HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > General Hockey Discussion > The Business of Hockey
Mobile Hockey's Future Become a Sponsor Site Rules Support Forum vBookie Page 2
The Business of Hockey Discuss the financial and business aspects of the NHL. Topics may include the CBA, work stoppages, broadcast contracts, franchise sales, and NHL revenues.

Lockout V: Take the Long Way Home

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
12-17-2012, 10:29 AM
  #51
pepty
Registered User
 
pepty's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 10,835
vCash: 400
Quote:
Originally Posted by Falconone View Post
My guess is things are stalled until the NHL get's a ruling or at least an indication of a ruling on it's recent court and NLRB findings.

This is important in lieu of McNeil. IF the NHL doesn't get at least the possibility of the anti trust protection it's asked for, and that's a big enough IF on it's own, then you will see a deal done in short order.

So if I'm right, (and lord knows i've been wrong before LOL) for those of you who want this thing settled and play to resume, hope, pray or file an AMICUS brief with the 2nd District Court, that the court allows anti trust suits (ala McNeil) to be filed.

That's the fastest way to a solution.
I want this lockout to end and to see some hockey this year but not if the owners accept an agreement that does not close the loopholes that permit cap circumvention. If they do that then that will ensure that
there will be another lockout when the next CBA elapses.

The correction of these loopholes along with bringing down the revenue split was the reason for this lockout and it is something that needs to be done for the good of the league.

pepty is offline  
Old
12-17-2012, 10:30 AM
  #52
y2kcanucks
Cult of Personality
 
y2kcanucks's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Surrey, BC
Country: Canada
Posts: 47,392
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to y2kcanucks
Quote:
Originally Posted by DuklaNation View Post
While I'm supporting the owners side mostly in this situation, I wouldn't call myself pro-owner. I'm pro-healthy league. Living in Toronto, this cap system doesnt benefit our team, quite the opposite.
I don't think the cap "system" works for any team in the league actually. While yes, it prevents teams like Toronto from spending higher which the Leafs very well could afford, player costs relative to revenues for teams like Florida and Phoenix are made to be significantly higher than 57% (or even 50%) due to the ever rising cap floor. The gap in league revenues between the top teams and bottom teams is just too significant for a system like this to work with player costs this high, but at the same time that shouldn't be the players concern either.

__________________
http://www.vancitynitetours.com
y2kcanucks is offline  
Old
12-17-2012, 10:35 AM
  #53
atomic
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 287
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by DuklaNation View Post
While I'm supporting the owners side mostly in this situation, I wouldn't call myself pro-owner. I'm pro-healthy league. Living in Toronto, this cap system doesnt benefit our team, quite the opposite.
Funny I don't remember the Maple Leafs even making the finals when there wasn't a cap. I think you are overestimating the non-cap helping teams with huge sums of money to spend. Certainly didn't help the Rangers.

atomic is offline  
Old
12-17-2012, 10:40 AM
  #54
MoreOrr
B4
 
MoreOrr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Mexico
Country: Canada
Posts: 19,452
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by atomic View Post
It is obvious that the players at the top of the salary scheme are greedy. why do the european players come to this country to play hockey when their are leagues in their own countries? Because they get paid a lot more money here. They would get paid enough in their own countries to have a decent life. It is pure greed that they come here.

perhaps if the owners introduced something into bargaining limiting each team to 1 foreign player the greedy foreign players would want to settle.
I don't see anything wrong with players or anyone going wherever to get the best deal they can. But demanding more than what your employer is willing or able to offer, when you're already earning top $... Come on! Give me a justifiable reason.

MoreOrr is offline  
Old
12-17-2012, 10:43 AM
  #55
Crease
Registered User
 
Crease's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 9,833
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by MoreOrr View Post
I don't see anything wrong with players or anyone going wherever to get the best deal they can. But demanding more than what your employer is willing or able to offer, when you're already earning top $... Come on! Give me a justifiable reason.
I think it's fairly obvious that the NHLPA doesn't take the NHL's claims of insolvency at face value.

Crease is offline  
Old
12-17-2012, 10:46 AM
  #56
y2kcanucks
Cult of Personality
 
y2kcanucks's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Surrey, BC
Country: Canada
Posts: 47,392
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to y2kcanucks
Quote:
Originally Posted by Crease View Post
I think it's fairly obvious that the NHLPA doesn't take the NHL's claims of insolvency at face value.
I think the PA's argument is "hey, look at how rich Toronto is, either set up shop on similar markets (Quebec, Hamilton, etc. or have them share some of their revenue with the weaker clubs." And I don't blame them. Why should the players have to finance these nontraditional markets?

y2kcanucks is offline  
Old
12-17-2012, 10:57 AM
  #57
cbcwpg
Registered User
 
cbcwpg's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Between the Pipes
Country: United Nations
Posts: 6,392
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by y2kcanucks View Post
I think the PA's argument is "hey, look at how rich Toronto is, either set up shop on similar markets (Quebec, Hamilton, etc. or have them share some of their revenue with the weaker clubs." And I don't blame them. Why should the players have to finance these nontraditional markets?
The reason there are 600+ jobs for these players is because there are 30 teams, some of which happen to be in non-traditional markets. If the players are so against having to have lower salaries to help finance these markets and their jobs, they should go to Fehr and tell him to tell Bettman that 10 teams need to be contracted immediately because the players don't want to work at a reduced wage to keep these markets viable.

cbcwpg is offline  
Old
12-17-2012, 10:58 AM
  #58
MoreOrr
B4
 
MoreOrr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Mexico
Country: Canada
Posts: 19,452
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by y2kcanucks View Post
I think the PA's argument is "hey, look at how rich Toronto is, either set up shop on similar markets (Quebec, Hamilton, etc. or have them share some of their revenue with the weaker clubs." And I don't blame them. Why should the players have to finance these nontraditional markets?
You and others like you are making those arguments. I haven't heard of a single player making such arguments. And besides, it doesn't matter because your argument is seriously flawed. Even Vancouver doesn't make anywhere near the same kind of profits as does Toronto. And even if Toronto somehow split its market share with another team in Toronto, then still that would lower the League average in revenue and the players would still be paid less as a result. But primarily, some of you are simply using this situation to bolster your own personal little agenda, because no one in the League, not the Maple Leaf ownership or other high earning teams, nor the players themselves are making these kinds of demands.

MoreOrr is offline  
Old
12-17-2012, 11:00 AM
  #59
DuklaNation
Registered User
 
DuklaNation's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 2,829
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by atomic View Post
Funny I don't remember the Maple Leafs even making the finals when there wasn't a cap. I think you are overestimating the non-cap helping teams with huge sums of money to spend. Certainly didn't help the Rangers.
Finals? Havent even made the playoffs in how long? Are you stating that one of the most profitable teams in the league would be better off without that advantage under a cap? LOL. Doesnt guarantee success, but it definitely helps to be able to spend a lot more than the current model. Anyways, your line of argument is seriously flawed.

DuklaNation is offline  
Old
12-17-2012, 11:00 AM
  #60
MoreOrr
B4
 
MoreOrr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Mexico
Country: Canada
Posts: 19,452
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Crease View Post
I think it's fairly obvious that the NHLPA doesn't take the NHL's claims of insolvency at face value.
Yes, that's one of the serious options. But if this goes to court, then both sides will have to prove their case, I'd imagine.

MoreOrr is offline  
Old
12-17-2012, 11:11 AM
  #61
atomic
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 287
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by y2kcanucks View Post
I think the PA's argument is "hey, look at how rich Toronto is, either set up shop on similar markets (Quebec, Hamilton, etc. or have them share some of their revenue with the weaker clubs." And I don't blame them. Why should the players have to finance these nontraditional markets?
Quebec City is similar to Toronto? Come one be serious. Players didn't want to play in Quebec City when they had a team. Look how Edmonton couldn't hold on to players even after winning all those cups. Dallas was a great place to play for players when they were doing better as players don't have to pay state tax. Players couldn't wait to get out of traditional markets a few years back.

atomic is offline  
Old
12-17-2012, 11:17 AM
  #62
atomic
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 287
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by DuklaNation View Post
Finals? Havent even made the playoffs in how long? Are you stating that one of the most profitable teams in the league would be better off without that advantage under a cap? LOL. Doesnt guarantee success, but it definitely helps to be able to spend a lot more than the current model. Anyways, your line of argument is seriously flawed.
Of course Toronto wants a cap they make a lot of money that way. That is the goal of a business. The Maple Leafs didn't have a winning season for what 78 through 93. They only made the playoffs because everyone did back then. I don't even remember a bunch of big stars signing with the maple leafs when there was no cap. Other than Mogilny who did they sign?

atomic is offline  
Old
12-17-2012, 11:23 AM
  #63
MoreOrr
B4
 
MoreOrr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Mexico
Country: Canada
Posts: 19,452
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by atomic View Post
Of course Toronto wants a cap they make a lot of money that way. That is the goal of a business. The Maple Leafs didn't have a winning season for what 78 through 93. They only made the playoffs because everyone did back then. I don't even remember a bunch of big stars signing with the maple leafs when there was no cap. Other than Mogilny who did they sign?
The Maple Leafs making huge profits when apparently they don't do enough to be competitive, or a team like Dallas doing well when the on-ice product is strong and struggling when the on-ice product is weak... I don't know which situation makes more sense. Should teams in markets, where the fans are more discriminating depending on the quality of hockey, not exist because teams in a market like Toronto will have fans paying big bucks regardless? It would seem logical to me that the Dallas situation should be more common or more the norm.

MoreOrr is offline  
Old
12-17-2012, 11:27 AM
  #64
Crease
Registered User
 
Crease's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 9,833
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by MoreOrr View Post
You and others like you are making those arguments. I haven't heard of a single player making such arguments. And besides, it doesn't matter because your argument is seriously flawed. Even Vancouver doesn't make anywhere near the same kind of profits as does Toronto. And even if Toronto somehow split its market share with another team in Toronto, then still that would lower the League average in revenue and the players would still be paid less as a result. But primarily, some of you are simply using this situation to bolster your own personal little agenda, because no one in the League, not the Maple Leaf ownership or other high earning teams, nor the players themselves are making these kinds of demands.
Fehr actually expressed a similar sentiment back in October, when asked why revenue sharing is so important to the NHLPA.

Quote:
Q: Why is the concept of revenue sharing so important to the players?

A: Three reasons. First, unless you have an enormous portion of your revenues centrally generated – like the NFL – you are a local revenue sport, and you have the likelihood, if not the virtual certainty, that you will have a disparity in revenues. In hockey, you have a wider disparity than in any other sport as far as I can tell. What that means is that the problems the owners complain of tend to be focused on the teams that have the lower revenue. So, the question is: Are the higher revenue teams going to be willing to help out, in whole or meaningful part, the weaker teams? You have to remember that if you get to be a team in the NHL, you didn’t just decide to set up shop and join the league. Somebody had to agree that you could have a franchise, they had to agree on the purchase price, where you’re going to be, what the circumstances are … what your capital requirements would be and what your lending limits will be. They all have responsibility for one another. The second point is, from a bargaining standpoint, when things don’t go well, where does the responsibility lie and where should those teams look for help? We think the other teams ought to be in the business of doing that. Third, one of the things that makes negotiations tremendously difficult is for somebody to say in effect: ‘We have teams that aren’t doing so well, so let’s lower salaries on the teams that aren’t doing so well so we will be comfortable with it. Forget whether any management failure had a part in it. But we’re also going to lower the salaries on the teams that are making very large profits by the same amount.’ That sort of means we’re going to pay the players based on the worst performing, least efficient, most undercapitalized teams. That’s not the way markets are supposed to work. Prices are supposed to be set by the other end of the scale.

Q: Canadian teams are doing well now, and one of the things you hear up here is, ‘Why don’t they just fold teams like Phoenix?’ Why is it important to the players that those teams survive? What if rosters of the remaining teams were expanded to prevent job loss?

A: My understanding is that the NHL went to the so-called southern strategy in an attempt to develop a national footprint in the U.S. for the purposes of a much larger national TV contract. There are a lot of people who think that strategy failed. From the players’ standpoint, we want a healthy league with as many teams as we can have and that raises two questions: If a team in city A could be doing much better in city B, and the fact that it’s still in city A is causing us labour problems, why don’t we move it? Atlanta moving to Winnipeg and getting rid of those problems is an example of that. The second question in bargaining is: If a team is kept in a city in which it is not doing very well, and there is another place it could be relocated and do better and make labour relations and everything else easier, and the decision is to leave it in the first city, whose responsibility is that and who ought to bear the cost for it? Those questions from our standpoint have self-evident answers.
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/sport...3338/?page=all


Last edited by Crease: 12-17-2012 at 11:33 AM.
Crease is offline  
Old
12-17-2012, 11:28 AM
  #65
Killion
Global Moderator
 
Killion's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Casablanca
Country: Morocco
Posts: 23,201
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by atomic View Post
Quebec City is similar to Toronto? Come one be serious. Players didn't want to play in Quebec City when they had a team. Look how Edmonton couldn't hold on to players even after winning all those cups. Dallas was a great place to play for players when they were doing better as players don't have to pay state tax. Players couldn't wait to get out of traditional markets a few years back.
Thats really not y2kcanucks argument though atomic. He's simply suggesting that teams that after a decade or more who still find themselves unable to gain traction, be it a failure of ownership and or the market itself simply failing to respond on a consistent basis be moved to areas that though not as successful & wealthy as a Toronto would at least be able to hold their own without having to rely upon revenue sharing.

Though I personally would rather see increased revenue sharing, the league staying pat in all of the locations (including Phx) in which they are presently located, teams added through Expansion to markets like Seattle, Portland, Houston (and yes eventually back to Atlanta); QC, Markham & Hamilton, if after exhausting all avenues theres nothing for it but Relocation, then so be it, and with the exception of Phoenix, I dont believe were anywhere near that point with any other franchise, though tell ya what, this Lockout may well be the tipping point for several more. If their already living on the edge, it's going to take several years for them to fully recover as it is with 1/2 a season gone. This thing drags on & out, possibly even into next Christmas, recovery at all may be completely impossible. Bankruptcy & Reorganization, possible Contraction, Relocation the only options.

Killion is offline  
Old
12-17-2012, 11:28 AM
  #66
crazyforhockey
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 5,582
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by atomic View Post
Funny I don't remember the Maple Leafs even making the finals when there wasn't a cap. I think you are overestimating the non-cap helping teams with huge sums of money to spend. Certainly didn't help the Rangers.
that had more to do with bad mangement......spend for the top avaliable FA not thinking about grit or chemistry..,,,,,,,,

crazyforhockey is offline  
Old
12-17-2012, 11:37 AM
  #67
atomic
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 287
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Killion View Post
Thats really not y2kcanucks argument though atomic. He's simply suggesting that teams that after a decade or more who still find themselves unable to gain traction, be it a failure of ownership and or the market itself simply failing to respond on a consistent basis be moved to areas that though not as successful & wealthy as a Toronto would at least be able to hold their own without having to rely upon revenue sharing.

Though I personally would rather see increased revenue sharing, the league staying pat in all of the locations (including Phx) in which they are presently located, teams added through Expansion to markets like Seattle, Portland, Houston (and yes eventually back to Atlanta); QC, Markham & Hamilton, if after exhausting all avenues theres nothing for it but Relocation, then so be it, and with the exception of Phoenix, I dont believe were anywhere near that point with any other franchise, though tell ya what, this Lockout may well be the tipping point for several more. If their already living on the edge, it's going to take several years for them to fully recover as it is with 1/2 a season gone. This thing drags on & out, possibly even into next Christmas, recovery at all may be completely impossible. Bankruptcy & Reorganization, possible Contraction, Relocation the only options.
Teams can't just move. they have leases. You can't just contract teams. People paid for the teams. I just don't get how all these canadian people on this forum think the answer is moving teams. I am sure same canadian fans didn't like it when teams in winnipeg and quebec city moved out and there was talk of moving edmonton or calgary. No one here in the US was saying get rid of the canadian teams last lock out.

Why do you guys over value your markets so much? Don't you realize the only reason you guys are supporting your teams now is becuase GW and Obama have devalued the US dollar so much by borrowing money and cutting taxes? It doesn't have anything to do with more loyal fans. If the US government fixes things by raising taxes and cutting expenditures in a few weeks you will be right back to where you were a few years ago.

Failing franchised, contraction, and moving franchises around isn't good for the league. The teams are not competing each other. They are competing against other sports leagues and other entertainment sources. The Capitals sell out every game at exorbitant prices and own their building and evidently they are still losing money.

atomic is offline  
Old
12-17-2012, 11:38 AM
  #68
Melrose Munch
Registered User
 
Melrose Munch's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 14,465
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by atomic View Post
Quebec City is similar to Toronto? Come one be serious. Players didn't want to play in Quebec City when they had a team. Look how Edmonton couldn't hold on to players even after winning all those cups. Dallas was a great place to play for players when they were doing better as players don't have to pay state tax. Players couldn't wait to get out of traditional markets a few years back.
This is the only true point you have made and a lot of Canadians forget this. The Cap does not change the fact people are not aching to come to Edmonton or other places in Western Canada.

Quote:
Originally Posted by atomic View Post
Of course Toronto wants a cap they make a lot of money that way. That is the goal of a business. The Maple Leafs didn't have a winning season for what 78 through 93. They only made the playoffs because everyone did back then. I don't even remember a bunch of big stars signing with the maple leafs when there was no cap. Other than Mogilny who did they sign?
Okay, stop. Leafs went to the conference finals three times since 1990. The fans enjoyed. Who are you to tell them otherwise.

Melrose Munch is offline  
Old
12-17-2012, 11:38 AM
  #69
crazyforhockey
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 5,582
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by atomic View Post
Quebec City is similar to Toronto? Come one be serious. Players didn't want to play in Quebec City when they had a team. Look how Edmonton couldn't hold on to players even after winning all those cups. Dallas was a great place to play for players when they were doing better as players don't have to pay state tax. Players couldn't wait to get out of traditional markets a few years back.
probably the BIGGEST thing would be the elimination of a draft.

teams that are struggling finacially or performance wise would get the latest top young players unless they were willing to spend the highest dollars for those unproven players.........also those player may no longer come with there cheap 1st contracts.....


will be hard to get that "franchise player" for some teams.



parity would fail



expenses/salaries rise dramitically




would be intresting to see how players pick their teams ie local teams or favorite teams....which could create more seperation of teams.


would be intresting if some teams with hardline owners would fail in drawing new talent?....................ie like a JJ type guy......although his team is set for awhile.

crazyforhockey is offline  
Old
12-17-2012, 11:39 AM
  #70
Melrose Munch
Registered User
 
Melrose Munch's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 14,465
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by atomic View Post
Teams can't just move. they have leases. You can't just contract teams. People paid for the teams. I just don't get how all these canadian people on this forum think the answer is moving teams. I am sure same canadian fans didn't like it when teams in winnipeg and quebec city moved out and there was talk of moving edmonton or calgary. No one here in the US was saying get rid of the canadian teams last lock out.

Why do you guys over value your markets so much? Don't you realize the only reason you guys are supporting your teams now is becuase GW and Obama have devalued the US dollar so much by borrowing money and cutting taxes? It doesn't have anything to do with more loyal fans. If the US government fixes things by raising taxes and cutting expenditures in a few weeks you will be right back to where you were a few years ago.

Failing franchised, contraction, and moving franchises around isn't good for the league. The teams are not competing each other. They are competing against other sports leagues and other entertainment sources. The Capitals sell out every game at exorbitant prices and own their building and evidently they are still losing money.
What does this have to do with Killion's post or Toronto and Montreal. What you say is right but the tone is ridiculous. Of course things will go back to normal when the US economy becomes better. But we have a cap for better or worse to protect small Canadian markets.

Melrose Munch is offline  
Old
12-17-2012, 11:39 AM
  #71
MoreOrr
B4
 
MoreOrr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Mexico
Country: Canada
Posts: 19,452
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Crease View Post
Fehr actually expressed a similar sentiment back in October, when asked why revenue sharing is so important to the NHLPA.



http://www.theglobeandmail.com/sport...3338/?page=all
Seriously, it doesn't surprise me that such an argument came from Fehr. Fehr would obviously promote such an argument because it only takes into consideration his immediate constituency, separate from all other considerations. He'd even tell the players... Don't you worry about the League, you just worry about yourselves. Put the burden on them, you shouldn't take any of the economic burden... Not a very business-focused perspective, of course, because that's not his role. His role is to fight for the union, and unfortunately throw up as many conflict points as he can in the process. Because ultimately, if you're not fighting for the same goals then you're fighting in opposition to each other. And that exactly describes the League and the players as it currently stands.

MoreOrr is offline  
Old
12-17-2012, 11:44 AM
  #72
crazyforhockey
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 5,582
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by atomic View Post
Teams can't just move. they have leases. You can't just contract teams. People paid for the teams. I just don't get how all these canadian people on this forum think the answer is moving teams. I am sure same canadian fans didn't like it when teams in winnipeg and quebec city moved out and there was talk of moving edmonton or calgary. No one here in the US was saying get rid of the canadian teams last lock out.

Why do you guys over value your markets so much? Don't you realize the only reason you guys are supporting your teams now is becuase GW and Obama have devalued the US dollar so much by borrowing money and cutting taxes? It doesn't have anything to do with more loyal fans. If the US government fixes things by raising taxes and cutting expenditures in a few weeks you will be right back to where you were a few years ago.

Failing franchised, contraction, and moving franchises around isn't good for the league. The teams are not competing each other. They are competing against other sports leagues and other entertainment sources. The Capitals sell out every game at exorbitant prices and own their building and evidently they are still losing money.
some really good points about how us Cdns overvalue the support at the arena.Or the dollar which is key



flip side you cant discount the majority of the population are hockey fans first and foremost(or that a huge amount of local population will watch games )......and the fsct of how important it is to field a winning team to keep promoting a Cdn based franchise

crazyforhockey is offline  
Old
12-17-2012, 11:44 AM
  #73
Melrose Munch
Registered User
 
Melrose Munch's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 14,465
vCash: 500
atomic is partially right about players not exactly jumping to play in Canada. Basically the only Canadian teams that gets FA's is Toronto. The Edmonton crap with Pronger last until 2010 and that was the cap era. People, especially the younger guys are not jumping up to play in Edmonton. These guys grow up and they want to live in warmer climates. Look at the stink the yotes made two years ago about moving to Winnipeg. It was unnecessary but we got to see what the average Canadian think once they get a taste of the constant sunshine and low taxes. Canadians need to be serious and realize all that stuff that's said is probably true. It was telling that players thought there should be a second Toronto team.

Melrose Munch is offline  
Old
12-17-2012, 11:46 AM
  #74
Melrose Munch
Registered User
 
Melrose Munch's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 14,465
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by y2kcanucks View Post
I don't think the cap "system" works for any team in the league actually. While yes, it prevents teams like Toronto from spending higher which the Leafs very well could afford, player costs relative to revenues for teams like Florida and Phoenix are made to be significantly higher than 57% (or even 50%) due to the ever rising cap floor. The gap in league revenues between the top teams and bottom teams is just too significant for a system like this to work with player costs this high, but at the same time that shouldn't be the players concern either.
This is what happens when you biggest market is in the tank and your hockey producer is up on a petro dollar. Lowering the players costs will do nothing because then the owners will find something to ***** about.

Melrose Munch is offline  
Old
12-17-2012, 11:54 AM
  #75
dronald
Registered User
 
dronald's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Hamilton, ON
Posts: 1,165
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by atomic View Post
Teams can't just move. they have leases. You can't just contract teams. People paid for the teams. I just don't get how all these canadian people on this forum think the answer is moving teams. I am sure same canadian fans didn't like it when teams in winnipeg and quebec city moved out and there was talk of moving edmonton or calgary. No one here in the US was saying get rid of the canadian teams last lock out.

Why do you guys over value your markets so much? Don't you realize the only reason you guys are supporting your teams now is becuase GW and Obama have devalued the US dollar so much by borrowing money and cutting taxes? It doesn't have anything to do with more loyal fans. If the US government fixes things by raising taxes and cutting expenditures in a few weeks you will be right back to where you were a few years ago.

Failing franchised, contraction, and moving franchises around isn't good for the league. The teams are not competing each other. They are competing against other sports leagues and other entertainment sources. The Capitals sell out every game at exorbitant prices and own their building and evidently they are still losing money.
It also doesn't help that no one gives a damn about Hockey in some of the cities that teams reside.

dronald 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 06:37 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.