NHLPA President Trevor Linden's Column on the CBA

http://www.nhlpa.com/Content/FEATURES/feature_stories.asp?ID=3360

It's a good read.

If there's one thing I've really disliked about the proceedings, regarless of what side I may take, is the lack of information available to the public about the CBA negotiations.

"I want you to know that the players will not strike.... we’ve pledged to play next season while we continue to negotiate..."
At last year's rates, no doubt. A sweet deal for them. The status quo. A money loser for teams. Not exactly the most reasonable position. Offer a temporary reduction or volunteer to binding arbitration if you're sincerely wanting to play hockey this year.

"Fans have asked me what’s wrong with accepting a salary cap like the ones used in football and basketball. Besides imposing severe and artificial limits on the market value of a player, salary caps also handcuff team managements.

To stay under cap limits, clubs are forced to get rid of popular players or to take a pass on signing players who could help the club improve. Fans take a back seat under salary cap systems, where accountants rule, players come and go and winning becomes secondary."
Wa?? THe NHLPA is thinking of what's best for team management? Fans take a back seat under salary cap systems?? Maybe in Detroit and Colorado if they want to load up before the trade deadline. But, even then, moving players around less quickly is more in the fans' interest, as fans get attached to players and don't want to see them go to the team with the deepest pockets.

Despite the NHLPA's appeal to the fans, when a lockout comes, BOTH sides will deserve our resentment. Neither side has the high ground. Fans lose with a lockout because BOTH sides are looking out only for themselves and nobody's looking out for the fans' interest.

First of all, I want you to know that the players will not strike. We want to play NHL hockey this year and none of us wants the owners to lock us out. In fact, we’ve pledged to play next season while we continue to negotiate, if a new deal can’t be reached before September 15.
Very interesting.

The MLB system works? That's hilarious. I love Trevor, but the guy is doing some scary drugs if he thinks the MLB system is working. The Yankees payroll is more than 4-5 teams combined.

"In fact, we’ve pledged to play next season while we continue to negotiate, if a new deal can’t be reached before September 15." - My favorite quote.

Yes, because they would want to be paid current salaries while playing. All his statements are obviously one sided.

First of all, I want you to know that the players will not strike.

No crap. You would play for current salaries. Your getting locked out b.c your being paid to much. Thats the whole point of the dam thing.

The league is also engaged in a PR campaign to justify their lockout to fans.

And things like this arent a PR campaign for the NHLPA?

Last October we presented a proposal that included a luxury tax system, a proven success in Major League Baseball.

They werent loosing as much money as the NHL. It would work, and I think the NHL/Owners would go for it at a reasonable level.

such as a 5% salary rollback

Whoppie! Jagr makes 9.5 instead of 10 mil a year!

For our part, the players will continue to meet with the owners in the hopes of finding some common ground to negotiate a fair deal. The sooner the owners move off of their demand for a salary cap (or as they call it, cost certainty), the sooner we can engage in negotiations that will lead to a new agreement.

The only common ground there going to find is the one there on during negotiations. This is such crap. Screw the NHLPA. There not even making an attempt to negotiate. At least the owners put 6 different proposals on the table. A sytem should be reached where owners at least make back the money they put out each year.

The MLB system works? That's hilarious. I love Trevor, but the guy is doing some scary drugs if he thinks the MLB system is working. The Yankees payroll is more than 4-5 teams combined.

Yeah, but the Yankees cap taxes basically bankrolled the Florida Marlins to their Championship last year.

Yeah, but the Yankees cap taxes basically bankrolled the Florida Marlins to their Championship last year.

No they didn't. It provided some help but it was FAR from "bankrolling" them. The MLB system does not work at all. Payrolls are massively out of whack and teams are still losing money. The FA's only go to about 3-4 different teams. If thats a system that "works", professional sports will never last.

Originally Posted by Linden
"To stay under cap limits, clubs are forced to get rid of popular players or to take a pass on signing players who could help the club improve. Fans take a back seat under salary cap systems, where accountants rule, players come and go and winning becomes secondary."

The exact same thing could be said of many teams currently in the league. (the poorer teams)

Last October we presented a proposal that included a luxury tax system, a proven success in Major League Baseball.

A success? Not bloody likely. Just because you have a deal doesn't automatically mean success. George Steinbrenner doesn't give a rats ass about his luxury tax.


To stay under cap limits, clubs are forced to get rid of popular players or to take a pass on signing players who could help the club improve. Fans take a back seat under salary cap systems, where accountants rule, players come and go and winning becomes secondary.

Translation: Teams cannot offer certain players the money they think they are worth. The players care more about their inflated salaries than they do winning. Popular players accepting less money in order for their club to stay under the cap so they can commit to winning with their club, is just not an acceptable solution.


I sure hope Bob Goodenow wrote this because I don't want to believe my favourite hockey player is this stupid.

No they didn't. It provided some help but it was FAR from "bankrolling" them. The MLB system does not work at all. Payrolls are massively out of whack and teams are still losing money. The FA's only go to about 3-4 different teams. If thats a system that "works", professional sports will never last.

Yes they did.

http://www.forbes.com/forbes/2004/0426/066_print.html

The deal called for baseball's other owners to buy the Expos for $120 million from Loria, who agreed to pay $158 million for the Marlins. The balance would come from a $38 million interest-free loan made to Loria by baseball's owners--a debt that will be reduced by $15 million or so if Loria can't get a new stadium.

Loria still remembers being pilloried after the Marlins ran out of hot dogs on opening day in 2002, six weeks after he took control of the team. But he soon started to make decisions that would lead to a World Series victory. While some low-revenue teams, like the Kansas City Royals, pocket the money they get from the league's revenue-sharing system, Loria used the $20 million or so a year he got from rich teams like the Yankees to hike the Marlins' payroll by 49% in his first two seasons to $52 million. He used the money to sign stars like catcher Ivan Rodriguez. "I didn't sit on my wallet," says Loria.

Yes they did.

http://www.forbes.com/forbes/2004/0426/066_print.html


Yet somehow the Marlins are still looking to relocate. Even with a World Series win and all that revenue, they are still losing millions. But the system works, eh?

One idea is the owners don't lockout the players. Time every contract for the next year or so to end on july 2006 (probably too late for July 2005). When 80+% of the players contracts all end at the same time, the clubs should walk away on mass from any contract that they wouldn't like under a new CBA. If every club cuts loose 15 or 20 players they can completely flood the labour market. .They can also legally bring up AHLers and prospects to play the NHL games on the cheap which then pressures the players to come back on fresh but cheaper contracts.

If they stick to their guns to try and stay under a mythical cap of around $40m they should be able to win this way.It still runs the risk of blowing up after a few years like the current CBA did, but if the owners have the nerve they can hold on for 2 or 3 years and players will sign a reasonable CBA.

Yet somehow the Marlins are still looking to relocate. Even with a World Series win and all that revenue, they are still losing millions. But the system works, eh?


Look at where they're playing. A Stadium designed for Football only.

The Vancouver Equivelant would be having the Canucks play every game in BC Place and attendence be approx 10K per game. You think that an NHL team can be sucessful in this sort of scenario? Can you imagine the operating losses alone from the Canucks playing in a place like that?

Your getting locked out b.c your being paid to much.


The only common ground there going to find is the one there on during negotiations. This is such crap. Screw the NHLPA. There not even making an attempt to negotiate. At least the owners put 6 different proposals on the table. A sytem should be reached where owners at least make back the money they put out each year.


Why should the players pay for the owner's poor business decisions and practices? It's not the players fault that the Rangers lost the most money in the league last season because of poor management decisions. It's not the players fault that the Devils, Islanders and Penguins have piss poor arena leases? The management of the Blues came out and said they lost a lot of money and have no concern over it (this a team who finished 7th in the west, let Pavol Demetra walk, and are giving 3 players approxmately $30 million amongst them). Is it the players fault that the Ducks and Hurricanes are in piss poor hockey markets, where only great majorities are fair-weather fans (not just the Hurricanes, but the Panthers and Hornets have faced significant problems due to poor attendance). For some teams a 5% roll back on salaries is pretty signicant when it comes to saving money in the long run. It's the players who are making concessions trying to find a common ground, and Gary Bettman is the one sitting in the corner like a 5-year old holding his breath until he gets what he wants.

Major League Baseball was hemmoraging money. The Diamondbacks, coming off a World Series not long before, were not going to be able to make their salary payments, in fact Bud Selig came out and said that there were 3 or 4 teams who were not going to be able to do so. They were ready to contract 2 teams, something the NHL never entertained the thought of doing. This was all fixed through revenue sharing and a luxury tax. Now, only one team pay the luxury tax, and George Steinbrenner has so much money he doesn't even care. Revenue sharing creates an enviroment that all teams can trive in, thus creating a better product because the only teams who would still be in trouble with revenue sharing are the teams being run by imbiciles.

They may be making too much, they're also making less than any other sport. Less than the best athletes in football, baseball, basketball, soccer, nascar even the best golf and tennis players. Alexei Yashin didn't put a gun to anyone's head and said "Give me a $10 mill a year." Alexei Yashin can be greedy all he wants or other people want, someone gave him the money, and that was a terrible management decision.

Its such a joke that the owners actually WANT the lockout.

Why should the players pay for the owner's poor business decisions and practices? It's not the players fault that the Rangers lost the most money in the league last season because of poor management decisions. It's not the players fault that the Devils, Islanders and Penguins have piss poor arena leases? The management of the Blues came out and said they lost a lot of money and have no concern over it (this a team who finished 7th in the west, let Pavol Demetra walk, and are giving 3 players approxmately $30 million amongst them). Is it the players fault that the Ducks and Hurricanes are in piss poor hockey markets, where only great majorities are fair-weather fans (not just the Hurricanes, but the Panthers and Hornets have faced significant problems due to poor attendance). For some teams a 5% roll back on salaries is pretty signicant when it comes to saving money in the long run. It's the players who are making concessions trying to find a common ground, and Gary Bettman is the one sitting in the corner like a 5-year old holding his breath until he gets what he wants.

Major League Baseball was hemmoraging money. The Diamondbacks, coming off a World Series not long before, were not going to be able to make their salary payments, in fact Bud Selig came out and said that there were 3 or 4 teams who were not going to be able to do so. They were ready to contract 2 teams, something the NHL never entertained the thought of doing. This was all fixed through revenue sharing and a luxury tax. Now, only one team pay the luxury tax, and George Steinbrenner has so much money he doesn't even care. Revenue sharing creates an enviroment that all teams can trive in, thus creating a better product because the only teams who would still be in trouble with revenue sharing are the teams being run by imbiciles.

They may be making too much, they're also making less than any other sport. Less than the best athletes in football, baseball, basketball, soccer, nascar even the best golf and tennis players. Alexei Yashin didn't put a gun to anyone's head and said "Give me a $10 mill a year." Alexei Yashin can be greedy all he wants or other people want, someone gave him the money, and that was a terrible management decision.

I can appreciate where you're coming from. Playing Devil's advocate, would you not agree that the best way to stop the problems and mess the owners have made for themselves is to put a cap on spending so they can get 'their house in order'?

By putting a cap on salaries/spending, the owners, who are in the hole, can crawl their way out while trying to market NHL with the goal of bringing new fans in, boosting TV ratings and game attendence. Once the NHL is in a place whereMLB, the NBA, etc are, THEN the players can have a better environment to dictate what they want.

In contrast, the players want a fair deal for both sides. We have offered very significant concessions, worth hundreds of millions of dollars in response to the league’s stated concerns.

and correct me if im wrong, but it doesnt but up the total losses for the teams. so what good is it?

Last October we presented a proposal that included a luxury tax system, a proven success in Major League Baseball.

ah hahahahahahah. what a joke. the poor teams are still poor, and the rich still have the advatage. its nowhere close to balanced. and one team being the exception doesnt change things. there are always outliers.

changes to the entry-level system

does anyone actually know what these changes are? if its only 5% per year increase instead of 10% as a rookie cap, then its worthless.


To stay under cap limits, clubs are forced to get rid of popular players or to take a pass on signing players who could help the club improve. Fans take a back seat under salary cap systems, where accountants rule, players come and go and winning becomes secondary.

yet teams can be a non contender one year, and a contender the next. and funny how the Pens were forced to get rid of popular players, and there is no cap. hmm....

We believe that a marketplace system where owners determine a player’s value, as they have for more than eighty years, is the best system for our fans and our sport.

almost 300M in combined losses and the fans taking the owners side. yeah, that's working really well right now. the everyday middle income person has a hard time affording tickets. but thats what they want as a fan.


i cant help but beleive the PA even less now after this letter.

Yet somehow the Marlins are still looking to relocate. Even with a World Series win and all that revenue, they are still losing millions. But the system works, eh?

yep, because they still don't get any local fan support. Last season they ranked 28th out of 30 teams (to put that into perspective, the Tigers were 27th and they lost 119 games, and the only teams below them were Montreal and TB), and this season they're 27th.

DO NOT BELIEVE ALL THE CRAP OWNERS FEED YOU!!!! Bettman is the one who re-newed the CBA in 1997 after salaries took a big jump and said everything was fine!

Whats sad is the owners immediately rejected the proposal from the NHLPA....the players atleast took a week to examine the owners 6 proposals.

What is lost in this fact is the fact that in 1994 Baseball went on strike and the World Series was wiped out. Who here in Canada or the States was a baseball fan before 1994? Of course, all of us were, it was a simpler game at that time. But baseball never has recovered in 10 years!
Who here has heard this: "Oh I used to love baseball, but then the strike came......" You see Goodenow and Bettman would have a deal done by now if they were focusing on the good of the game. Not each others egos. I blame guys like Bryan McCabe for saing "we'll sit out the rest of our lives," as well as owners who pay guys like Bobby Holik $9 million.

Is this the best time for a lockout? Somehting is wrong with the game if ou have the most exciting Stanley Cup Final in 10 years and the lowest ratings in the States. If there is no deal come Sept. 15th the GAME is in trouble. ANd dont think for a second that Bob and Gary wont be getting their meal tickets (aka paycheques) either

I can appreciate where you're coming from. Playing Devil's advocate, would you not agree that the best way to stop the problems and mess the owners have made for themselves is to put a cap on spending so they can get 'their house in order'?

By putting a cap on salaries/spending, the owners, who are in the hole, can crawl their way out while trying to market NHL with the goal of bringing new fans in, boosting TV ratings and game attendence. Once the NHL is in a place whereMLB, the NBA, etc are, THEN the players can have a better environment to dictate what they want.

Do take this from a different angle,

Would perhaps a better solution be to put a cap on the players? As JR suggested earlier.

I happen to agree with the PA when they say that they should make less money because the owners are stupid. Wouldn't it make more sense to cap the UFA's rather than cap the teams in general? This way the lower-end guys aren't affected?

The question then comes to be 'How does that solve, say, Pittsburgh's problems?'. Well, it doesn't soley. This is why I also like the idea of a luxery tax. I have no problem with the Rangers signing 8 guys to $6 million dollar contracts (say that was the cap), so long as they are paying luxery taxes back to teams like Pittsburgh for doing so.

More to the point, I think it would be a mistake to handcuff a successful team when it comes to resigning their guys with a low cap. For instance, let's say you're team wins the cup. Would you want to see the franchise player, or if not him, key players beyond him, sent off in favour of draft picks just because the franchise guy wants a pay hike to $10 million and the cap is breached?

I personally prefer the luxery tax to a cap as a fan. The idea that a cap will make Edmonton (for example) better off I think is a fallacy. Any team that gets good is going to be near that cap, that is if it's $40 million or low, you can bet on it. Winning teams will be blown up due to financial reasons. I don't think that's fair. Rather than seeing that, why not give that team an option to go over the limit if they must, but set in place a system that will support a team like Edmonton or Pittsburgh when it does happen.

Last but not least, I do not mind a very high cap in the $60 - 70 million dollar range for the sole purpose of stopping a New York Yankees situation. I don't mind the Wings at $60 million and everyone else at $30 - 40 million. I do have a problem with the Rangers at $90 million and the Wild at $17 million. I also wouldn't mind seeing a MINIMUM cap of about $25 million, too. With the luxery tax, these cheapo teams wouldn't have an excuse to go below that.

More to the point, I think it would be a mistake to handcuff a successful team when it comes to resigning their guys with a low cap. For instance, let's say you're team wins the cup. Would you want to see the franchise player, or if not him, key players beyond him, sent off in favour of draft picks just because the franchise guy wants a pay hike to $10 million and the cap is breached?

I personally prefer the luxery tax to a cap as a fan. The idea that a cap will make Edmonton (for example) better off I think is a fallacy. Any team that gets good is going to be near that cap, that is if it's $40 million or low, you can bet on it. Winning teams will be blown up due to financial reasons. I don't think that's fair. Rather than seeing that, why not give that team an option to go over the limit if they must, but set in place a system that will support a team like Edmonton or Pittsburgh when it does happen.

This is true, and I agree with you here. All you have to do is look at the NFL and see championship teams blown up because the key guys for the championship want raises. The team can't afford to sign everyone, so they either have to a) cut guys, b) trade for picks or c) both. Heck even teams who haven't won the championship have to cut guys because they need to stay under the cap. This kind of situation is akin to Edmonton needing to jettison all the stars they've developed simply because they can't pay them. In a cap, they'd have to jettison players because they need to stay under the cap.
Roster movement increases, so now you can't have a core of a team stick together anymore. In hockey, chemistry is so important. With constant changes to the roster, how can they play together? Just look at the Rangers!
The NFL works under a hard cap because they have ridiculously great TV deals. The NHL has nowhere near that kind of contract with the American TV stations.

Last October we presented a proposal that included a luxury tax system, a proven success in Major League Baseball.


:lol :lol

Why should the players pay for the owner's poor business decisions and practices? It's not the players fault that the Rangers lost the most money in the league last season because of poor management decisions. It's not the players fault that the Devils, Islanders and Penguins have piss poor arena leases? The management of the Blues came out and said they lost a lot of money and have no concern over it (this a team who finished 7th in the west, let Pavol Demetra walk, and are giving 3 players approxmately $30 million amongst them). Is it the players fault that the Ducks and Hurricanes are in piss poor hockey markets, where only great majorities are fair-weather fans (not just the Hurricanes, but the Panthers and Hornets have faced significant problems due to poor attendance). For some teams a 5% roll back on salaries is pretty signicant when it comes to saving money in the long run. It's the players who are making concessions trying to find a common ground, and Gary Bettman is the one sitting in the corner like a 5-year old holding his breath until he gets what he wants.

Major League Baseball was hemmoraging money. The Diamondbacks, coming off a World Series not long before, were not going to be able to make their salary payments, in fact Bud Selig came out and said that there were 3 or 4 teams who were not going to be able to do so. They were ready to contract 2 teams, something the NHL never entertained the thought of doing. This was all fixed through revenue sharing and a luxury tax. Now, only one team pay the luxury tax, and George Steinbrenner has so much money he doesn't even care. Revenue sharing creates an enviroment that all teams can trive in, thus creating a better product because the only teams who would still be in trouble with revenue sharing are the teams being run by imbiciles.

They may be making too much, they're also making less than any other sport. Less than the best athletes in football, baseball, basketball, soccer, nascar even the best golf and tennis players. Alexei Yashin didn't put a gun to anyone's head and said "Give me a $10 mill a year." Alexei Yashin can be greedy all he wants or other people want, someone gave him the money, and that was a terrible management decision.


That's exactly the way I feel. Is it the players fault that the owners shove money in their face? I know we all hate Holik for his contract, but the reports were that the Devils offer was just slightly below! I know if any of us go to our bosses and say "pay me this" they'd laugh and kick us out on the street, no matter how good you may be at your job. The owners problems are due to the fact of A) a few owners spike the salaries for everyone else (Rangers obviously for one) and B) Bettman's expansion. Carolina only averages 10 or 11,000 fans and were just relocated after building a new arena? The Ducks had a few thousand empty seats when I was there to see the Canucks play at the end of March or early April.

I know most of the fans agree that the salaries need to come down and support the owners, but if the owners were smart in the first place (including Bettman), then most of these problems could have been avoided.

Plus, the owners don't need a salary cap. All 30 owners can come together and make a verbal agreement amongst each other that the highest salary they will pay is say $8 mill a season and control spending reasonably without a cap. It's their own fault they are in this mess, they have control over the salaries and let it get out of hand and are now blaming the players for it. Too many times the owners give in to a player demanding a high salary because they fear it will hurt their team more than help it, but if the owners can get some guts, then they can stand up to the players and refuse to pay a ludicris contract.

Someone also mentioned about letting all the contracts run out around the same time. Sounds too radical, but it could work. Notice that most deals signed this offseason are one year deals? Notice how most of the top UFA's are still unsigned? The owners are starting to bring salaries down already by holding out on the stars and even though not re-signing more than half the league may sound dumb at first, I actually would like for that to happen. Then the owners control the salaries, with no cap.

The MLB system works? That's hilarious. I love Trevor, but the guy is doing some scary drugs if he thinks the MLB system is working. The Yankees payroll is more than 4-5 teams combined.

there is 1 team in all of baseball that is over the tax threshold and that is the Yankees.

His case in strengthened when you look to the 7-8 teams that were over the tax threshold the season before and you see the system working.

Add to that that the league has more teams involved in the PO chase and it furthers helps the case that the system is working. There are 14 teams in baseball that are now all within 5 games of a PO spot, after the allstar break that number was over 20.

While we can all look at the Yanks and say the system isn't working, I would look a little deeper into the Why, of that question.

The Why to that question is that George Steinbrenner is a vindictive owner and the current system is designed to punish him as an owner that believes that he should put every penny he makes on his team back into the franchise. So, he feels if he has to stroke a check for 65+ million in Luxury Tax to subsidise the league (which is really what Revenue Sharing is) then he will spend even more to satisfy his needs.

As Dumb as Dolan is, I don't think you would ever see him come out of pocket like that.

The problem with using hockey as a business is its not a good model. In business 10 companies can all make a profit, all 10 are winners. In hockey 1 team gets the cup, the other 29 are losers.

Hockey isn't a business, its an arms race. Why do countries spend billions on armies and nukes? Did the US and USSR really need 10,000s of nukes? Nope, so why so many? Because their opponents had them. It only takes one or two countries to start the whole arms race off and everyone else gets dragged along.

A hand of countries started the spending war and the arms dealers (players) are laughing all the way to the bank. Countries eventually work it out and sign treaties limiting arms, hopefully the NHL clubs will too.

Plus, the owners don't need a salary cap. All 30 owners can come together and make a verbal agreement amongst each other that the highest salary they will pay is say $8 mill a season and control spending reasonably without a cap.

It's a good thought, but that's collusion, and that's illegal.

Plus, the owners don't need a salary cap. All 30 owners can come together and make a verbal agreement amongst each other that the highest salary they will pay is say $8 mill a season and control spending reasonably without a cap. It's their own fault they are in this mess, they have control over the salaries and let it get out of hand and are now blaming the players for it. Too many times the owners give in to a player demanding a high salary because they fear it will hurt their team more than help it, but if the owners can get some guts, then they can stand up to the players and refuse to pay a ludicris contract.
.

Thats called collusion and it is illegal.

I dont think you have a firm grasp on what the problem is. It is not just owners v players. It is most of the owners v 4-5 owners v players. When you have 4-5 owners throwing off salary structures it effects the whole league. A cap is needed or you will see 4-6 teams fold....which wouldnt be a bad thing either.

That's exactly the way I feel. Is it the players fault that the owners shove money in their face?


no, its not. but now the players are taking full advatage of it, exploiting it as much as possible and are trying to say they are blame free in the matter. plus, its no like they werent asking for a lot to begin with. i remember whe roenick became a free agent. his demand in his last year with phoenix was starting at 5M. as the season rpgressed, he asked for more and more. so while the owners do hav a part it in, so do the players.

It's a good thought, but that's collusion, and that's illegal.


Keep in mind that professional sports leagues are a cartel.

Is collusion actually illegal in a legalized cartel?

I would say that the owners could legally do this if they were smart enough.

Instead of collusion.... why not common sense, it's not illegal! Some of the GM's and owners are world beaters when it comes to spending, and I think with all this CBA talk, and the focus on the almighty $$$ that maybe if these guys used some common $en$e things wouldn't be so bad in the future.

Thats called collusion and it is illegal.

I dont think you have a firm grasp on what the problem is. It is not just owners v players. It is most of the owners v 4-5 owners v players. When you have 4-5 owners throwing off salary structures it effects the whole league. A cap is needed or you will see 4-6 teams fold....which wouldnt be a bad thing either.


Your right it is collusion. But what the owners can do is to promise to each other not to spend more than their expected revenues for that year. In some cases the expected revenues for that year will come up short, and in some cases it will come in higher. But no way should teams be losing like they are now.

Thats called collusion and it is illegal.

I dont think you have a firm grasp on what the problem is. It is not just owners v players. It is most of the owners v 4-5 owners v players. When you have 4-5 owners throwing off salary structures it effects the whole league. A cap is needed or you will see 4-6 teams fold....which wouldnt be a bad thing either.

6 teams folding would be exactly what I'm hoping out of this whole mess.

and funny how the Pens were forced to get rid of popular players, and there is no cap. hmm....


That's because the organization is terrible, we knew this. It's not because of the players' salaries. It's not the players fault the Penguins can't sell out playoff games and have a terrible arena lease.

6 teams folding would be exactly what I'm hoping out of this whole mess.I think this is what will happen also, so if 6 teams fold and everybody becomes more fiscally responsible, then the union is out of approx. 150 jobs... does this make sense for the union??? We all know that there are markets in the US that do not support hockey very well, and that the expansion into some markets was a mistake, so maybe the owners should fire Bettman, and the union fire Knob Goodenow, hire a couple of guys who care about the game, and bada bing the new boys get 'er done and we have a season... if it was only that simple! This whole thing is pi$$ing me off as a fan... something drastic has to happen!

6 teams folding would be exactly what I'm hoping out of this whole mess.


6 teams won't fold, they'll just be moved to a secure location if anything.

Keep in mind that professional sports leagues are a cartel.

Is collusion actually illegal in a legalized cartel?
I would say that the owners could legally do this if they were smart enough.I think it is illegal, but not because it is a cartel.

It would be illegal under employment laws. You can't arbitrarily limit a person's wages if there is a union involved (and most times even if there is no union invilved). If you have a union you have to negotiate collectively, or else what would be the point of having a union in the first place if an owner of a business could adjust wages willy-nilly?

Any concerted move by the owners to limit salaries that is not agreed to by collective bargaining would be collusion and is illegal. The owners would all have to act independently of each other for this to work. But if they did that, the union would point out that the owners were effectively colluding because they would be acting to impliment a salary structure that they tried to bargain and did not get. It would then be up to the owners to prove they were acting independently.

All in all, the owners would risk serious financial repercussion if they lost, not mention more union woes than they already have (if that's possible).

6 teams won't fold, they'll just be moved to a secure location if anything.
What 6 potential "secure" hockey markets do you see out there just waiting to be tapped?

What 6 potential "secure" hockey markets do you see out there just waiting to be tapped?

Exactly. I guess Quebec could be one,maybe Portland? But 6, no way.

6 teams won't fold, they'll just be moved to a secure location if anything.


Meaning they would explore every opportunity in their current market before being moved. I don't suggest all 6 would be moved (being that one is the Rangers and another is the Blues)

Meaning they would explore every opportunity in their current market before being moved. I don't suggest all 6 would be moved (being that one is the Rangers and another is the Blues)

Are you saying the Rags and the Blues are two of those 6 teams that lost 170Mils last season?

Are you saying the Rags and the Blues are two of those 6 teams that lost 170Mils last season?

in terms of overall dollars lost.

While the Rangers may have been able to say they were "sold out" everynight, it would be a fabrication of the truth and when 40% of the actual folks that bought tickets don't show up the meat and potatoes of concession sales takes a heavy dip.

Add to that the Rangers had a 75+ millino dollar payroll and the Rangers losing 15-20 million is not far fetched.

Do take this from a different angle,

Would perhaps a better solution be to put a cap on the players? As JR suggested earlier.

I happen to agree with the PA when they say that they should make less money because the owners are stupid. Wouldn't it make more sense to cap the UFA's rather than cap the teams in general? This way the lower-end guys aren't affected?

The question then comes to be 'How does that solve, say, Pittsburgh's problems?'. Well, it doesn't soley. This is why I also like the idea of a luxery tax. I have no problem with the Rangers signing 8 guys to $6 million dollar contracts (say that was the cap), so long as they are paying luxery taxes back to teams like Pittsburgh for doing so.

More to the point, I think it would be a mistake to handcuff a successful team when it comes to resigning their guys with a low cap. For instance, let's say you're team wins the cup. Would you want to see the franchise player, or if not him, key players beyond him, sent off in favour of draft picks just because the franchise guy wants a pay hike to $10 million and the cap is breached?

I personally prefer the luxery tax to a cap as a fan. The idea that a cap will make Edmonton (for example) better off I think is a fallacy. Any team that gets good is going to be near that cap, that is if it's $40 million or low, you can bet on it. Winning teams will be blown up due to financial reasons. I don't think that's fair. Rather than seeing that, why not give that team an option to go over the limit if they must, but set in place a system that will support a team like Edmonton or Pittsburgh when it does happen.

Last but not least, I do not mind a very high cap in the $60 - 70 million dollar range for the sole purpose of stopping a New York Yankees situation. I don't mind the Wings at $60 million and everyone else at $30 - 40 million. I do have a problem with the Rangers at $90 million and the Wild at $17 million. I also wouldn't mind seeing a MINIMUM cap of about $25 million, too. With the luxery tax, these cheapo teams wouldn't have an excuse to go below that.

Thats the problem with a salary cap. It destroys the chances of dynasties (at least true dynasties) and it means excessive player movement. I like the idea of a minimum salary range (concession to the players) and an extremely high say a percentage like 75% of a teams profit being the salary cap for the team (or just a set figure at like 60 million). Lets be reasonable, this is more than workable for the PA. I also think that a limit on UFA contracts is a must. This allows a lower market team to actually have the chance to sign a player, if they are willing to pony up to the max. Then its not about money, but location. I doubt any of this will come into play, but its all reasonable.

- Revenue sharing is a must, and without a doubt should be in the new CBA regardless of a cap or tax.

What 6 potential "secure" hockey markets do you see out there just waiting to be tapped?

Especially with no hockey being played? :)

6 teams won't fold, they'll just be moved to a secure location if anything.

What 6 good hockey markets are available? And are of a large enough size to be able to support a $30-35M payroll?

What you would really need under the current system is find 6 billionares that happen to be huge hockey fans that don't mind losing money.

I don't blame the players for not turning down money when it's offered to them. The problem is that there are such HUGE economic disparities between franchises. What is insane for the Islanders (Yashin's contract) is a decent signing for the Rangers (Holik's contract). The problem is that in many cases the precedent is set by the biggest mistake. Chris Drury can point to Mike Peca's contract on why he deserves $4M. Then the Hawks trade Steve Sullivan because they are afraid he'll convince an arbitrator he's worth $4M with both of those guys as comparables.

I agree with others that a luxury tax system above a reasonable level ($35-40M) would be the best solution.

That's because the organization is terrible, we knew this. It's not because of the players' salaries. It's not the players fault the Penguins can't sell out playoff games and have a terrible arena lease.

actually, the Pens got good attendance for playoff games, they just havent been there in a few years. besides, what about the Oilers? theyve had to trade away Guerin, Weight and Carter just to name a few. Even in the years before the last two, the Pens still drew pretty good. we sold out the 2/3 of the seasn with Mario back, and went to the east finals, and barely made money. so its not all the organization.

Do take this from a different angle,

Would perhaps a better solution be to put a cap on the players? As JR suggested earlier.

I happen to agree with the PA when they say that they should make less money because the owners are stupid. Wouldn't it make more sense to cap the UFA's rather than cap the teams in general? This way the lower-end guys aren't affected?

The question then comes to be 'How does that solve, say, Pittsburgh's problems?'. Well, it doesn't soley. This is why I also like the idea of a luxery tax. I have no problem with the Rangers signing 8 guys to $6 million dollar contracts (say that was the cap), so long as they are paying luxery taxes back to teams like Pittsburgh for doing so.

Pittsburgh's problems are WAY more than just Salary. The Team is tied into the Igloo until 2007 otherwise they would have moved or have been sold by now. That and the fan support is practically non-existent.

More to the point, I think it would be a mistake to handcuff a successful team when it comes to resigning their guys with a low cap. For instance, let's say you're team wins the cup. Would you want to see the franchise player, or if not him, key players beyond him, sent off in favour of draft picks just because the franchise guy wants a pay hike to $10 million and the cap is breached?

Well, the franchise guy is now not wanting to be a part of a winning team any more if he puts his bank account ahead of the team. My rebut to this statement is look at the New England Patriots. Two NFL Championships in three years with a cap.

I personally prefer the luxery tax to a cap as a fan. The idea that a cap will make Edmonton (for example) better off I think is a fallacy. Any team that gets good is going to be near that cap, that is if it's $40 million or low, you can bet on it. Winning teams will be blown up due to financial reasons. I don't think that's fair. Rather than seeing that, why not give that team an option to go over the limit if they must, but set in place a system that will support a team like Edmonton or Pittsburgh when it does happen.

Last but not least, I do not mind a very high cap in the $60 - 70 million dollar range for the sole purpose of stopping a New York Yankees situation. I don't mind the Wings at $60 million and everyone else at $30 - 40 million. I do have a problem with the Rangers at $90 million and the Wild at $17 million. I also wouldn't mind seeing a MINIMUM cap of about $25 million, too. With the luxery tax, these cheapo teams wouldn't have an excuse to go below that.

Ok I can appreciate where you're coming from. Again devils advocate here.... What about Parity? Wouldn't you agree a cap would bring more competition and parity to a league who's talent pool isn't as deep or as talented as the NBA or the NFL?

It's a good thought, but that's collusion, and that's illegal.


Yup. That's why there are problems with the CBA. If the CBA is written with the cap you propose then it's 100% legal.

If the players want to share in the business of the NHL, they should be willing to share the losses of teams too. They don't even want to go there.

An open market system? Under a true market system, Yashin would be facing a lawsuit for poor performance.

Pittsburgh's problems are WAY more than just Salary. The Team is tied into the Igloo until 2007 otherwise they would have moved or have been sold by now. That and the fan support is practically non-existent.

Little known fact: The Pens have one of the best TV contracts in the game. They get huge ratings.

Little known fact: The Pens have one of the best TV contracts in the game. They get huge ratings.

Yet they can't fill the seats. Go figure.

How about we try this. Renew the current agreement with the following exceptions:

1) No more automatic 10% raise if you are below the average salary, we will negotiate your contract when it is up.

2) No more arbitration, we will negotiate your contract when it is up, no more of this comparables crap.

3) No more guarenteed salaries, you don't perform, out on your ear.

The above are what make the current agreement bad for the small market teams when the idiot owners who overspend on a player drive up the market for every other player in the league.

This is probably going way to far but we haven't heard about any of these issues and they are probably some of the biggest ones the NHL faces. Some of the owners CANNOT control the salaries they pay their players because the rich owners drive those prices. Hey, Holik is worth 9 and I'm almost as good so I deserve 8. He's almost as good as Holik and he got 8 and I'm almost as good as him so I deserve 7.5, etc.

Yet they can't fill the seats. Go figure.

thats because you're asking blue collar workers to spend a few hundred dollars they cant afford to take their family out to dinner and a hockey game. they cant afford it pure and simple. and rebuilding isnt exactly helping the cause either.

thats because you're asking blue collar workers to spend a few hundred dollars they cant afford to take their family out to dinner and a hockey game. they cant afford it pure and simple. and rebuilding isnt exactly helping the cause either.

Perhaps a salary cap would help with this.

Isn't revenue sharing and a luxury tax pretty much a decision amongst the owners? The rich ones agree to help the poor ones out in the name of unity (and the day Bill Wirtz cares about the finances of any other team would be the same day it snowed in hell). Exactly how do the players give anything up there? It's the rich owners who have to pay out to the poor ones; not the players. I realize that it comes up because it has to be negotiated into the CBA, but the PA makes it sound like this is a huge concession on their part when it's nothing of the sort. It doesn't affect their salaries at all, Exhibit A: Major League Baseball. So it basically keeps the status quo vis-a-vis salaries so the PA wins because that's all they want.

Owners can't collude, but agents representing the players can talk to each other all they want for the purpose of comparable salaries. Seems like a slanted playing field to me there.

I don't believe for a second all the smoke the NHL is blowing about all these teams losing money. There are just too many ways to hide revenue. Nor do I believe the players are all innocent farmboys who just take what is offered to them. If that were the case there would never be a single hold-out and no one would file for arbitration or turn down $5 million dollars a year because they want 6. There is more than enough greed and blame to go around on this one.

The only reason that I side with the owners on this one is that they have at least shown some kind of desire to fix things. They recognize that the problem was of their own making and are attempting to rectify the situation. The PA seems to believe, contrary to all evidence that everything was fine and that the gravy train would roll on forever. Time to wake up.

Owners can't collude, but agents representing the players can talk to each other all they want for the purpose of comparable salaries. Seems like a slanted playing field to me there.Baseball tried collusion once and had to pay out to the players effected. If the current situation of players signing for below market value and not chasing money existed without an impending labor stop I'm sure the NHLPA would be making the same calims.

The only reason that I side with the owners on this one is that they have at least shown some kind of desire to fix things. They recognize that the problem was of their own making and are attempting to rectify the situation. The PA seems to believe, contrary to all evidence that everything was fine and that the gravy train would roll on forever. Time to wake up.Agreed. I have no trust in Bettman and co, but I still side with them on this issue. My fondest dream is Bettman puts his resignation on the negotiating table.

Agreed. I have no trust in Bettman and co, but I still side with them on this issue. My fondest dream is Bettman puts his resignation on the negotiating table.

I second that idea.

Owners can't collude, but agents representing the players can talk to each other all they want for the purpose of comparable salaries. Seems like a slanted playing field to me there.


The owners can't collude on price fixing but I can't see why they wouldn't be allowed to agree to try and keep team salaries under $40m (whatever). So long as they aren't discussing players and are not trying to collude on individual contracts it shouldn't be a problem.

Agreed. I have no trust in Bettman and co, but I still side with them on this issue. My fondest dream is Bettman puts his resignation on the negotiating table.


IMO, it's LONG overdue.

Ok I can appreciate where you're coming from. Again devils advocate here.... What about Parity? Wouldn't you agree a cap would bring more competition and parity to a league who's talent pool isn't as deep or as talented as the NBA or the NFL?

12 different teams have made the Conference Finals in the last three years. There *is* parity.

12 different teams have made the Conference Finals in the last three years. There *is* parity.


When was the last time you saw the following teams go deep in the playoffs?

Phoenix
Chicago
Penguins
Habs
Oilers

That's exactly the way I feel. Is it the players fault that the owners shove money in their face?

Yep. I mean it's pretty obvious every owner since the mid-90s has been tripping over himself to hand over millions to players that don't deserve it.

I find it amazing that people say stuff like this and think that the players have had no part in it. So players haven't been demanding higher salaries? They're getting them only because the owners are just that stupid? If salaries hadn't gone up in the last 10 years, all the players would be happy?

Right.

When was the last time you saw the following teams go deep in the playoffs?

Phoenix
Chicago
Penguins
Habs
Oilers

There are perpetual bottom-dwellers in every league. You just named a few of them.

There are perpetual bottom-dwellers in every league. You just named a few of them.

that he named the Habs in that statment.

I'm not sorry to see that team that has 20+ stanley Cups experience some suffering. And Chi-town has had some seriously bad decision makers running that team.

The Oilers and Penguins I feel for, but Phoenix is one of the top 10 largest cities in the US. I mean they were attractive enough to lure the Winnipeg Jets, one of the reasons was due to the market size.

Don't confuse bad decisions with bad markets.

Edm
Pit
TB
FLA
Cgy

had he listed those teams, things would have been better with the exception that 2 of them were in the Finals in 2004.

It still doesn't relieve the fact that the markets are not sound.

Edm, Pit, TBay, and Cal all claimed to have made money this year. The markets are sound, and when they grow a winner, will be sounder

Who is Trevor Linden a decent player, and here is talking all this ****. SHUT YOUR MOUTH, its our hard earned money that pays for your fancy cars, while we live in carboard boxes.