View Single Post
02-10-2005, 06:39 PM
Registered User
Vagabond's Avatar
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Edmonton
Country: Canada
Posts: 5,537
vCash: 596
Send a message via MSN to Vagabond
Originally Posted by Dar
There already is more than just a handful of teams that can pay the players, and the small market teams in hockey towns will survive just fine with some financial assistance, unless of course you're one of the sheep that actually believes the NHL figures.

Edmonton & New York? Bad examples to use. Edmonton has had twice the success New York has despite having half the payroll. And it goes further than those two examples as evidenced by recent history...Annaheim, Carolina, Calgary, Buffalo, the finals, or how about the fact that in the past 3 years the 12 conference finalists have been 12 different teams. The disparity isn't as large as many NHL hardline loyalists believe.

The old system can't continue to operate, I don't see anyone acknowledging that, including the players who would stand the most to gain from it, so I don't know where the original accusations come from. However, a modified version of the Players December offer is workable and will not only provide some much needed financial assistance to the teams that could use the help but would also cause larger markets to be reluctant in signing high priced players that puts them over the cap, do you honestly believe that Toronto would easily throw $10 million to a player with a market value of $5 million?

The latest proposal from Bettman was a joke and only those with blinders on couldn't see through it. Taking the players original proposal allowed for all current players under contract with teams still needing to add more just to fill out the roster. The minute the players did up their laces the NHL's Feb offer would kick in.

AND the $42 million trigger that Bettman suggested is for PLAYER COSTS as he continuelly states. I have yet to hear him say NHL level salaries in any form of cap or restrictions he mentions. (Feel free to prove me wrong here, I'd love to be, because I can't believe a bigger issue isn't being made of this). Take Carolina for example, two years ago their NHL salaries were $33.75 million, BUT their reported player costs for that same year according to the previous CBA (which I can't see differing in definition) which include pensions, buy outs, on site medicals etc, etc. came to $46.1 million.

So in fact, if you use those numbers as an example, only 73% of player costs are actual NHL salaries, which means that with Bettmans latest proposal of a $42 million cap NHL teams will only have around $30.7 million to spend on fielding a team for NHL play. (A large chunk of player costs are hard costs and wouldn't be reduced by much with the rollback, even then I don't think the roll back affects AHL contracts).

Yeah, 30.7 million is what you can spend, even if you give for 10% margin of error, Bettman expects teams to spend AT MOST 33.77 million on their players.

You think that's reasonable?
Here's why I think it's reasonable. What are the players union affraid of, that their proposal will fail? If their proposal had any grounds, why would they be affraid? they are given the opportunity to run the NHL without a salary cap. take the deal and run with it, and succeed in making the NHL stronger.. by all means. If they fail, then the NHL will step in and enforce their proposal. What more could you ask for. As long as they can keep the players from exceeding more than 55% of the leagues revenue.

Vagabond is offline