HFBoards

HFBoards (http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/index.php)
-   The Business of Hockey (http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/forumdisplay.php?f=124)
-   -   Which teams would compromise? (http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/showthread.php?t=104271)

hockeytown9321 09-17-2004 03:44 PM

Which teams would compromise?
 
Like I've said, maybe the league will lose less overall if there's not a season, but there are alot of teams who won't. I beleive it will be those teams, along with some that will accept less than a cap to save the league, that solve this thing in January.

So who do you think are the teams losing more money by not playing, or the teams willing to compromise just to get something done? And who do you think are the hardline owners, who will accept nothing less than a cap?

From that article about the Flyers, it sounds like Philly, Detroit, Colorado, Toronto and the Rangers are going to be leading the movement among oweners to save the season. Vancouver makes a lot of money. St. Louis lost alot, but their owner said it was their business and they can run it how they want. From the articles on TSN today, it looks like Edmonton and Calgary would lose about the same whether they played or not, so they might jump on something that saves the season. I think Dallas, LA and Phoenix would compromise. Thats almost half the league. Those teams could probably convince 3-4 others to compromise, maybe Tampa, maybe Ottawa, maybe New Jersey, maybe even Boston. If Anaheim ends up being sold, the new owner is probably going to want to get something from his investment, and he hasn't been the one losing money, so he'd probably be more willing to compromise. I think you could even talk Lemieux into it, because the Penguins need revenue bad, and a luxury tax would provide that.

ModestoFan 09-17-2004 03:56 PM

Good thoughts from the read. I would only say this as a counterpoint. Since the owners aren't looking at a luxury tax as a solution, what would bring them to the table to discuss it?

It seems either a "soft cap" set by league revenues or a change in the market itself will bring the sides to the table. I can't see the NHLPA giving in on the anti-cap slogan, but willing to live with a soft-cap system. This also implies that FA rules are changed, same with arbitration awards, and lastly, the removal of guarantees from contracts for players.

Personally, I'm all for a market system but that limits the overall ceiling of the market by penalizing those clubs that will spend "stupid" amounts of money on players just to get that one player. (a little contradictory, but heh, is Holik or Lindros worth thier contracts...NO!)

I can't see the NHLPA changing from the anti-hard cap, but I can see the middleground being a soft cap like in Baseball. I can't see the owners going for anything that can't give the struggling teams some serious measure of security that they can both compete and become profitable if managed properly.

anyway...my hands are tired. :(

edit: to remove any confusion about my thoughts for a soft cap system, owners could only go over a % of the cap itself, and only for a period of time. 1-2 seasons. Consistent overage would be adjusted by a penalty of 200% of the overage paid to the league and distributed to the other teams that aren't over the soft-cap for a penalizing period of time.

This would allow teams to add payroll and make a run, knowing that they have that option but only for 2 seasons, then its back to basics, unless they wanna seriously pay through the nose to bloat the payroll.

hockeytown9321 09-17-2004 04:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ModestoFan
Good thoughts from the read. I would only say this as a counterpoint. Since the owners aren't looking at a luxury tax as a solution, what would bring them to the table to discuss it?

It seems either a "soft cap" set by league revenues or a change in the market itself will bring the sides to the table. I can't see the NHLPA giving in on the anti-cap slogan, but willing to live with a soft-cap system. This also implies that FA rules are changed, same with arbitration awards, and lastly, the removal of guarantees from contracts for players.

Personally, I'm all for a market system but that limits the overall ceiling of the market by penalizing those clubs that will spend "stupid" amounts of money on players just to get that one player. (a little contradictory, but heh, is Holik or Lindros worth thier contracts...NO!)

I can't see the NHLPA changing from the anti-hard cap, but I can see the middleground being a soft cap like in Baseball. I can't see the owners going for anything that can't give the struggling teams some serious measure of security that they can both compete and become profitable if managed properly.

anyway...my hands are tired. :(

I think those owners I mentioed would go for a luxury tax\soft cap whatever you want to call it, because they stand to lose alot more by canceling the season than by compromising. The Red Wings for exapmple bring in about $90 million in revenue per year. They lost around $10 million last year. The way I see it, and I think some of them would as well, they would be losing $80 million more by not playing.

ModestoFan 09-17-2004 04:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by hockeytown9321
I think those owners I mentioed would go for a luxury tax\soft cap whatever you want to call it, because they stand to lose alot more by canceling the season than by compromising. The Red Wings for exapmple bring in about $90 million in revenue per year. They lost around $10 million last year. The way I see it, and I think some of them would as well, they would be losing $80 million more by not playing.

Well, if that is the case, they are actually saving $10 mil this year. I would venture that the Red Wings don't care either way, they win no matter what, unless the league dissolves.

hockeytown9321 09-17-2004 04:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ModestoFan
Well, if that is the case, they are actually saving $10 mil this year. I would venture that the Red Wings don't care either way, they win no matter what, unless the league dissolves.

That's definitely a way you can see it, and its probably the correct way, but the fact is instead of $90 million coming in, they have $0 coming in.

shakes 09-17-2004 04:28 PM

I'm assuming after reading this TSN article the Leafs could care less about a salary cap. Heck, they aren't even planning layoffs. But yeah, I would think all the rich teams want the season to start ASAP.

My favorite quote from that article is this from Ferguson ``We were prepared to compete and we will be prepared to compete under any economic system that comes down the line.''.

Sotnos 09-17-2004 05:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by hockeytown9321
That's definitely a way you can see it, and its probably the correct way, but the fact is instead of $90 million coming in, they have $0 coming in.

but you have to remember, they don't have as much going out either.

ModestoFan 09-17-2004 09:36 PM

Seriously, that article sums it up as far as the wealthy teams are concerned. You seriously think New Jersey, Toronto, Vancouver, Dallas, Colorado et all care (assuming they are even or atleast a small bit in the black) about losing the season. They know it will hurt the fans, and some fans won't return.

That said, I don't think the owners as a whole will listen to anything that doesn't define some measure of "cost control" for teams like Calgary, Nashville, Pittsburg, and Washington. Look, if it was up to the some of the owners, they might prefer to keep it a market system, because they know they give themselves a much better chance to bring home the Cup, by expanding thier payroll with top talent (Rangers aside.)

Anyway...we'll see...next year.

more to come....

DownFromNJ 09-17-2004 10:49 PM

If I had to guess..

Owners for less harsh CBA:

Minnesota
Toronto
Vancouver
Tampa
New Jersey
New York Rangers
Detroit
Colorado
Nashville
St. Louis
Dallas
Philly

Nashville and Tampa just want a season, the other owners are getting plenty of revenue (St. Louis knows it spends a lot, doesn't mind). However, thats only 12 teams. Bettman only needs 8 teams on his side period. He'll have:

Carolina
Florida
hChicago
Pittsburgh
New York Isles
Edmonton
Calgary
Ottawa
Anaheim (barring new ownership)
Phoneix
Buffalo

Thats 11 teams.

You'll have several teams on the fence. They can be a swing vote. You'll have:

Columbus
Atlanta
Montreal
Los Angeles
Boston
New Jersey
Washington

Columbus and Atlanta are doing decent and dont want to damage their progress with a long lockout. The other clubs don't have huge financial concerns, though they do have some, and don't want to see a long lockout.


Still, even if all the 7 swing votes go toward a lighter CBA, thats only 19 votes. Not a 2/3 majority.

hockeytown9321 09-18-2004 08:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DownFromNJ
If I had to guess..

Owners for less harsh CBA:

Minnesota
Toronto
Vancouver
Tampa
New Jersey
New York Rangers
Detroit
Colorado
Nashville
St. Louis
Dallas
Philly

Nashville and Tampa just want a season, the other owners are getting plenty of revenue (St. Louis knows it spends a lot, doesn't mind). However, thats only 12 teams. Bettman only needs 8 teams on his side period. He'll have:

Carolina
Florida
hChicago
Pittsburgh
New York Isles
Edmonton
Calgary
Ottawa
Anaheim (barring new ownership)
Phoneix
Buffalo

Thats 11 teams.

You'll have several teams on the fence. They can be a swing vote. You'll have:

Columbus
Atlanta
Montreal
Los Angeles
Boston
New Jersey
Washington

Columbus and Atlanta are doing decent and dont want to damage their progress with a long lockout. The other clubs don't have huge financial concerns, though they do have some, and don't want to see a long lockout.


Still, even if all the 7 swing votes go toward a lighter CBA, thats only 19 votes. Not a 2/3 majority.


I tend to agree with that list, but I think if Anaheim is sold their new owner will want to see some kine of return on his investment before 2010. And he hasn't been the one losing money, so I don't think he'd be as hard core on a cap.

CREW99AW 09-18-2004 09:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by hockeytown9321
From the articles on TSN today, it looks like Edmonton and Calgary would lose about the same whether they played or not, so they might jump on something that saves the season. I think Dallas, LA and Phoenix would compromise. Thats almost half the league. Those teams could probably convince 3-4 others to compromise, maybe Tampa, maybe Ottawa, maybe New Jersey, maybe even Boston. If Anaheim ends up being sold, the new owner is probably going to want to get something from his investment, and he hasn't been the one losing money, so he'd probably be more willing to compromise. I think you could even talk Lemieux into it, because the Penguins need revenue bad, and a luxury tax would provide that.


someone said NJ's ex-owner(Dr. MacMillin), made the comment that he'd never turned a profit on the team.NJ and NY newspapers say the Devils lose millions each yr.I don't agree that the Devils could be convinced to compromise.

The Sens have a deep pocketed owner,but because of the arena,are losing $.I'm not sure if the Sens would compromise.

Boston's owner is a hardliner.He wants the union broken/weakened.He'd be one of the last owners to compromise.

Pens have been forced to file for bankruptcy protection.They've looked at a new cba,a salary cap, as their franchise's best hope for the future.The Pens will be one of the last teams to compromise.

Edmonton and Calgary have been waiting for the new cba for several yrs,expecting it will level the playing field,allow them to hold onto their star players instead of having to trade them to deeper pocketed teams.I don't see Edmonton or Calgary backing off the salary cap issue.Save this season, so that they can continue to tread water financially for the next 5-6 seasons?


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 07:35 PM.

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com, A property of CraveOnline, a division of AtomicOnline LLC ©2009 CraveOnline Media, LLC. All Rights Reserved.