HFBoards

HFBoards (http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/index.php)
-   Philadelphia Flyers (http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/forumdisplay.php?f=21)
-   -   NHL - Lockout!!! (http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/showthread.php?t=104216)

Bennevol10 09-17-2004 11:10 AM

NHL - Lockout!!!
 
Do you think NHL should have a salary cap? If you are oppose to salary cap. What kind of financial structure you would like NHL to have? How about NHL having similar kind of financial structure like NFL? What are your thoughts?

flyersrock1 09-17-2004 11:26 AM

There has to be a limit. Players getting 10 million that's crazy. A 10 goal man making 4 million too much. Put a cap at around 40 million. That's enought. Also put a low at 30 million. AND share the money. Teams like the Flames should not have to lose all their good players because they have no money. They have a great fan base but the city is too small. As long as a team sells 15000 plus tickets kick some money back from the bigshots. Ok now let everyone rip a part what I just said. :teach:

donelikedinner 09-17-2004 11:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bennevol10
Do you think NHL should have a salary cap? If you are oppose to salary cap. What kind of financial structure you would like NHL to have? How about NHL having similar kind of financial structure like NFL? What are your thoughts?

i'd like to see something like the nfl has. players can get big $$ but the contracts are not guaranteed. think how much teams would save if they could dump their albatross players (leclair,amonte, etc.) and use it for other players that can contribute. this way, a team can ask a player to renogotiate if their performance has slipped. perhaps then players would earn big $$ when they play big and then get paid small $$ when they contribute small.

or better yet, make every contract performance based. if Yasshin wants big $$ he'd better score big to earn it.

Jester 09-17-2004 12:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by donelikedinner
i'd like to see something like the nfl has. players can get big $$ but the contracts are not guaranteed. think how much teams would save if they could dump their albatross players (leclair,amonte, etc.) and use it for other players that can contribute. this way, a team can ask a player to renogotiate if their performance has slipped. perhaps then players would earn big $$ when they play big and then get paid small $$ when they contribute small.

or better yet, make every contract performance based. if Yasshin wants big $$ he'd better score big to earn it.

the NHLPA is NEVER going to let guaranteed contracts go to the curb. they will fight that more than the cap.

Bennevol10 09-17-2004 12:44 PM

I agree with both hard salary cap and soft cap salary. Let me start with hard salary cap. If NHL has a hard cap I think they should carbon copy NFL one. You have to release a player if a team goes over the budget. I am also willing to share revenue with a club like Oilers and Sabres if they spend at least $32 Millions a season (I mean when a season start teams have to have $32Millions in salary). We also have to strict the rookie’s salary. For example: top 5 picks can earn maximum of $700,000 a year for first three years and the maximum bonuses they can earn $500,000 in three years. The minimum rookies salary should be $200,000 if the player make it to NHL. All rookies’ salaries have to be two ways.

In soft cap salary NHL should have $35 Millions salary cap. If a team goes over the salary cap they have to share the revenues with the teams who are losing money. But the teams losing money have to have at least $27 Millions in salary to get revenues from teams like Rangers, Red Wings (if they are over the salary cap). Any team goes over the salary cap also have to pay penalty. For example: If Rangers or Red Wings spend $5 Millions over the salary cap they have to give 10 to 20% of their revenues to teams who are losing money plus pay $1 for $1/2($0.50) going over the salary cap. These fines will be equally divided to teams who have at least $27 Millions salary and under the salary cap. Rookies salary cap will be the same from hardcore salary cap. What are your thoughts? I am talking in general. You can add on to it.

I think either of these salaries caps will make NHL competitive.

Flyers26 09-17-2004 02:06 PM

Bottom line to this whole fiasico is, if it doesn't roll back prices for Joe Average Fan to attend games, who cares?!
If it doesn't help us, who cares who makes more money, the greedy owners or the greedy millionare players??

donelikedinner 09-17-2004 02:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Flyers26
Bottom line to this whole fiasico is, if it doesn't roll back prices for Joe Average Fan to attend games, who cares?!
If it doesn't help us, who cares who makes more money, the greedy owners or the greedy millionare players??

damn skippy! :yo:

FlyHigh 09-17-2004 02:21 PM

I like the NHLPA's proposal, but my main modification would be the luxury tax. In other sports, the tax hasn't been that effective, but in hockey, I think we should make the tax start after about 47-50 million and the tax should be something like 3:1 or 5:1, something to really make the owners think above going over the limit. Also, cheaper tickets would be very nice, players and the NHL don't make money without the fans and prices are just way too high.

Jester 09-17-2004 02:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by FlyHigh
I like the NHLPA's proposal, but my main modification would be the luxury tax. In other sports, the tax hasn't been that effective, but in hockey, I think we should make the tax start after about 47-50 million and the tax should be something like 3:1 or 5:1, something to really make the owners think above going over the limit. Also, cheaper tickets would be very nice, players and the NHL don't make money without the fans and prices are just way too high.

47-50 doesn't work because there will still be too much disparity among teams. the owners are battling each other more than anything else here... the 8 guys voting with bettman are tired of having to deal with the Leafs, Flyers, Rangers, etc... thus the 31 mil thing, which is borderline ridiculous in terms of immediate installment. 40 mil maybe a bit more with a 30-35 mil minimum involving revenue sharing and what not would probably be the best option in my mind...

not gonna happen, so moot point.

FlyHigh 09-17-2004 05:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jester
47-50 doesn't work because there will still be too much disparity among teams. the owners are battling each other more than anything else here... the 8 guys voting with bettman are tired of having to deal with the Leafs, Flyers, Rangers, etc... thus the 31 mil thing, which is borderline ridiculous in terms of immediate installment. 40 mil maybe a bit more with a 30-35 mil minimum involving revenue sharing and what not would probably be the best option in my mind...

not gonna happen, so moot point.

Yeah, I know mine is high for some teams, but most teams can still field a fairly competitive roster at 35 or so million and the big spenders won't feel completely out of luck. BTW: I think the owners will cave to a luxury tax or soft cap eventually, the players can just play in Europe or in that cool-looking 4 on 4 league which is probably a lot more exciting than the NHL anyway.

ftyutin51 09-17-2004 05:50 PM

I think that..

1. Players should not earn a salary of more than $6,000,000.

2. Owners should get a 15% of the ticket sales ONLY if the arena sells out.

3. "Rich" teams like the Rangers, Toronto, etc. shouldn't be allowed to just buy any player they want. This is going to sound stupid but, I think all NHL based teams should "save" like half of their money cases like this. :dunno:

Jester 09-18-2004 11:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by FlyHigh
Yeah, I know mine is high for some teams, but most teams can still field a fairly competitive roster at 35 or so million and the big spenders won't feel completely out of luck. BTW: I think the owners will cave to a luxury tax or soft cap eventually, the players can just play in Europe or in that cool-looking 4 on 4 league which is probably a lot more exciting than the NHL anyway.

well the average is like 45 million or something close to that... so 31 million is a complete crock. my assumption was that the league was looking for a negotiation over the cap so they set it low, but the players won't even discuss it.

the main issue with the impossibility of a quick resolution is the fact that Bettman only needs 8 cheap/poor owners to back him in what he is doing and that is easy to find in the league. i mean, a guy like Wirtz in chicago who doesn't even televise home games isn't going to care that people in philly can't watch the games.

we're screwed.

Jester 09-18-2004 11:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ftyutin51
I think that..

1. Players should not earn a salary of more than $6,000,000.

2. Owners should get a 15% of the ticket sales ONLY if the arena sells out.

3. "Rich" teams like the Rangers, Toronto, etc. shouldn't be allowed to just buy any player they want. This is going to sound stupid but, I think all NHL based teams should "save" like half of their money cases like this. :dunno:

NHL teams should operate at close to zero balance for the regular season, if that makes sense. Then the playoffs should be bonus profit/income that they can put to their pockets or their team if they want... The main problem is numerous teams have budgeted in like two rounds of playoffs for their salaries and everything else, so when they don't make it or go out in the first round they lose money.

50% of the league revenue is very fair, and the fact that they call that "arbitrary" is insulting. Both sides are wrong. They are wrong for not working together on a cap or a tax that both can agree with. The players insult us by saying the cap is "bad for fans" as Linden suggested in that letter, personally I think being an Edmonton fan is bad for the fans. They are never going to be able to compete over time.

The owners should work on a luxury tax that would work for them, and the players should work on a cap that would work for them(though the fact that they set their luxury tax at 50 million is a joke). To suggest that both systems are impossible for the other is stupid. Then they can sit and have a dialogue over those systems and work towards a mutual solution.

As a big market fan i'm all for a revenue sharing system as long as there exists a minimum. Baseball is just stupid for not having that.

Gert B Frobe 09-18-2004 05:03 PM

The union did a great job for it's players on the last contract but now it's obvious the system is broken. If the union can't understand that and accept a salary cap then the union should be scrapped. And if that can't happen then the NHL should be scrapped.

It sucks but it's true.

flyrfan 09-18-2004 06:38 PM

I think there should be a salary cap.

GKJ 09-18-2004 08:17 PM

The NHL's salary cap or luxury tax shouldn't be the same as any other sport because the tax/cap in each of the other sports is a joke.


The NFL has insane player movement every year because people have to worry too much about the cap, plus there are no guarenteed contracts, you can cut someone at any time.

The NBA has so many exceptions in it that you can get around the luxury tax. The current luxury tax and how it is setup will cause a lockout after the coming season.

The MLB almost doesn't have a luxury tax. It is so high that only the Yankees pay it.

CharlieGirl 09-18-2004 10:18 PM

The NFL salary cap is effective though..... yes, you have players changing teams a lot more than the other sports, but every year the favourites to go to the Superbowl changes -- no team remains uncompetitive year after year. I don't think that's a bad system at all.

How the NHLPA figures that their league shouldn't have some sort of salary cap, when the other major sports do, is beyond me. I think it could be phased in over two years, and set at a reasonable level (i.e. $30 to $35 million). Consideration could be given to designating one franchise player, who is not included in the cap, but has a maximum salary.

I think the NHLPA is going to find themselves in a position where the fans are not supporting them (52% already and the lockout just started), and as time goes on, the players will start to drift away from the PA's stance. Hopefully sooner rather than later, because I can't imagine what the league will look like if the lockout continues beyond this year.

RoDu 09-18-2004 10:47 PM

whenever the league starts up again, does anyone think there should be a differant commisioner? I never liked Bettman, alot of what has gone wrong happened on his watch

Jester 09-19-2004 12:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by flyerfanofthepeg
whenever the league starts up again, does anyone think there should be a differant commisioner? I never liked Bettman, alot of what has gone wrong happened on his watch

i despise him, but it appears he is going nowhere.

Overtime 09-19-2004 11:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by flyerfanofthepeg
whenever the league starts up again, does anyone think there should be a differant commisioner? I never liked Bettman, alot of what has gone wrong happened on his watch

Al Morganti feels that Bettman is pushing this hard salary cap because he has done nothing but destroy the sport in his tenure as commissioner and if he doesn't get this through he goes down as a total failure.

GKJ 09-19-2004 07:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by flyerfanofthepeg
whenever the league starts up again, does anyone think there should be a differant commisioner? I never liked Bettman, alot of what has gone wrong happened on his watch


ESPN has an article somewhere, that I wholely agree with.

Bettman and Goodenow are both fighting for their jobs.

flyrfan 09-19-2004 08:50 PM

I want to see Bettman gone.

flyersrock1 09-19-2004 08:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by flyrfan
I want to see Bettman gone.

The Eagle is starting to look good again. And no not Eddy but Allan for all you kids.

Bob Clarke Fan Club 09-20-2004 08:13 AM

I'm on no one's side...Billionaires vs Millionaires. Bettman and Goodenow are both robbing us of a game they shouldn't have anything to do with. The players better come to the realization that the picnic's over. Canadian teams will lose more by operating than not operating. That says it all. What is most interesting is neither side would want an outside arbitrator involved. HMMMMM :banghead: The real sad part is Goodenow has done an incredible job for the players up till this point....but like many players in big games...this negotiation will probably define his career. The same could be said for Bettman but i believe the Winnipeg and Quebec franchises already defined his....either way they're both nimrods.

Bob Clarke Fan Club 09-20-2004 08:14 AM

Brian Burke for NHL Commissioner....bring intelligence and honor to the job, Bettman lacks both.


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 05:00 AM.

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com, A property of CraveOnline, a division of AtomicOnline LLC ©2009 CraveOnline Media, LLC. All Rights Reserved.