HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > General Hockey Discussion > The Business of Hockey
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.

Simple Question, why is Bob Goodenow so dead set against a hard cap?

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
10-20-2004, 11:47 AM
  #26
Buffaloed
Administrator
Webmaster
 
Buffaloed's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Buffalo, NY
Country: United States
Posts: 24,934
vCash: 1390
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stich
You're reading into something that's not there.
What's not there is a proposal by the NHL to annually adjust their cap based on revenues. If the NHL would simply say, we'll give the players 50+% of all revenues, as defined by the NHL and NHLPA, for better or worse, every year, I'd be 100% behind them. If the NHL is in fact proposing that, they should make it clear. Then we can argue about how to define what constitutes revenues.

Buffaloed is offline  
Old
10-20-2004, 11:49 AM
  #27
Buffaloed
Administrator
Webmaster
 
Buffaloed's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Buffalo, NY
Country: United States
Posts: 24,934
vCash: 1390
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stich
I'm not sure where all this $31M stuff came from, but 50% of revenues is $35M.
and a $1.3 million average salary for a 23 man roster only adds up to $29.9 million... it must be the new math. :lol

Buffaloed is offline  
Old
10-20-2004, 11:54 AM
  #28
degroat*
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: http://nhl.degroat.n
Posts: 8,108
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Buffaloed
and a $1.3 million average salary for a 23 man roster only adds up to $29.9 million... it must be the new math. :lol
What Daly said was that the 6 proposals would ensure that the average salary would exceed $1.3M... meaning that the cap would never be below the $29.9 you just mentioned.

degroat* is offline  
Old
10-20-2004, 11:57 AM
  #29
degroat*
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: http://nhl.degroat.n
Posts: 8,108
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Buffaloed
What's not there is a proposal by the NHL to annually adjust their cap based on revenues. If the NHL would simply say, we'll give the players 50+% of all revenues, as defined by the NHL and NHLPA, for better or worse, every year, I'd be 100% behind them. If the NHL is in fact proposing that, they should make it clear. Then we can argue about how to define what constitutes revenues.
The NHL is simply saying exactly what you're asking for. What I don't understand is why you're assuming that when they say it that they only mean for the 1st year of the CBA.

degroat* is offline  
Old
10-20-2004, 11:58 AM
  #30
copperandblue
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 10,724
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Buffaloed
Better question is where are you getting your information? I try to keep up with it all, but there's a lot out there. I haven't seen anything from the NHL that offers to adjust their cap commensurate with revenues on an annual basis.
I don't know, this Bettman comment seems pretty clear. Or maybe it's just the way I am interpreting it.

Q. Under your proposed systems the League would become profitable, you talk about wanting a partnership with the players. Would you consider including players in profit sharing?

COMMISSIONER BETTMAN: Absolutely. Actually, when you start with a premise that they get 53 cents of every dollar you take in, that would do it. But I am prepared to negotiate a level of profit, and if we're more profitable than that, we should share. Absolutely.


http://www.nhlcbanews.com/transcript..._qa091504.html

Not only does he reference the percentage to dollar revenue he even goes as far as to say that an extended profit sharing could be negotiated into the CBA.

Either way he definately doesn't talk as if he is expecting a hard 31 mil per team for the life of the CBA...which is what I got out of your post.

copperandblue is offline  
Old
10-20-2004, 12:02 PM
  #31
degroat*
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: http://nhl.degroat.n
Posts: 8,108
vCash: 500
At 53%, the cap would be $37.1M.

If that's not a solid starting point, I don't know what is.

degroat* is offline  
Old
10-20-2004, 12:06 PM
  #32
Buffaloed
Administrator
Webmaster
 
Buffaloed's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Buffalo, NY
Country: United States
Posts: 24,934
vCash: 1390
Quote:
Originally Posted by copperandblue
I don't know, this Bettman comment seems pretty clear. Or maybe it's just the way I am interpreting it.

Q. Under your proposed systems the League would become profitable, you talk about wanting a partnership with the players. Would you consider including players in profit sharing?

COMMISSIONER BETTMAN: Absolutely. Actually, when you start with a premise that they get 53 cents of every dollar you take in, that would do it. But I am prepared to negotiate a level of profit, and if we're more profitable than that, we should share. Absolutely.


http://www.nhlcbanews.com/transcript..._qa091504.html

Not only does he reference the percentage to dollar revenue he even goes as far as to say that an extended profit sharing could be negotiated into the CBA.

Either way he definately doesn't talk as if he is expecting a hard 31 mil per team for the life of the CBA...which is what I got out of your post.

Looks good to me. That's why I was asking for a source/link. I can only go by what I know, and now I know something new. I can't see any reason why the players aren't latching onto this and trying to frame a proposal around it.

Buffaloed is offline  
Old
10-20-2004, 12:07 PM
  #33
shadoz19
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 1,768
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stich
At 53%, the cap would be $37.1M.

If that's not a solid starting point, I don't know what is.
I'd have to go back and reread some stuff, but I think when Gary Bettman says 55% of revenues, he's talking about player costs which would be a lot more than just salaries.

shadoz19 is offline  
Old
10-20-2004, 12:12 PM
  #34
degroat*
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: http://nhl.degroat.n
Posts: 8,108
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by shadoz19
I'd have to go back and reread some stuff, but I think when Gary Bettman says 55% of revenues, he's talking about player costs which would be a lot more than just salaries.
I think you're mixing a couple things up here. I think most people think that when he says that 76% of revenues are going to players that other things are included. A salary cap would only include their salaries.

degroat* is offline  
Old
10-20-2004, 01:21 PM
  #35
Kickabrat
WHAT - ME WORRY?
 
Kickabrat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Ottawa
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,902
vCash: 500
$31M for 23 players = $1.348M or as Betteman said $1.3M.

Betteman has said (see his chat on the NHL site) that there is no compromise on this, he will not consider a luxury tax.

What happens if a team is hit by a rash of injuries and needs to go over the cap just to get enough players to field a team? What are the penalties for going over the cap?

What happens if the owners decide they will lower ticket prices by 75%? Without a salary floor, the owners are still guaranteed a profit, the players on the other hand get screwed.

Just some of the questions that need answering but that will only be addressed if/when the PA agrees to a cap. After that, the answers to these and many other questions will need to be negotiated. So even if they agree to a cap, the "fine print" could still be deal breakers.

Let's face it, this season is toast.

Kickabrat is online now  
Old
10-20-2004, 03:56 PM
  #36
mr gib
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: vancouver
Country: Canada
Posts: 5,777
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Go Flames Go
Bob is a dumb, and out of touch with reality, and has no education, and is leeching off the players huge salaries, and now hes used to drinking 500 dollar glasses of orange juice he cant give it up.

Hes gonna be fired anways because, the Owners will win, we will survive, and the cap hard cap will be enforced. He better watch his mouth too, Harley Hotchkiss might clap him.
when its all over - said and done - the players will continue to make as much money as they can -
the sathers - illitches - and so on will circumvent any system to get the guys they want - actually i think the players should agree to the - hard cap - and put the screws to them on every other issue - when the cap is agreed to just watch the signing bonus' -

mr gib is offline  
Old
10-20-2004, 05:31 PM
  #37
OlTimeHockey
Registered User
 
OlTimeHockey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: home
Country: China
Posts: 15,783
vCash: 500
Amen.....the rookie cap is the big one IMO, Start them off millionaires and there's no where to go but up. Arbitration has to go both ways....owners have to be able to correct the CuJo and Yashin debacles. Maybe offer free agency w/compensation or the arbitor's figure. This is just rediculous as it is.

OlTimeHockey is offline  
Old
10-20-2004, 05:38 PM
  #38
mr gib
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: vancouver
Country: Canada
Posts: 5,777
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by OlTimeHockey
Amen.....the rookie cap is the big one IMO, Start them off millionaires and there's no where to go but up. Arbitration has to go both ways....owners have to be able to correct the CuJo and Yashin debacles. Maybe offer free agency w/compensation or the arbitor's figure. This is just rediculous as it is.
yes arbitration was where the owners got whipped - when the deal in 94 was struck all was supposed to be well - this is a question for tom benjamin - how did the players out smart the owners so bad on arbitration? - i e - loopholes in the cba -

mr gib is offline  
Old
10-20-2004, 06:47 PM
  #39
Buffaloed
Administrator
Webmaster
 
Buffaloed's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Buffalo, NY
Country: United States
Posts: 24,934
vCash: 1390
Quote:
Originally Posted by OlTimeHockey
Amen.....the rookie cap is the big one IMO, Start them off millionaires and there's no where to go but up. Arbitration has to go both ways....owners have to be able to correct the CuJo and Yashin debacles. Maybe offer free agency w/compensation or the arbitor's figure. This is just rediculous as it is.
Restricted free agency is just as big. Having to give a 10% raises to RFA's making less than the average salary is super inflationary. There has to be a new standard if restricted free agency is to be a part of a new CBA. The rookie problem could be solved by keeping the current cap and taking away their leverage. The only reason teams overpay rookies is because they can reenter the draft and/or become UFA's. Take away those options and the only competition to sign rookies is from European leagues.

Buffaloed is offline  
Old
10-20-2004, 07:50 PM
  #40
degroat*
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: http://nhl.degroat.n
Posts: 8,108
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by mr gib
when its all over - said and done - the players will continue to make as much money as they can -
the sathers - illitches - and so on will circumvent any system to get the guys they want - actually i think the players should agree to the - hard cap - and put the screws to them on every other issue - when the cap is agreed to just watch the signing bonus' -
I'm - not - exactly - sure - what - you - just - said - because - you - seem - to - be - unable - to - speak - in - sentences, but I think you just insinuated that GM's will find ways around the cap and that signing bonuses wouldn't count towards the cap.

Both are 100% incorrect.

1. Any cap instituted would not include any loopholes.

2. Signing bonuses would count towards the cap.

degroat* is offline  
Old
10-20-2004, 08:14 PM
  #41
mr gib
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: vancouver
Country: Canada
Posts: 5,777
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stich
I'm - not - exactly - sure - what - you - just - said - because - you - seem - to - be - unable - to - speak - in - sentences, but I think you just insinuated that GM's will find ways around the cap and that signing bonuses wouldn't count towards the cap.

Both are 100% incorrect.

1. Any cap instituted would not include any loopholes.

2. Signing bonuses would count towards the cap.
sorry about that i'll try better. thanks for the info so i guess its back to refusing to buckle.

mr gib is offline  
Old
10-20-2004, 08:16 PM
  #42
Sotnos
Registered User
 
Sotnos's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Not here
Posts: 10,900
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by copperandblue
Not only does he reference the percentage to dollar revenue he even goes as far as to say that an extended profit sharing could be negotiated into the CBA.
They had Bill Daly on the radio here a little bit ago, (mostly the usual blah blah) and he very specifically said all owners are willing to share revenues in a "meaningful way". He also said they're looking to have a partnership with players on all issues, including rules and ways to improve the game.

He was asked if the players are disputing the fact that players are getting 76% of revenues at the current time. Daly said they haven't disputed that directly (because they acknowledge that the NHL brings in $2 billion a year and know what their cut of that pie is) and that the League's revenue streams are "not complicated and are very easy to follow".

Don't shoot me, I'm just the messenger and present this as food for thought.

Sotnos is offline  
Old
10-20-2004, 09:38 PM
  #43
19Yzerman19
Registered User
 
19Yzerman19's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Country: United States
Posts: 1,697
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by T@T
Dissagree,the current system could have worked if it wasn't for a few select owners with full pockets and empty heads (one of which is in your city of detroit)

I don't have a problem with Bettman at all and the fan polls agree.
I'm just curious what Free Agent did Detroit ever sign that screwed up the Salary Scale???

If resigning your own players or players that you have traded for is wrong then the league should just shut the doors for good right now.

19Yzerman19 is offline  
Old
10-21-2004, 01:42 AM
  #44
chriss_co
Registered User
 
chriss_co's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: CALGARY
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,769
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by SteveYzermanGreatest
I'm just curious what Free Agent did Detroit ever sign that screwed up the Salary Scale???

If resigning your own players or players that you have traded for is wrong then the league should just shut the doors for good right now.
Ray Whitney... Derian Hatcher.... Luc Robitaille's was nuts...

Cujo..... Hasek.....

chriss_co is offline  
Old
10-21-2004, 01:51 AM
  #45
OlliMackBjugStud
Registered User
 
OlliMackBjugStud's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,651
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by chriss_co
Luc Robitaille's was nuts...
Luc's contract had zero bearing on any other single contract in the entire NHL. He is hardly a benchmark player.

The only team that was hurt by an over inlflated Luc Robataille was the Detroit Red Wings. Whats the problem with that ? You think these two options are better for you the fan ?

1: Mike Illitch keeps the money in his pocket
or
2: They spend the money on2 or 3 cheap and versatile players instead of the 1 expensive and not so good Robataille.

Seems fine to me if they want to sign the Robataille's and Whitney's of the world. Would you really rather your team had its "turn" to sign Ray Whitney or Luc Robataille (or Uwe Krupp).

Blech, let them spend the money.

DR

OlliMackBjugStud 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 11:00 AM.

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

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