HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > NHL Eastern Conference > Metropolitan Division > New York Rangers
Mobile Hockey's Future Become a Sponsor Site Rules Support Forum vBookie Page 2
Notices

2012-2013 Lockout Discussion Thread

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
09-03-2012, 11:06 AM
  #926
haohmaru
#bdwyblueshirts
 
haohmaru's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Fleming Island, Fl
Country: United States
Posts: 5,799
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tawnos View Post
The players don't share any of the risk? How about being retired by the time they're 40? How about the risk of being injured and forced into retirement earlier than that? The players risk is that they'll lose out on the opportunity they've been working towards their entire lives to have a chance at setting themselves up for good. They owe it to themselves and their families to pad those numbers as much as possible.

And besides, risk is not the only thing here. Unlike a job where you deliver a product/service to a customer or design a product/service for a customer, the players ARE the product. That should mitigate some of the risk factor involved for the owners.

Now, I'm not saying "poor players" or anything like that. Obviously, they make massive amounts of money. But to say there is no risk just isn't true. They're human beings, just like us. They're going to jump at the chance and then try to protect any assets they can.
Clearly, I was talking about financial risk. The players get paid regardless if their franchise is losing money and, obviously, choosing a career path in professional sports is about as risky as it gets. But, let's be honest here as well - the guy that's had a 5, 10, or 15 year NHL career can get a job no matter what with credentials like that. Coach, analyst, etc... and the money they do make over that career is usually more than any of us regular schlubs make in a lifetime.

I don't know what the answer is here but I'd advocate a luxury tax and let teams like the NYR, Leafs, etc... spend more and share a bit of that with the lower echelon teams so that they are more competitive and make for a better overall NHL product while still trying to grow the sport. The NBA is a disaster because 20+ teams suck every year. I'd rather maintain a bit of parity.

haohmaru is offline  
Old
09-03-2012, 12:41 PM
  #927
kovazub94
Enigmatic
 
kovazub94's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 829
vCash: 500
I also used to also think that contraction would be the way to go to have more than just incremental impact on the quality of the NHL product to compete against the other big 3 sports in NA. But is it really the case? Let's look at the forwards. We are definitely not talking about superstar quality since among all these contraction teams in your list there maybe 3 star quality forwards to reassign among the remaining 24 clubs. Depth? Well, excluding forth line quality forwards, let's say 4 per team for obvious reasons, there a total of 8*6 = 48 remaining players which means that on average remaining teams would be replacing two thirds of their forth lines with their current 3rd lines. Improvement in quality? Definitely, but it is a marginal improvement for sure. And this is based on the six team contraction, with less teams to eliminate there would less quality to spread among more teams.


Last edited by kovazub94: 09-03-2012 at 01:37 PM.
kovazub94 is online now  
Old
09-03-2012, 02:37 PM
  #928
RMcDonagh
New York Rangers Cup
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Long Island, NY
Country: United States
Posts: 6,267
vCash: 500
Hey, guess what? I could care less how it goes down - but get it done before the season. I won't tolerate any missed games.

Seriously though, if any games are canceled, I'm going to lose it. Something bad will happen.

RMcDonagh is offline  
Old
09-03-2012, 02:46 PM
  #929
Pizza
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 10,072
vCash: 500
It's hard....I mean really hard for me to get my head around the fact that the NHL will be doing this to itself for the second time in ten years.

To me, this is business that is in very serious trouble. I'm beginning to wonder about the long term sustainability of the league.

Some of you think I'm crazy, but others have probably been wondering about the same the thing for years.

Pizza is offline  
Old
09-03-2012, 02:48 PM
  #930
trueblue9441
Registered User
 
trueblue9441's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Bronx, NY
Country: United States
Posts: 3,514
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to trueblue9441
Quote:
Originally Posted by SupersonicMonkey View Post
Really, those people don't "get it"...

Let's put it this way:

-A team in NJ 20+ million in debt despite a finals appearance.

team is only in debt because their owner couldn't afford to build a new arena. once they get put thru bankruptcy and a new owner emerges, minus the arena debt, the devils will make money. its an owner problem, not market problem.

-A team on Long Island that won't have an arena in a couple of years and couldn't convince the county to vote in favor for a new one.

tied to a lease that prevents them from doing anything. im sure they'll be moving once the lease is up. wang seems okay taking the losses though, so again, not too much of a problem.

-A team in Florida that can't draw and are only safe because of their lease with the city of Sun Rise.

while hockey operations might lose money, (and they draw better than you think they can), they aren't safe because of a lease. ownership has plans to develop the land around the arena and also take in money from all other events at the arena. the panthers are in no danger.

-A team in Columbus that has been to the playoffs once in its existance.

i think its safe to say this is a management problem that doesnt need explaining.

-A team in Glendale that can't draw, can't fill an arena while giving away free tickets, can't land a new owner.

just about the only thing you got right.. but what market is NHL ready right now for the coyotes btw? what is your suggestion?

For starters.

"Teams that matter". When not enough people in their own city/state care about the team enough to show up, watch on tv, buy merchandise, sponsor, or buy the team.

Will the league contract? No. Will the union allow it. No. But that doesn't change the fact that this is the reason the league has it's problems and its a discussion worth having.

Don't like it, don't read it.
its not a discussion worth having because its fantasy world. regardless i'll break those down.

in regards to any of those franchises you mentioned, where would you even propose moving them? what market is absolutely NHL ready at this moment?

trueblue9441 is online now  
Old
09-03-2012, 03:02 PM
  #931
Riche16
McCready guitar god
 
Riche16's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: FL
Country: United States
Posts: 3,698
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by trueblue9441 View Post
its not a discussion worth having because its fantasy world. regardless i'll break those down.

in regards to any of those franchises you mentioned, where would you even propose moving them? what market is absolutely NHL ready at this moment?
Hamilton (yup), Quebec City (yup), and Seattle (maybe).

Just playing devils advocate... I don't think contracting will help all that much. Maybe a bit, but since the NHLPA and the owners wouldn't go for it until there's real blood in the streets I don't see the point.

Riche16 is offline  
Old
09-03-2012, 03:13 PM
  #932
trueblue9441
Registered User
 
trueblue9441's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Bronx, NY
Country: United States
Posts: 3,514
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to trueblue9441
Quote:
Originally Posted by Riche16 View Post
Hamilton (yup), Quebec City (yup), and Seattle (maybe).

Just playing devils advocate... I don't think contracting will help all that much. Maybe a bit, but since the NHLPA and the owners wouldn't go for it until there's real blood in the streets I don't see the point.
none of those markets are ready. none. hamilton needs a new facility. an nhl team cannot play at copps coliseum, its old, outdated and would take 100's of millions to renovate. also you need to strike a deal with buffalo and toronto because hamilton is in their market.

seattle, they don't have an arena that would be NHL ready and there is none in sight.

quebec city has the best chance, but that new arena is set to open in 2015, years away.

so no, none of those cities are NHL ready.

trueblue9441 is online now  
Old
09-03-2012, 03:15 PM
  #933
DutchShamrock
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: New Jersey
Country: United States
Posts: 4,999
vCash: 500
The league can technically support 30 or more teams, but the fact remains that expansion is the bane of the nhl.

They did it to #1 split the franchise fees amongst the owners and #2 create a national market with a goal of a national tv deal.

The catch is that nearly every major problem with the league is linked to the expansion. The dilution of talent caused the inflation of salaries, not the rangers. With too few stars, the have nots either overpay for marginal talent or suffer through apathetic fans. The Drurys of the league fetch way too much.

The weak markets can't hold or attract talent. The fans don't stick around. The power markets earn regardless, and drown the expansion cities under the cap floor.

Its the players that somehow have to finance the bottom feeders, but no one dares propose that the big markets support their partners. I don't care if the give handouts or not, my team is fine. But if these owners won't help each other out, how do you make these ridiculous proposals to the union? How do you demand a rollback months after the crybabiest owners hand out record deals. They knew years ago they were forcing a rollback, its collusion.

DutchShamrock is offline  
Old
09-03-2012, 03:20 PM
  #934
Mr Atoz*
I hid the Atavachron
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Country: United States
Posts: 2,915
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by jdsrangers View Post
This lockout is all about the owners. Rich teams vs Poor teams!

The rich owners will sit back and let the small markets teams speak thru Bettman. If the poorer teams plan works the richer teams just make more $$$!

I have a very simple solution. Are you ready....

50%/50% revenue split. Based off additional or a decrease in revenue numbers will be adjusted.

Make an initial soft salary cap of $60mm.

Have a revenue penalty tax for money over the cap of 100%. Example if the Rangers team payroll is $70mm they would pay a $10mm tax to the NHL.

Next step - a Win/Win for both sides....split all the penalty tax 50%/50% for the teams that need money to survive and to the NHL PA for medical benefits & pensions for retired players!

If they can agree on my play the rest will be easy!!

Your thoughts on my solution!

I don't want to pay $500 a seat so the Rangers can send that money to Phoenix - or worse - the islanders and devils.

Mr Atoz* is offline  
Old
09-03-2012, 03:23 PM
  #935
Mr Atoz*
I hid the Atavachron
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Country: United States
Posts: 2,915
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by DutchShamrock View Post
The league can technically support 30 or more teams, but the fact remains that expansion is the bane of the nhl.

They did it to #1 split the franchise fees amongst the owners and #2 create a national market with a goal of a national tv deal.

The catch is that nearly every major problem with the league is linked to the expansion. The dilution of talent caused the inflation of salaries, not the rangers. With too few stars, the have nots either overpay for marginal talent or suffer through apathetic fans. The Drurys of the league fetch way too much.

The weak markets can't hold or attract talent. The fans don't stick around. The power markets earn regardless, and drown the expansion cities under the cap floor.

Its the players that somehow have to finance the bottom feeders, but no one dares propose that the big markets support their partners. I don't care if the give handouts or not, my team is fine. But if these owners won't help each other out, how do you make these ridiculous proposals to the union? How do you demand a rollback months after the crybabiest owners hand out record deals. They knew years ago they were forcing a rollback, its collusion.

Everything I've been saying except when it comes to team revenue sharing. See my response above.

Mr Atoz* is offline  
Old
09-03-2012, 03:23 PM
  #936
Bleed Ranger Blue
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 15,111
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by trueblue9441 View Post
its not a discussion worth having because its fantasy world. regardless i'll break those down.

in regards to any of those franchises you mentioned, where would you even propose moving them? what market is absolutely NHL ready at this moment?
The argument seems to be that the league should just contract, not even move these teams from difficult markets. It takes a fantasy argument and drives it completely into the absurd.

It would drive down cumulative hockey-related revenue, it would drive down the number of available NHL jobs, and it wouldn't be beneficial to anyone involved in these negotiations.

Its the kind of argument that can only come from arrogant Ranger fans (or arrogant fans of other top revenue producing teams), and it shows no business acumen whatsoever.

Bleed Ranger Blue is offline  
Old
09-03-2012, 03:30 PM
  #937
Clowes Line
Cally's Chicken Parm
 
Clowes Line's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: New Yawk
Country: United States
Posts: 12,544
vCash: 500

Clowes Line is offline  
Old
09-03-2012, 03:38 PM
  #938
Riche16
McCready guitar god
 
Riche16's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: FL
Country: United States
Posts: 3,698
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by trueblue9441 View Post
none of those markets are ready. none. hamilton needs a new facility. an nhl team cannot play at copps coliseum, its old, outdated and would take 100's of millions to renovate. also you need to strike a deal with buffalo and toronto because hamilton is in their market.

seattle, they don't have an arena that would be NHL ready and there is none in sight.

quebec city has the best chance, but that new arena is set to open in 2015, years away.

so no, none of those cities are NHL ready.
Copps isn't as bad as you're making it out to be. It's better than Nassau, the mall and the Igloo and there were/are NHL teams in those buildings. The fans are there, they would certainly support it and you wouldn't have to clear it with Buffalo or TO... in fact Hamilton was a front runner for the Yotes as it is.

Riche16 is offline  
Old
09-03-2012, 03:47 PM
  #939
trueblue9441
Registered User
 
trueblue9441's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Bronx, NY
Country: United States
Posts: 3,514
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to trueblue9441
Quote:
Originally Posted by Riche16 View Post
Copps isn't as bad as you're making it out to be. It's better than Nassau, the mall and the Igloo and there were/are NHL teams in those buildings. The fans are there, they would certainly support it and you wouldn't have to clear it with Buffalo or TO... in fact Hamilton was a front runner for the Yotes as it is.
yes you would have to clear it with buffalo and toronto for a team to go into that market. it falls within both of their markets.

and comparing it to nassau and the igloo? yup thats a winner alright. it'll generate tons of revenue.

and on top of it, basille was going to pour millions upon millions into the building to renovate it if a team went there.

hamilton isn't ready for an NHL team right now. and TSN will explain why.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IZWi5...=results_video

trueblue9441 is online now  
Old
09-03-2012, 03:53 PM
  #940
Riche16
McCready guitar god
 
Riche16's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: FL
Country: United States
Posts: 3,698
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by trueblue9441 View Post
yes you would have to clear it with buffalo and toronto for a team to go into that market. it falls within both of their markets.

and comparing it to nassau and the igloo? yup thats a winner alright. it'll generate tons of revenue.

and on top of it, basille was going to pour millions upon millions into the building to renovate it if a team went there.

hamilton isn't ready for an NHL team right now. and TSN will explain why.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IZWi5...=results_video
Look I'm not arguing for contraction, but that building would instantly do better than FL, Columbus and Phoenix. If a team were moved there, they would sell out every damn night. A new arena could be built in time and the city would sustain a team both short and long term.

It's not that hard to comprehend.

Riche16 is offline  
Old
09-03-2012, 03:56 PM
  #941
trueblue9441
Registered User
 
trueblue9441's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Bronx, NY
Country: United States
Posts: 3,514
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to trueblue9441
Quote:
Originally Posted by Riche16 View Post
Look I'm not arguing for contraction, but that building would instantly do better than FL, Columbus and Phoenix. If a team were moved there, they would sell out every damn night. A new arena could be built in time and the city would sustain a team both short and long term.

It's not that hard to comprehend.
i'll tell you right now, it wouldn't do better than florida. because of the plans that ownership group has florida is actually in a pretty good spot right now. hockey operations might lose money, but the other arms of that business rake in the cash.

but as for hamilton, who would own the team? balsille doesn't have the money he used to have and he's the only one who wanted to own a team in that market. and there's been nothing on the horizon to even get a new arena or fix up copps.

right now, its not going to work. could it work in the future for the obvious reasons you mentioned above, of course it could. but right now there's no hope for a franchise to relocate to hamilton.

trueblue9441 is online now  
Old
09-03-2012, 09:24 PM
  #942
Tawnos
A guy with a bass
 
Tawnos's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Charlotte, NC
Country: United States
Posts: 12,178
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by haohmaru View Post
Clearly, I was talking about financial risk. The players get paid regardless if their franchise is losing money and, obviously, choosing a career path in professional sports is about as risky as it gets. But, let's be honest here as well - the guy that's had a 5, 10, or 15 year NHL career can get a job no matter what with credentials like that. Coach, analyst, etc... and the money they do make over that career is usually more than any of us regular schlubs make in a lifetime.

I don't know what the answer is here but I'd advocate a luxury tax and let teams like the NYR, Leafs, etc... spend more and share a bit of that with the lower echelon teams so that they are more competitive and make for a better overall NHL product while still trying to grow the sport. The NBA is a disaster because 20+ teams suck every year. I'd rather maintain a bit of parity.
And so was I. I wasn't saying that players can't make money afterwards. But it's in their interest to try to ensure that their pockets are lined for the rest of their lives and usually at least the lives of their children. That's all you need to know about the players' side.

Tawnos is online now  
Old
09-03-2012, 10:13 PM
  #943
Bleed Ranger Blue
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 15,111
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by haohmaru View Post
But, let's be honest here as well - the guy that's had a 5, 10, or 15 year NHL career can get a job no matter what with credentials like that. Coach, analyst, etc... and the money they do make over that career is usually more than any of us regular schlubs make in a lifetime.
.
You want to get even more honest? Us regular schlubs fuel the market that the owners and players are currently arguing over. So, unless you're willing to stop buying the merchandise, stop watching the games, and stop going to the arenas (when hockey is eventually back), what right do we have to complain about this? We are the market makers - we are all supplying the demand for this argument. And anyone that takes the time to come on here and complain about it just wants the game to come back, they wont be abandoning it when it does.

Bleed Ranger Blue is offline  
Old
09-03-2012, 10:36 PM
  #944
SupersonicMonkey*
DROP THE PUCK
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: USA
Country: United States
Posts: 16,229
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by DutchShamrock View Post
The league can technically support 30 or more teams, but the fact remains that expansion is the bane of the nhl.

They did it to #1 split the franchise fees amongst the owners and #2 create a national market with a goal of a national tv deal.

The catch is that nearly every major problem with the league is linked to the expansion. The dilution of talent caused the inflation of salaries, not the rangers. With too few stars, the have nots either overpay for marginal talent or suffer through apathetic fans. The Drurys of the league fetch way too much.

The weak markets can't hold or attract talent. The fans don't stick around. The power markets earn regardless, and drown the expansion cities under the cap floor.

Its the players that somehow have to finance the bottom feeders, but no one dares propose that the big markets support their partners. I don't care if the give handouts or not, my team is fine. But if these owners won't help each other out, how do you make these ridiculous proposals to the union? How do you demand a rollback months after the crybabiest owners hand out record deals. They knew years ago they were forcing a rollback, its collusion.
I agree with this for the most part, i just do not see anything that indicates the sport can support 30+ major professional teams. Theres just not enough interest. The fact larger market teams will inevitibly be giving percentages of their own earnings to help the small market clubs stay afloat is evidence enough.

Sure, Bettman won't go for it, the NHLPA won'twho knows if any of the owners are willing to get out before they lose anymore money.

But it goes back to what you were saying, and its basically my argument as well.

SupersonicMonkey* is offline  
Old
09-03-2012, 10:51 PM
  #945
SupersonicMonkey*
DROP THE PUCK
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: USA
Country: United States
Posts: 16,229
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by trueblue9441 View Post
i'll tell you right now, it wouldn't do better than florida. because of the plans that ownership group has florida is actually in a pretty good spot right now. hockey operations might lose money, but the other arms of that business rake in the cash.

but as for hamilton, who would own the team? balsille doesn't have the money he used to have and he's the only one who wanted to own a team in that market. and there's been nothing on the horizon to even get a new arena or fix up copps.

right now, its not going to work. could it work in the future for the obvious reasons you mentioned above, of course it could. but right now there's no hope for a franchise to relocate to hamilton.
The other cities that i've heard talked about on SiriusXM:

Seattle
Quebec City
Kansas City
Las Vegas

And the candidates are obvious:

Coyotes
Islanders
Devils

The city of Sun Rise and the Panthers are committed to eachother. They won't move anytime soon.

Those three teams could be moved without an issue. The Islanders won't have an arena son enough anyway. The Devils are 20+ million in debt and are sandwiched between the Rangers and Flyers markets. And the Coyotes are self explainatory.

An interesting move would be the Coyotes to Las Vegas. Its close enough to Glendale, Arizona to keep its current fan base. Las Vegas doesn't have a major professional team in any sport. Its a city based on entertainment amd gambling. Its transient, but a team may be able to draw. Its entertainment in an entertainment driven city.

Seattle and Kansas City are also good spots. Kansas City has a new arena built if im not mistaken. They were ready to host pre season games. The Devils ironically.

Seattle is a major city. That could build a natural rivalry with Vancouver.

Those are moves that could be made eventually.

Quebec City apparently wants another NHL club, but who knows if they can support one.

SupersonicMonkey* is offline  
Old
09-03-2012, 11:23 PM
  #946
Blueshirt Believer
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 6,565
vCash: 500
Actually, I think Portland is a place people overlook quite a bit. Personally, I think its a better spot than Seattle, but thats just my opinion.

Blueshirt Believer is offline  
Old
09-04-2012, 12:38 AM
  #947
Tawnos
A guy with a bass
 
Tawnos's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Charlotte, NC
Country: United States
Posts: 12,178
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by SupersonicMonkey View Post
An interesting move would be the Coyotes to Las Vegas. Its close enough to Glendale, Arizona to keep its current fan base.


Typical east coast thinking I guess. LV is near AZ and Glendale is in AZ, so therefore they're close enough to remain as a fan base. The distance is slightly less than Philadelphia to Boston. No one would ever make that kind of argument there. A hockey fan in Phoenix would be just as likely to switch to the Kings or Ducks as stick with their former Coyotes.

Beyond that, the idea that somehow a market in the desert of less than 2m people, with a boom and bust tourism industry currently in bust, is more suitable for a hockey team than a market in the desert of more than twice the population is pretty hilarious.

There are four markets out there that should never run into issues were they to get a team. They are Seattle, Portland, Quebec City and Houston. And honestly, Atlanta with a dedicated ownership group would be fine too, but we don't have to go too far into that. Every one of those places will run into issues if they have ownership like the Atlanta Spirit Group or sign a lease like what happened in Glendale. Simply up and moving teams to "better" markets doesn't guarantee, by a long shot, that the teams are going to do well where you put them.

Tawnos is online now  
Old
09-04-2012, 03:08 AM
  #948
Zil
Registered User
 
Zil's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Country: United States
Posts: 4,292
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by SupersonicMonkey View Post
The other cities that i've heard talked about on SiriusXM:

Seattle
Quebec City
Kansas City
Las Vegas
They already tried Kansas City once. It didn't work. I have serious doubts about the viability of Las Vegas. Seattle doesn't have an arena. Quebec is still building theirs.

Zil is online now  
Old
09-04-2012, 05:58 AM
  #949
RangerBoy
#freejtmiller
 
RangerBoy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: New York
Country: United States
Posts: 31,890
vCash: 500




Winter Classic Logos

Quote:
Q. Let's say the CBA doesn't get done for a while and the league is forced to cancel the Winter Classic, would the NHL still want to have Detroit and Toronto at The Big House, whether it be this year or next? And would the alumni games still go on as scheduled? --Chris.

A. I'd be shocked if the lockout lasted long enough to cancel the Winter Classic. If it does, they'd probably just schedule the same game for next season. And if the Winter Classic is canceled, the alumni games will be scrapped, too.
http://www.mlive.com/redwings/index....-+MLive.com%29


Last edited by RangerBoy: 09-04-2012 at 06:42 AM.
RangerBoy is offline  
Old
09-04-2012, 07:41 AM
  #950
RangerBoy
#freejtmiller
 
RangerBoy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: New York
Country: United States
Posts: 31,890
vCash: 500
Which side will call the other side? The holiday weekend is over. CBA expires in 11 days. Camps are supposed to open in 17 days. Season is supposed to open 5 weeks from this Thursday. Bob McKenzie and Pierre LeBrun are returning from vacation today. They know what's going on.

LeBrun wrote a column on the CBA on October 1,2010.

Quote:
Among the possibilities for the next CBA, we believe the league may explore the following issues:

• Lower the percentage of the players' share from the revenue pie from the current 57 percent (which would obviously lower the salary cap).

• Explore the magnitude of the payroll range; the current gap is $16 million from the higher to lower limit (this season, it's $59.4 million to $43.4 million).

• Try to scrap salary arbitration, which has long been a thorn in the league's side, especially now in a cap system.

• Adjust the age for unrestricted free agency.
http://sports.espn.go.com/nhl/previe...rre&id=5636853

Guy knows his stuff.

RangerBoy 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 10:02 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.