul 29, 2004
30,947
7,653
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
 

DownFromNJ

Registered User
Mar 7, 2004
2,536
2
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 ;)
 

Chaos

And the winner is...
Sep 2, 2003
7,968
18
TX
Egil said:
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.

Is that the one where the cap would go up if revenues went up(also known as Linkage :dunno: )?
 

Mr Sakich

Registered User
Mar 8, 2002
9,641
1,279
Motel 35
vimeo.com
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.
 

Levitate

Registered User
Jul 29, 2004
30,947
7,653
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...

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.

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
 

CarlRacki

Registered User
Feb 9, 2004
1,442
2
DownFromNJ said:
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 ;)

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.
 

stumpy

Registered User
Jul 16, 2002
26
0
Visit site
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
 

wazee

Registered User
Feb 27, 2002
1,140
0
Visit site
I think the owners would accept a deal with a hard cap of 45M provided there weren't any 'gotcha' clauses...
 

Lateralous

Registered User
Jun 17, 2003
1,932
348
Abington, PA
Visit site
typhoontim said:
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.

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.
 

BLONG7

Registered User
Oct 30, 2002
35,621
21,958
Nova Scotia
Visit site
wazee said:
I think the owners would accept a deal with a hard cap of 45M provided there weren't any 'gotcha' clauses...
Exactly...which would mean Goodenow couldn't be involved since he is the guy that always sticks some gotcha stuff in the fine print...
 

rockon83

Registered User
Mar 22, 2004
271
0
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?
 

Strong Island

Registered User
Jun 6, 2004
2,841
0
Long Island, NY
rockon83 said:
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?

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.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad

-->