I don't really know much about the business side of hockey so if my question is really stupid don't make fun of me lol.
The NHL wants the new Salary Cap to be 50.8 mill. How is that even possible for teams like us with almost $30 Mill locked up into 4 players? The only way I can see us being able to ice a team is if they allow teams to restructure contracts so that our 4 players cap hit is reduced.
I believe 50.8 Million would be the salary cap floor.
__________________
Jaime Lannister has better hands than Brian Boyle.
I believe 50.8 Million would be the salary cap floor.
RangerBoy posted this on the previous page:
Here's a look at how the salary cap and salary floor would be impacted by the current CBA along with proposals from the NHL and NHL Players' Association for the 2012-13 season:
Current system
Salary cap: $70.2 million
Salary floor: $54.2 million
NHL's proposal
Salary cap: $50.8 million
Salary floor: $38.8 million
NHLPA's proposal (assuming a fixed $16-million gap is kept in place)
Salary cap: $69 million
Salary floor: $53 million
I don't really know much about the business side of hockey so if my question is really stupid don't make fun of me lol.
The NHL wants the new Salary Cap to be 50.8 mill. How is that even possible for teams like us with almost $30 Mill locked up into 4 players? The only way I can see us being able to ice a team is if they allow teams to restructure contracts so that our 4 players cap hit is reduced.
Rollback.
Salaries would be cut by 25 percent. Players would be making 25 percent less than what they are making now. If the league went through with their initial proposal, which will not happen.
Players will probably end up agreeing to something like 5-7 percent decrease. But 25 percent is sheer insanity. I'm not even sure how its even legal.
Last edited by Blueshirt Believer: 08-16-2012 at 08:37 PM.
but but but gary bettman told me that a cap would mean affordable ticket prices lol
Shocker, he lied.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bleed Ranger Blue
Very impressed with Fehr's entire approach to this.
I wonder how many owners Bettman has consistently met with while he throws darts at the CBA.
As am I. Fehr's media statements are full of confidence & diplomocy. This is why the PA wanted him. This isn't his first rodeo. Diffent sport but at the end of the day it's all about money, & people. That drives everything.
As am I. Fehr's media statements are full of confidence & diplomocy. This is why the PA wanted him. This isn't his first rodeo. Diffent sport but at the end of the day it's all about money, & people. That drives everything.
Yes, notice that garbage is not coming out of his mouth this time!
I always wanted to call him on his weekly talk show and discuss this with him, just could get through in time.
Chris Botta @ChrisBottaNHL
Have to believe Don Fehr has something he wants to say. Doubt he'd schedule a media call today for a mere update on Chicago meetings.
the thing i find most interesting is how many ppl support the players side of the argument....which advocates for sharing of revenue. Isnt that socialism?
the thing i find most interesting is how many ppl support the players side of the argument....which advocates for sharing of revenue. Isnt that socialism?
It is.
But so is a salary cap.
Btw, there is nothing inherently wrong with having socialistic ideas. You can have socialism in a capitalistic environment.
Btw, there is nothing inherently wrong with having socialistic ideas. You can have socialism in a capitalistic environment.
not disagreeing with you...just find it interesting. the Right never seems to agree with that...though i dont want to turn this to a political debate so im just gonna shut my yap right now.
By Fehr saying he thinks a new CBA could be achieved by Sept 15th, he is making Bettman and the owners look like the bad guys if it does not get done and there is a lockout. Doing a little tactical negotiating through the media. I'm not saying the players are saints but the fact that owners and bettman designed the current cba and now are saying its not good enough is a joke. They, specifically Bettman are a bunch of clowns. If there is a second lockout during his tenure as commissioner he needs to go, plain and simple. Fehr is good for the NHLPA. They shouldn't bow down this time.
By Fehr saying he thinks a new CBA could be achieved by Sept 15th, he is making Bettman and the owners look like the bad guys if it does not get done and there is a lockout. Doing a little tactical negotiating through the media. I'm not saying the players are saints but the fact that owners and bettman designed the current cba and now are saying its not good enough is a joke. They, specifically Bettman are a bunch of clowns. If there is a second lockout during his tenure as commissioner he needs to go, plain and simple. Fehr is good for the NHLPA. They shouldn't bow down this time.
This would be the third lockout during his tenure.
fehr is also used to dealing with a commissioner (bud selig) that wanted to get a deal done and when both sides want to get a deal done, you can always find a way...the problem is when one side has no interest in compromising and just wants to strong arm the other into taking their deal.
If the big market owners agree to more revenue sharing,the union will make a deal on the other issues. Until the owners agree to share more revenue,Fehr won't give anything on contracts,HRR,etc.
Quote:
Don Fehr: "I assure you the NHL don't want to follow the NBA model."
The NBA tripled revenue sharing. TRIPLED. The NHL is offering $20M more. What is that?
The NHL is a joke. The NHL brings up the NBA players going from 49%-51% but they fail to mention revenue sharing tripled,the floor increased and the cap remained status quo at $58M.
Quote:
NHLPA exec director Don Fehr: "The proposal we got from the owners would functionally eliminate revenue sharing.”
Yea it really comes down to the big market owners (I'm looking at you Snider and Jacobs) sharing more revenue with the league to help the smaller markets. If revenue sharing can be agreed upon, agreeing on a deal is easy as pie.
I think it shouldnt be a hard decision for Dolan to share a little more revenue. The rangers have more promise than the knicks. More ticket and merchandise sales at the garden. Longer playoff run, more ticket sale revenue.
I think it shouldnt be a hard decision for Dolan to share a little more revenue. The rangers have more promise than the knicks. More ticket and merchandise sales at the garden. Longer playoff run, more ticket sale revenue.
Dolan shares the maximum revenue. He's not retarded like the other owners. He'll make more money by sharing revenue to get a season, and selling out every game, than he would by sitting through a lockout.
The Rangers share their revenue. It's teams like Boston and Philly that refuse.
I think it shouldnt be a hard decision for Dolan to share a little more revenue. The rangers have more promise than the knicks. More ticket and merchandise sales at the garden. Longer playoff run, more ticket sale revenue.
Big markets like Toronto, Montreal, and New York will roll with whatever. Increased revenue sharing won't be a big deal to them.
Its markets like Philly, Boston, and Pitt. Three markets that can fluctuate on their revenue considerably.
I think until the nhl startes to shed it's dead weight teams by moving them to hockey rich areas or contraction the situation will not improve.
Franchises will continue to struggle & be proped up by the NHL, some owners will spend wildly, others will be the Islanders, fan bases feel alienated & we do the dance again in 3 to 5 years.
Not a smart business model.
That would be putting a band-aid on a shot gun wound. If they contract 2 teams, that means the HHR is divided by 28 and then multiplied by whatever percentage to get the new cap. If you contract the two lowest revenue teams, that cap number will go up. Those two teams are not contributing a lot of money to the total HHR.
Same if they move two teams to stronger markets. Increased revenues will cause the cap to go up.
In either case, the teams at the bottom of the revenue rankings, whether post-contraction, or post relocation of a few franchses, are going to struggle to just get to the salary floor. They will have a higher floor which they need to reach, but the same revenues for which they are operating with now.
Only way Bettman's system can work is for there to be serious revenue sharing. Whether that means teams have to pay a portion of their local tv deal into a centralized fund, or if the smaller revenue teams get a bigger cut of the national deals, or a split of ticket revenue, or a bigger cut of merchandise revenues to the smaller revenue teams, or anything else one can think of. The NFL works BECAUSE of the revenue sharing. Until the NHL does the same, it is just going to be the same cycle every few years.
I know that last post is a bit wordy and I might be hard to follow the math behind it, so I will try to show how contraction wont help.
Let's say total HHR is $3B (I know it is more, just want to keep numbers nice and neat). So $3B divided by 30 teams gives us $100MM per team. At 57%, that gives us a cap of $57MM per team.
Now, let's say we remove the two lowest revenue teams. So total HHR will go down, but not by $200MM. Let's say the revenues of each of those teams is $25MM each, for a total of $50MM. Those teams are contracted, and HHR now becomes $2.95B, which will now be divided by 28 gives us over $105MM per team. Take 57% and we have a cap of about $60MM. Cap has gone up, and the floor will go up, and those teams at 25, 26, 27, 28 in revenues are going to be n bad shape. Regardless of how many teams you contract, the bottom teams are going to have problems.
Now, if we move those bottom teams to stronger hockey markets, and each of these teams doubles their revenues from $25MM each to $50MM each, well, now we have total HHR of $3.1B. Divide that by 30 (we'll assume there was no contraction), and we get ~$103MM per team, at 57% means a cap of $58.9MM per team. Again, teams near the bottom are going to be worse off.
