HFBoards

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

Biggest contracts could take hit under new CBA

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
09-23-2012, 09:01 PM
  #226
diceman934
LINT must go!
 
diceman934's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: NHL player factory
Posts: 7,980
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by CrazeeEddie View Post
And there it is right there. They wouldn't void the contracts, they'd force the team to honor them.
Who said the owners would not honour the contracts?

However in order for a contract to be valid the services have to take places.....so if a player retires why would the owner have to honour the contract as the contract is no longer in force.

diceman934 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-23-2012, 09:04 PM
  #227
The Apologist
Where's JVR?
 
The Apologist's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Leaf Nation Hell
Country: Canada
Posts: 6,935
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by diceman934 View Post
Who said the owners would not honour the contracts?

However in order for a contract to be valid the services have to take places.....so if a player retires why would the owner have to honour the contract as the contract is no longer in force.
Wouldnt be the first time the NHL has done this now would it? And I should be more clear. Enforce the cap hit, not the contract. If the intention is that we will pay the player until they are 41, the gm should have no issue with accounting for that cap hit until they are 41.

They do this now anyway with players over 35, it would just sweep across the board now.


Last edited by The Apologist: 09-23-2012 at 09:23 PM.
The Apologist is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-23-2012, 09:05 PM
  #228
ULF_55
Global Moderator
 
ULF_55's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Mountain Standard Ti
Posts: 59,227
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by clawfirst View Post
The only problem with that is NO ONE benefits. The PA loses out on the additional member and NHL salary(as it will happen less than the what 4 times it did, Souray,Redden,Finger,Avery)....

did I miss any?

And it doesn't benefit the owners.

Not a real issue. Next.
It would be every one-way contract.

Do we know how many one-way contracts there were in the AHL?

Is the amount a player is paid part of his contract?

__________________
http://kuklaskorner.com/index.php/ps...e_corsi_issues

Desjardins estimates that about 40% of the game is captured by Corsi analysis.

Babs - short for Barbara
ULF_55 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-23-2012, 09:25 PM
  #229
clawfirst
Registered User
 
clawfirst's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 935
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by ULF_55 View Post
It would be every one-way contract.

Do we know how many one-way contracts there were in the AHL?

Is the amount a player is paid part of his contract?
Ok sure, but who spearheads this and why? It's a non issue.

clawfirst is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-23-2012, 09:44 PM
  #230
ULF_55
Global Moderator
 
ULF_55's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Mountain Standard Ti
Posts: 59,227
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by clawfirst View Post
Ok sure, but who spearheads this and why? It's a non issue.
This is just part of the discussions that teams will have to keep players cap hits on the books and won't be allowed to have it removed if players retire.

If we apply the "cap hit remains regardless" scenario then wouldn't the cap hit remain for all players?

Not my argument. IMO all the owners care about is how much they have to pay, and everything else is just side issues.

Owners can bury contracts in the minors with their own money, don't know why anyone would care how the owners spend their money.

ULF_55 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-23-2012, 10:01 PM
  #231
The Apologist
Where's JVR?
 
The Apologist's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Leaf Nation Hell
Country: Canada
Posts: 6,935
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by ULF_55 View Post
This is just part of the discussions that teams will have to keep players cap hits on the books and won't be allowed to have it removed if players retire.

If we apply the "cap hit remains regardless" scenario then wouldn't the cap hit remain for all players?

Not my argument. IMO all the owners care about is how much they have to pay, and everything else is just side issues.

Owners can bury contracts in the minors with their own money, don't know why anyone would care how the owners spend their money.
Cap hit should remain no matter what.

The Apologist is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-23-2012, 10:02 PM
  #232
clawfirst
Registered User
 
clawfirst's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 935
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by ULF_55 View Post
This is just part of the discussions that teams will have to keep players cap hits on the books and won't be allowed to have it removed if players retire.

If we apply the "cap hit remains regardless" scenario then wouldn't the cap hit remain for all players?

Not my argument. IMO all the owners care about is how much they have to pay, and everything else is just side issues.

Owners can bury contracts in the minors with their own money, don't know why anyone would care how the owners spend their money.
Apparently some people here have a big problem with actually solving disparity through revenue sharing, "I DON'T WANT MY TEAM TO PAY FOR SOUTHERN CUP BLAH BLAH.." when without even looking at the numbers reducing NYR.TML and MTL's profits by 10 million could make every team profitable(not that I believe more than 3-6 aren't by any margin that matters).

A deal can be made so easily that we, the unwashed masses could do it with 3 hours and a full list of their actual numbers just tweaking the old CBA. This I do really believe.

clawfirst is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-23-2012, 10:04 PM
  #233
clawfirst
Registered User
 
clawfirst's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 935
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by CrazeeEddie View Post
Cap hit should remain no matter what.
Meh who cares, there is always an out. A letter from god...I mean a doctor get an LTIR.

Fix contract lengths and all these "issues" with a simple 3-5 year avg. Done. Barely a real issue.

clawfirst is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-23-2012, 10:09 PM
  #234
thebluemachine*
go ahead, do it
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 11,193
vCash: 500
Cap hits should count even if you get a letter from God. LOL.

thebluemachine* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-23-2012, 10:12 PM
  #235
clawfirst
Registered User
 
clawfirst's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 935
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by thebluemachine View Post
Cap hits should count even if you get a letter from God. LOL.
But only in the off-season when you are allowed a 10 % oopsy(new cba term)

clawfirst is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-23-2012, 10:15 PM
  #236
The Apologist
Where's JVR?
 
The Apologist's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Leaf Nation Hell
Country: Canada
Posts: 6,935
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by clawfirst View Post
Apparently some people here have a big problem with actually solving disparity through revenue sharing, "I DON'T WANT MY TEAM TO PAY FOR SOUTHERN CUP BLAH BLAH.." when without even looking at the numbers reducing NYR.TML and MTL's profits by 10 million could make every team profitable(not that I believe more than 3-6 aren't by any margin that matters).

A deal can be made so easily that we, the unwashed masses could do it with 3 hours and a full list of their actual numbers just tweaking the old CBA. This I do really believe.
I have no problem with revenue sharing. Of course it's not my mobey they're sharing, well not all mine.

The Apologist is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-23-2012, 10:31 PM
  #237
sangreale
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 2,064
vCash: 500
I am guessing that the top money makers have a great deal of say in the league not moving to far away from the status quo in terms of revenue sharing. Not sure exactly why I feel that, except that the fact the NHL seems in no hurry to go there seems to prove this. I suppose that the larger money makers could threaten to withdraw from the league might do it ... but that seems a tad wacko.

Re the cap. I am certain that the NHL could structure a clause insisting that there would be no loopholes. In that case, any loophole that might appear would be contrary to the spirit of that clause and therefore illegal.

See! God can make a rock so heavy even he can't lift it.

sangreale is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-23-2012, 10:45 PM
  #238
clawfirst
Registered User
 
clawfirst's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 935
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by sangreale View Post
I am guessing that the top money makers have a great deal of say in the league not moving to far away from the status quo in terms of revenue sharing. Not sure exactly why I feel that, except that the fact the NHL seems in no hurry to go there seems to prove this. I suppose that the larger money makers could threaten to withdraw from the league might do it ... but that seems a tad wacko.

Re the cap. I am certain that the NHL could structure a clause insisting that there would be no loopholes. In that case, any loophole that might appear would be contrary to the spirit of that clause and therefore illegal.

See! God can make a rock so heavy even he can't lift it.
Actually this was sort of already in the old CBA, something along the lines of "to the discretion of Gary", entirely from memory. And I'm sure I'll get called on it and have to go find it. I'M CATCHING UP ON BREAKING BAD GIVE ME A FEW MINUTES!


Actually I don't have to go that far at all cause of the rejected Kovalchuck contract. This part below says Gary was allowed to look for circumvention... I'm not doing any more of this on a expired agreement.
Quote:
Originally Posted by 26.10 Investigations
26.10
(a) The Commissioner of the NHL or the Executive Director of the NHLPA
(the "Investigator") may, sua sponte or based upon reports or complaints received by
either, commence an investigation regarding whether a Circumvention has occurred.
Later after several boring steps....
Quote:
The System Arbitrator may find a Circumvention has occurred based on
direct or circumstantial evidence
lol


Last edited by clawfirst: 09-23-2012 at 10:59 PM.
clawfirst is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-23-2012, 11:34 PM
  #239
Disgruntled Observer*
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,713
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by clawfirst View Post
Apparently some people here have a big problem with actually solving disparity through revenue sharing, "I DON'T WANT MY TEAM TO PAY FOR SOUTHERN CUP BLAH BLAH.." when without even looking at the numbers reducing NYR.TML and MTL's profits by 10 million could make every team profitable(not that I believe more than 3-6 aren't by any margin that matters).

A deal can be made so easily that we, the unwashed masses could do it with 3 hours and a full list of their actual numbers just tweaking the old CBA. This I do really believe.
I don't want my ticket prices gouged so as to help my teams direct competition. It's not fair for ME, as a fan, to pay inflated prices so that Carolina can sign a superstar that their fans pay a fraction of the price to see.

A MUCH fairer situation would be millionaire players taking a hit. Ripping off fans is a worse solution than rich players being able to afford only 5 mansions, as opposed to 6.

I'm well aware that supply and demand determine ticket prices. But if I'm paying stupidly high prices due to supply and demand, I would like MY team to reap those benefits, not their direct competition.

Disgruntled Observer* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-23-2012, 11:44 PM
  #240
clawfirst
Registered User
 
clawfirst's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 935
vCash: 500
lol DO.
Not how the market works...never mind.


I want to give you a real reply but I JUST CAN'T DO IT...


Oh and BTW, we already pay 10% to the have nots, joint venture and such....Not a real response

clawfirst is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-24-2012, 12:09 AM
  #241
Disgruntled Observer*
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,713
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by clawfirst View Post
lol DO.
Not how the market works...never mind.


I want to give you a real reply but I JUST CAN'T DO IT...


Oh and BTW, we already pay 10% to the have nots, joint venture and such....Not a real response
The players solution of revenue sharing is pretty much saying "we want the FANS of rich teams gouged so that the poor teams can afford good players to defeat the rich teams with".

I'm aware there already is revenue sharing. And I oppose it.
Increasing it is unacceptable.

Disgruntled Observer* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-24-2012, 12:18 AM
  #242
clawfirst
Registered User
 
clawfirst's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 935
vCash: 500
Lmao stop man, inducing that kind of uncontrollable laughter is assault.

ok don't stop, keep it coming.

clawfirst is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-24-2012, 01:09 AM
  #243
Disgruntled Observer*
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,713
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by clawfirst View Post
Lmao stop man, inducing that kind of uncontrollable laughter is assault.

ok don't stop, keep it coming.
The leafs are taking money that the FANS gave them, and giving some of that money to those fans DIRECT competition.

It's 100% the truth.

It's what revenue sharing is.

It's not something that's "funny". It's a despicable system.

Disgruntled Observer* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-24-2012, 01:29 AM
  #244
MorriPage
Registered User
 
MorriPage's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Earth
Country: Canada
Posts: 723
vCash: 500
I'm tending to sway more in line with Disgruntled Observer's line of thinking here. I have a hard time reconciling the fact that revenue sharing is needed to for some teams to remain financially viable. I think the league needs to look at ending this experiment of having teams in places like Phoenix and trying to force the game into non-traditional markets and instead either move these teams to locales that will allow the team to stand on their own financial legs, or look at the idea of contraction.

MorriPage is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-24-2012, 04:10 AM
  #245
rojac
HFBoards Sponsor
 
rojac's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Waterloo, ON
Posts: 7,289
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Disgruntled Observer View Post
The leafs are taking money that the FANS gave them, and giving some of that money to those fans DIRECT competition.

It's 100% the truth.

It's what revenue sharing is.

It's not something that's "funny". It's a despicable system.
What's the difference whether the money goes to another hockey team or to the owners of Rogers and Bell?

rojac is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-24-2012, 05:44 AM
  #246
Disgruntled Observer*
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,713
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by rojac View Post
What's the difference whether the money goes to another hockey team or to the owners of Rogers and Bell?
If our leaf fan money stays with Rogers and Bell, they are using our money to HELP our team.
If our leaf fan money is given to other teams, they are using our money to DEFEAT our team.

Even if Rogers and Bell pocket the extra money, at least it's "neutral" for our team. As opposed to the money going to a competing team to help them defeat us.

Disgruntled Observer* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-24-2012, 06:24 AM
  #247
The Apologist
Where's JVR?
 
The Apologist's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Leaf Nation Hell
Country: Canada
Posts: 6,935
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by MorriPage View Post
I'm tending to sway more in line with Disgruntled Observer's line of thinking here. I have a hard time reconciling the fact that revenue sharing is needed to for some teams to remain financially viable. I think the league needs to look at ending this experiment of having teams in places like Phoenix and trying to force the game into non-traditional markets and instead either move these teams to locales that will allow the team to stand on their own financial legs, or look at the idea of contraction.
It isn't necessary, if salaries are in line with what team can actually pay. The problem is that with the cap being what it is now, realistically only 6-7 teams can actually turn a profit. What we have right now is the equivalent of taking Bill Gates and any three of us, averaging it out and saying that we should all be able to spend 600m dollars or so.

The Apologist is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-24-2012, 07:02 AM
  #248
MorriPage
Registered User
 
MorriPage's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Earth
Country: Canada
Posts: 723
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by CrazeeEddie View Post
It isn't necessary, if salaries are in line with what team can actually pay. The problem is that with the cap being what it is now, realistically only 6-7 teams can actually turn a profit. What we have right now is the equivalent of taking Bill Gates and any three of us, averaging it out and saying that we should all be able to spend 600m dollars or so.
I have no issue with lowering the cap to the point where every team is able to compete financially. But that's it. Lower the cap so every team is able to compete financially, and do away with revenue sharing. The money the Leafs organization makes should go towards helping themselves, not their competition.

MorriPage is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-24-2012, 07:44 AM
  #249
Disgruntled Observer*
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,713
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by MorriPage View Post
I have no issue with lowering the cap to the point where every team is able to compete financially. But that's it. Lower the cap so every team is able to compete financially, and do away with revenue sharing. The money the Leafs organization makes should go towards helping themselves, not their competition.
But under that system, the players would only be able to afford six sports cars... as opposed to the current seven.
And we can't have that.
That would be terrible.

Much better to gouge it and then "revenue share" it out of the rich teams fans.

Disgruntled Observer* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-24-2012, 07:48 AM
  #250
asdf
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Country:
Posts: 2,072
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by MorriPage View Post
I'm tending to sway more in line with Disgruntled Observer's line of thinking here. I have a hard time reconciling the fact that revenue sharing is needed to for some teams to remain financially viable. I think the league needs to look at ending this experiment of having teams in places like Phoenix and trying to force the game into non-traditional markets and instead either move these teams to locales that will allow the team to stand on their own financial legs, or look at the idea of contraction.
There was an agent that brought up a point about this (and I can't believe I am using an agent's words), yes the Leafs and other teams give money to teams that are weaker financially, but then that weaker team is also able to put a better team on the ice, so when that team comes into the arena of one of the stronger teams, it provides a better product.

Revenue sharing isn't something that is only used in the NHL. All of the major North American sports leagues have it because of the nature of the business. Even the NFL has it, and it's actually one of the reasons that the league is so strong, because they were the first ones to do it.

As far as the Leafs are concerned, it hasn't affected them one bit. Their revenue, profit, and value is the highest it has ever been (according to Forbes), and they have no problem spending money on the team players and management.

People say that if you're a Leafs fan you should hate the salary cap and revenue sharing. I don't want the Leafs to have a championship team just because they can go out and buy the best talent, like what happens in soccer. I want them to do it legitimately while they are on the relatively same level as the teams they are competing against.

asdf is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

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 10:06 PM.

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

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. 2015 All Rights Reserved.