HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > NHL Eastern Conference > Atlantic Division > Montreal Canadiens
Mobile Hockey's Future Become a Sponsor Site Rules Support Forum vBookie Page 2
Notices

Can hockey survive without a cap?

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
07-28-2004, 12:18 PM
  #1
417
Registered User
 
417's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Ottawa
Country: Haiti
Posts: 19,635
vCash: 500
Can hockey survive without a cap?

I can't imagine how the NHL will survive without some sort of a cap, I mean of the 4 major sports (NHL, NFL, MLB and NBA) NHL is the sport which generates the least revenue...

I would like the NHL to incorporate the same system or maybe something similar to the NFL, where players get alot of money, but there contracts aren't guaranteed, the NHLPA would of course never agree to this, but if they want to make the big bucks then they have to earn it...

IMO, i'm 95% sure all of this will be resolved and we will see hockey in September/October, there's just too much money to be lost and the players are behind the eight ball in this situation, most players, at least the big money players also lead lifestyles in which they need to make money, whenever someone makes alot of money, they spend alot of money as well, the owners know this...

I think right now there's alot of public realtions going on by the players and the owners in which they state that there is little chance that there will be hockey in September, bull****!!!! is what I say...

417 is offline  
Old
07-28-2004, 12:42 PM
  #2
tinyzombies
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Calif via Montreal
Posts: 11,576
vCash: 500
Hockey has survived up until now, I don't see why not. First they say the players make 75% of the revenues in the league, then they say they lose money. It's hard to know what to believe.

Personally, I think a soft cap of about $60 million would be fair and would support a decent salary structure while letting the small market teams compete. It's when teams go up to $80 million that it gets stupid.

I don't see any drawbacks to a $60 million dollar cap for either side. A $40 million dollar team could easily compete in that scenario.

tinyzombies is offline  
Old
07-28-2004, 12:51 PM
  #3
Habs4ever
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Montreal, (Quebec)
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,535
vCash: 500
hockey has survived mainly due to wait and see game!!

Quote:
Originally Posted by raketheleaves
Hockey has survived up until now, I don't see why not. First they say the players make 75% of the revenues in the league, then they say they lose money. It's hard to know what to believe.

Personally, I think a soft cap of about $60 million would be fair and would support a decent salary structure while letting the small market teams compete. It's when teams go up to $80 million that it gets stupid.

I don't see any drawbacks to a $60 million dollar cap for either side. A $40 million dollar team could easily compete in that scenario.

Many small market team owners are just waiting for last few years just to see how this new CBA turns out as with current structure many teams just can't be supported.

Habs4ever is offline  
Old
07-28-2004, 12:54 PM
  #4
tinyzombies
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Calif via Montreal
Posts: 11,576
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Habs4ever
Many small market team owners are just waiting for last few years just to see how this new CBA turns out as with current structure many teams just can't be supported.
Personally, I'm fine with it if some teams fold. Let them fold if they aren't viable. There has to be a happy medium because if the cap is too strong people won't be interested in New York or the other big markets. It will badly effect the quality of play on the ice I think.

The star players should get star money, but the other guys need a paycut imo. They should also make the seasons shorter and cut the pay even more, accordingly and give these guys more days off in between games.

tinyzombies is offline  
Old
07-28-2004, 12:55 PM
  #5
417
Registered User
 
417's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Ottawa
Country: Haiti
Posts: 19,635
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by raketheleaves
Hockey has survived up until now, I don't see why not. First they say the players make 75% of the revenues in the league, then they say they lose money. It's hard to know what to believe.

Personally, I think a soft cap of about $60 million would be fair and would support a decent salary structure while letting the small market teams compete. It's when teams go up to $80 million that it gets stupid.

I don't see any drawbacks to a $60 million dollar cap for either side. A $40 million dollar team could easily compete in that scenario.
Yes hockey has survived up til now, but players aren't making the same amount of money they were 5 or 10 years ago...

417 is offline  
Old
07-28-2004, 12:56 PM
  #6
Guy Caballero
Registered User
 
Guy Caballero's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Toronto
Country: Canada
Posts: 6,856
vCash: 500
Survive? Yes. Thrive? No.

Without a cap, you will see more disparity in years to come (this year's final notwithstanding. That was a blip in the radar.). Unless you want to see hockey go down the same path as baseball, where development means nothing and the team with the most money will be the best every year, some kind of cost control will have to implamented.

Guy Caballero is offline  
Old
07-28-2004, 01:19 PM
  #7
Rather Gingerly 1*
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 1,832
vCash: 500
Be hard on the small market teams.

There has to be a salary cap of some sort in place

Rather Gingerly 1* is offline  
Old
07-28-2004, 01:57 PM
  #8
417
Registered User
 
417's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Ottawa
Country: Haiti
Posts: 19,635
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rather Gingerly 1
Be hard on the small market teams.

There has to be a salary cap of some sort in place
Exactly, maybe a soft cap at around 50 million and a hard one at 60 million?

417 is offline  
Old
07-28-2004, 02:04 PM
  #9
Jacques Strappe
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Halifax
Posts: 424
vCash: 500
Jose Theodore survived an entire game with a soft cap

Jacques Strappe is offline  
Old
07-28-2004, 02:25 PM
  #10
tinyzombies
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Calif via Montreal
Posts: 11,576
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jacques Strappe
Jose Theodore survived an entire game with a soft cap

tinyzombies is offline  
Old
07-28-2004, 04:18 PM
  #11
romain_jaime
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Montreal
Country: Canada
Posts: 576
vCash: 500
I don't care what anyone says, you pay the big bucks to the star players because they bring the crowds. I personally would like to see a salary structure that would see the 3rd line players get paid less then they currently do.

I think the perfect type of salary structure is being used right now in the NBA. Players in the NBA hardly even require the services of agents because their salary is already pre-determined.

romain_jaime is offline  
Old
07-28-2004, 04:55 PM
  #12
KingJarl
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 412
vCash: 500
If they continue at their current rate of salary distribution, I don't believe there is any way that a 30 team NHL could survive. And I believe that point is well proven given the recent financial troubles of Ottawa, Buffalo, Pittsburgh and Calgary. The majority of the teams in the league are losing money. If you continually operate with a net loss every year, eventually... you'll have nothing left to lose.

That being said, I believe that the current stance of the owners reflects that attitude. The NHL appears very close to that 'nothing left to lose' situation. So, I couldn't tell you exactly what needs to be done (but it certainly isn't just raising ticket prices) but something... SOMETHING! Right?

*sob* I want my Habs on RDS for the 04-05 season... can't we all just get along?

KingJarl is offline  
Old
07-28-2004, 07:19 PM
  #13
justicex
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Montreal
Posts: 245
vCash: 500
Little off-topic, but if they put the reduction of game in CBA like let say 72 games per season like so many ppl want.

Does they also reduce the salaries by like 10% ? or the owner will lose this money ?

justicex is offline  
Old
07-28-2004, 07:36 PM
  #14
not quite yoda
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Country: Qatar
Posts: 3,508
vCash: 500
players would lose part of their income if the schedule is reduced as so.

hockey will survive with or without a cap. hockey will still be around in 100 years. no doubt.

will the nhl survive without a cap? i dunno. it likely would but some teams would eventualy shut down. so the league would go on but with fewer franchises and fewer players.


not quite yoda is offline  
Old
07-28-2004, 07:50 PM
  #15
EaGLE1
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Quebec City
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,442
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Guy Caballero
Survive? Yes. Thrive? No.

Without a cap, you will see more disparity in years to come (this year's final notwithstanding. That was a blip in the radar.). Unless you want to see hockey go down the same path as baseball, where development means nothing and the team with the most money will be the best every year, some kind of cost control will have to implamented.
Amen

EaGLE1 is offline  
Old
07-28-2004, 07:58 PM
  #16
toughstuff
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Gatineau
Posts: 409
vCash: 500
I think the league and certain small market team could survive without a cap if:

Contracts are not guaranteed more than 2 years,
Contracts can be bought back at 50% of its value during the guaranteed years,
Qualifying offers are reduced to either league's average salary increase or no more than 5%,
Compensation for losing a player over the league's average salary (negotiable) is a first rounder (same first round ranking as now except those teams having signed a FA are push down the order and new picks are added before these picks to teams having lost players to free agency). Something similar for 2nd FA signings and so on,
Reduce FA eligibility to 6 years services (in full year equivalency)


If this can't fly then:

Quote:
Originally Posted by 417 TO MTL
Exactly, maybe a soft cap at around 50 million and a hard one at 60 million?
I am all for a soft and hard cap but more in the line of 20-30 millions dollars plus 1 forward + one D and + one goalie out of scope (not to exceed 30 million $)

What our your thoughts?

toughstuff is offline  
Old
07-28-2004, 08:25 PM
  #17
jacklours
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Magog
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,222
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by espion
players would lose part of their income if the schedule is reduced as so.

hockey will survive with or without a cap. hockey will still be around in 100 years. no doubt.

will the nhl survive without a cap? i dunno. it likely would but some teams would eventualy shut down. so the league would go on but with fewer franchises and fewer players.

Same thing then what happende to Lacrosse about 20-25 years ago could actually happen.

jacklours is offline  
Old
07-28-2004, 10:12 PM
  #18
justicex
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Montreal
Posts: 245
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by toughstuff

I am all for a soft and hard cap but more in the line of 20-30 millions dollars plus 1 forward + one D and + one goalie out of scope (not to exceed 30 million $)

What our your thoughts?
Forget it, no way there will be a cap below 40 millions. Maybe soft at 45 hard at 60, but never a cap below 40 millions will happend.

justicex is offline  
Old
07-28-2004, 10:50 PM
  #19
toughstuff
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Gatineau
Posts: 409
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by justicex
Forget it, no way there will be a cap below 40 millions. Maybe soft at 45 hard at 60, but never a cap below 40 millions will happend.
My suggestions is 2 caps, 1 with a soft and hard cap and 1 with only a hard cap.

1. Entire team except 3 out of scope would be 20 to 30 million and,

2. 3 out of scope players (1 forward, 1 d man and 1 goalie) MAX 30 million

Total would be a soft cap of 20 million and a hard cap of 60 million.

toughstuff is offline  
Old
07-29-2004, 11:03 AM
  #20
417
Registered User
 
417's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Ottawa
Country: Haiti
Posts: 19,635
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by toughstuff
My suggestions is 2 caps, 1 with a soft and hard cap and 1 with only a hard cap.

1. Entire team except 3 out of scope would be 20 to 30 million and,

2. 3 out of scope players (1 forward, 1 d man and 1 goalie) MAX 30 million

Total would be a soft cap of 20 million and a hard cap of 60 million.
That's a good idea, there needs to be more parity in the league, kind of like the NFl, every year, you never know who will win it all...

417 is offline  
Old
07-29-2004, 12:24 PM
  #21
Jacques Strappe
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Halifax
Posts: 424
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by 417 TO MTL
That's a good idea, there needs to be more parity in the league, kind of like the NFl, every year, you never know who will win it all...
Sure we do...Pats all the way!!

Jacques Strappe is offline  
Old
07-29-2004, 12:37 PM
  #22
417
Registered User
 
417's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Ottawa
Country: Haiti
Posts: 19,635
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jacques Strappe
Sure we do...Pats all the way!!
Yeah I know, but who would of predicted that the panthers would of made it to the finals this year

417 is offline  
Closed Thread

Forum Jump


Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 04:00 AM.

monitoring_string = "e4251c93e2ba248d29da988d93bf5144"
Contact Us - HFBoards - Archive - Privacy Statement - Terms of Use - Advertise - Top - AdChoices

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. 2014 All Rights Reserved.