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, NHL revenues, relocation and expansion.

Can Ottawa keep their core with a cap or without one?

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
11-10-2004, 03:20 PM
  #76
degroat*
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: http://nhl.degroat.n
Posts: 8,108
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by vanlady
Wrong, every major franchise organization in North America has a fiscal resposibility clause. It gives the franchisor the right to shut you down or fine you if you run a deficit. This is not a cap, it is called a budget, something that every responsible business has. Vancouver, Edmonton, Boston and other teams run this way why not the big boys too?
I'd appreciate some proof that the NHL has such a clause. Thanks.

degroat* is offline  
Old
11-10-2004, 03:24 PM
  #77
dawgbone
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Country: Canada
Posts: 21,104
vCash: 500
Send a message via ICQ to dawgbone Send a message via MSN to dawgbone
Quote:
Originally Posted by vanlady
Share revenues with a strict luxury tax and the league will be fine.
Sure, why not.

Oh... wait... the players don't want that. A strict tax works too much like a cap in their minds.

__________________
TheSpecialist - MacT thinks he was that good of a hockey player when in actuality he was no better then a Louie Debrusk.
dawgbone is offline  
Old
11-10-2004, 03:28 PM
  #78
John Flyers Fan
Registered User
 
John Flyers Fan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Country: United States
Posts: 22,394
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by dawgbone
Sure, why not.

Oh... wait... the players don't want that. A strict tax works too much like a cap in their minds.
The players have propose a luxury tax and Bettman has said that a luxury tax does not work.

John Flyers Fan is offline  
Old
11-10-2004, 03:43 PM
  #79
dawgbone
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Country: Canada
Posts: 21,104
vCash: 500
Send a message via ICQ to dawgbone Send a message via MSN to dawgbone
Quote:
Originally Posted by John Flyers Fan
The players have propose a luxury tax and Bettman has said that a luxury tax does not work.
Not at 20% on the dollar, and the union has already said that it views a stiff tax as a cap.

dawgbone is offline  
Old
11-10-2004, 03:45 PM
  #80
John Flyers Fan
Registered User
 
John Flyers Fan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Country: United States
Posts: 22,394
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by dawgbone
Not at 20% on the dollar, and the union has already said that it views a stiff tax as a cap.
The Owners viewed the last proposal by the Union as having too much revenue sharing.

John Flyers Fan is offline  
Old
11-10-2004, 03:45 PM
  #81
degroat*
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: http://nhl.degroat.n
Posts: 8,108
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by John Flyers Fan
The players have propose a luxury tax and Bettman has said that a luxury tax does not work.
Even if the owner would accept a tax, hinting that the league might accept one would be a mistake on Bettman's part.

degroat* is offline  
Old
11-10-2004, 03:47 PM
  #82
John Flyers Fan
Registered User
 
John Flyers Fan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Country: United States
Posts: 22,394
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stich
Even if the owner would accept a tax, hinting that the league might accept one would be a mistake on Bettman's part.
And that's why we'll have no hockey this year.

A stiff luxury tax would be a better option for the NHL than a hard cap IMO. The luxury tax provides money for revenue sharing, while the a salary cap does not.

John Flyers Fan is offline  
Old
11-10-2004, 04:07 PM
  #83
copperandblue
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 10,724
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by vanlady
I have a question then, why doesn't the league just put in franchise financial rules about deficits and just skip the CBA issue all together. It's not like other franchise companies don't do it. Force GM's and owners into living within a budget, institute revenue sharing and the issue is taken care of without messing with the CBA
Doesn't such a proposal fly in face of all of your beliefs about crooked owners and creative accounting? Or does it not count if it may benefit the players?


Essentially, that is exactly what the league is proposing by "cost certainty"....

copperandblue is offline  
Old
11-10-2004, 04:19 PM
  #84
degroat*
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: http://nhl.degroat.n
Posts: 8,108
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by John Flyers Fan
And that's why we'll have no hockey this year.

A stiff luxury tax would be a better option for the NHL than a hard cap IMO. The luxury tax provides money for revenue sharing, while the a salary cap does not.
Just because a salary cap isn't a revenue sharing program within itself doesn't mean that there won't be revenue sharing. Each of the league's 6 proposals included revenue sharing to some extent. If the players felt it wasn't enough, they could force the league to share more if they were to accept a cap.

Here's the thing though... under a cap, less revenue sharing would be necessary because the same payroll of $X would get a team better players under a capped system than it would get under a taxed system. This is because under a luxury tax, the player market is still set by the high spending teams.

degroat* is offline  
Old
11-10-2004, 05:33 PM
  #85
YellHockey*
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 2,830
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by dawgbone
Except that the rich teams can continue to set salary levels higher than everyone else. It's not the best teams setting the markets, it's the richest teams.
The rich teams don't set the salary levels. It is set by the teams that own the rights to the best players.

The best players set the salaries for those under them.

Right now teams like Calgary and Tampa Bay have had more influence on salary levels then any other team. Are they rich teams?

And why would a rich team deliberately raise the market value for a player? It would be throwing away money and really stupid. There is no benefit for a rich team to pay any more then the market rate for a player.

YellHockey* is offline  
Old
11-10-2004, 05:49 PM
  #86
I in the Eye
Registered User
 
I in the Eye's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Country:
Posts: 4,412
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by BlackRedGold
And why would a rich team deliberately raise the market value for a player? It would be throwing away money and really stupid. There is no benefit for a rich team to pay any more then the market rate for a player.
Not always a stupid move... Pro sports are excellent tax shelters for billionaires... What accountant could reasonably argue that Holik isn't worth $9 million, for example... The Rangers can convincingly justify the Holik expense... It's on the books, fully disclosed, and it's legit... However, the owners true motives (like all of our true motives), may never be known or disclosed... IMO, the owners have it in them to do such a thing (even though it may not be the best thing for the game)...

I in the Eye is offline  
Old
11-10-2004, 05:53 PM
  #87
dawgbone
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Country: Canada
Posts: 21,104
vCash: 500
Send a message via ICQ to dawgbone Send a message via MSN to dawgbone
Quote:
Originally Posted by John Flyers Fan
The Owners viewed the last proposal by the Union as having too much revenue sharing.
You have a link for that?

dawgbone is offline  
Old
11-10-2004, 06:29 PM
  #88
thinkwild
Veni Vidi Toga
 
thinkwild's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Ottawa
Country: Canada
Posts: 8,321
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by dawgbone
Except that the rich teams can continue to set salary levels higher than everyone else. It's not the best teams setting the markets, it's the richest teams
This sounds like what would happen, but its not totally accurate when we observe what happened. Rich teams dont set the market for rookies as they are capped.

After the first 3 years of a players mandatory 3 years of 2 way contracts, they have 2 years with no arbitration rights and only qualify for a 10% raise in their qualifying offer, which is a fair amount if the players is progressing as hoped. If he's not, working hard to find a system so you can get him cheaper without putting him on waivers hardly seems valuable.

When players get the right to arbitration after 5 years and until they are a UFA, the big markets may be able to afford higher salaries, but why would they? Toronto could afford to pay Kaberle $4mil, but they fought not to. The fact right now is the current setters of the arbitration eligible salary bars are players from Canadian team: Iginla for forwards, Jovo-Redden for defensemen, Théo for goalies, No ranger or red wings in sight. And the union offered to knock those comparable 5% as an OPENING offer.

Arbitration doesnt always mean big markets set the person who will be the comparable. Small markets can set it first and then the big markets will gladly follow as they are required to.

UFA's, accept whatever they get offered. Sports will have to learn to live with this decision of the courts and not try always for end-runs around it.

One of the owners 6 propsed concepts for a new salary structure was centralized negotiation of salaries. Now obviously this cant be done with UFAs, but a compromise should be able to be made where the RFAs are paid out of a capped revenue shared pot, and negotiations exist between the agent and the league rather the agent and the team. Probably a tough sell for the players but maybe there is room in there to find something.

Quote:
Originally Posted by vanlady
a fiscal responsibility clause in the franchise agreement.
Now there's an idea eh. When Ottawa was in bankruptcy protection, the league ran us like this, we still managed to make deadline day transactions.

Im still unsure what I think of the concept of a "strict" luxury cap. I'd think we'd want an "effective" one. If spending disparity is natural for teams to cycle through, then why is the cap needed to restrict spending, isnt the purpose to raise the most money?

Quote:
Originally Posted by copperandblue
Essentially, that is exactly what the league is proposing by "cost certainty
Not quite. I'd think the responsibility clause ensures they dont spend more than that. The cost certainty ensures the players play for that.

Quote:
Originally Posted by stitch
Just because a salary cap isn't a revenue sharing program within itself doesn't mean that there won't be revenue sharing. Each of the league's 6 proposals included revenue sharing to some extent.
Here is a link to the 6 proposed concepts.
The Owners 6 Proposals

thinkwild is offline  
Old
11-10-2004, 06:33 PM
  #89
Jag68Sid87
Nothing Else Maattas
 
Jag68Sid87's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Montreal, QC
Posts: 30,495
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by thinkwild
NHL is far better for fans and players. NFL is better for owners. I ask you, which is more important? A toady will choose the latter.
How is the NHL system better for fans?

Jag68Sid87 is offline  
Old
11-11-2004, 06:07 PM
  #90
me2
Seahawks 43
 
me2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Broncos 8
Country: Wallis & Futuna
Posts: 21,535
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by I in the Eye
Not always a stupid move... Pro sports are excellent tax shelters for billionaires... What accountant could reasonably argue that Holik isn't worth $9 million, for example... The Rangers can convincingly justify the Holik expense... It's on the books, fully disclosed, and it's legit... However, the owners true motives (like all of our true motives), may never be known or disclosed... IMO, the owners have it in them to do such a thing (even though it may not be the best thing for the game)...

I've always wondered about that line of thinking. What advantage is there for Rangers/owners to do this?

a) Pay Holik $9m and get $0 for themselves

b) Keep all $9m, ignore Holik, pocket $6m and pay $3m in corporate taxes.

Would you rather
a) $0
b) $6m

Is there some special sports franchise tax rebate or 250% tax deduction that I don't know about?

me2 is offline  
Old
11-11-2004, 06:20 PM
  #91
dawgbone
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Country: Canada
Posts: 21,104
vCash: 500
Send a message via ICQ to dawgbone Send a message via MSN to dawgbone
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jag68Vlady27
How is the NHL system better for fans?
The same way the MLB system is better for the fans... the Fans in Boston, New York, etc... love it.

And that is exactly where the NHL will head. I'd rather not watch MLB on ice, but that's just me.

dawgbone is offline  
Old
11-11-2004, 08:24 PM
  #92
OlliMackBjugStud
Touch My Donskoi!
 
OlliMackBjugStud's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,768
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by dawgbone
The same way the MLB system is better for the fans... the Fans in Boston, New York, etc... love it.

And that is exactly where the NHL will head. I'd rather not watch MLB on ice, but that's just me.
do you not find the BOS / NYY rivarly and games exciting ? the NHL should be so lucky to generate that kind of hype over a two city rivalry.

dr

OlliMackBjugStud is offline  
Old
11-11-2004, 09:13 PM
  #93
YellHockey*
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 2,830
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by dawgbone
The same way the MLB system is better for the fans... the Fans in Boston, New York, etc... love it.

And that is exactly where the NHL will head. I'd rather not watch MLB on ice, but that's just me.
And how are the NHL fans in Boston and New York loving it? How many years does the old CBA have to be in place before they're happy?

It's been ten years and the fans in those cities aren't any happier then they were a decade ago. In fact they're probably less happy.

If the old CBA were to stay in place, the happy fans would be in Tampa and Ottawa and maybe Calgary or Vancouver or San Jose. The West really is up in the air. It's hard to pick out who will be the next dominant Western Conference team.

YellHockey* is offline  
Old
11-12-2004, 06:46 AM
  #94
PecaFan
Registered User
 
PecaFan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Ottawa (Go 'Nucks)
Posts: 8,920
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by BlackRedGold
It's hard to pick out who will be the next dominant Western Conference team.
Ooh yeah, real hard. Here's a hint, Detroit and Colorado.

PecaFan is offline  
Old
11-12-2004, 07:33 AM
  #95
porknbeans
Registered User
 
porknbeans's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Ottawa
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,815
vCash: 500
dense dense

whats dominant about Colorado exactly? Man you're dense.

porknbeans is offline  
Old
11-12-2004, 10:06 AM
  #96
dawgbone
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Country: Canada
Posts: 21,104
vCash: 500
Send a message via ICQ to dawgbone Send a message via MSN to dawgbone
Quote:
Originally Posted by DementedReality
do you not find the BOS / NYY rivarly and games exciting ? the NHL should be so lucky to generate that kind of hype over a two city rivalry.

dr
A). I don't like either the redsox or the yankees.

B). It's exciting for fans who like those teams, but what about the rest of the teams and the rest of the games?

The schedule in the American league didn't even need to be played this year... that's a fact. There were over a thousand completely meaningless games in the American league this year, including the divisional series.

It was literally a joke if you were a fan of anyone other than these two cities in the American league this year, and it has been like that for a while, and it will only get worse.

dawgbone is offline  
Old
11-12-2004, 10:16 AM
  #97
dawgbone
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Country: Canada
Posts: 21,104
vCash: 500
Send a message via ICQ to dawgbone Send a message via MSN to dawgbone
Quote:
Originally Posted by BlackRedGold
And how are the NHL fans in Boston and New York loving it? How many years does the old CBA have to be in place before they're happy?

It's been ten years and the fans in those cities aren't any happier then they were a decade ago. In fact they're probably less happy.

If the old CBA were to stay in place, the happy fans would be in Tampa and Ottawa and maybe Calgary or Vancouver or San Jose. The West really is up in the air. It's hard to pick out who will be the next dominant Western Conference team.
For how long?

How long do you think it will take for the NHL to get to the point MLB is at, where it's a 2-trick pony?

Sure, at least in hockey you can grab your opponent and water-ski acrosse the arena...

Boy, entertaining stuff. So we see a regular season full of clutch and grab hockey, then we get to see it in the playoffs, where the team who holds the most wins (as evident by every playoff series not involving Tampa Bay).

So while the salaries go up, the lower tier teams (4-10 in each conference) continue on with the clutch and grab hockey, in hopes of being one of those top 8 teams, where hopefully they can clutch and grab to the Stanley cup... or at least the finals.

I wonder how many Calgary fans would love to continue on with the free market system? A lot of fans were worried that they wouldn't be able to afford Iginla and Kipper!

Instead of making definite strides to improve the team, they made some lateral moves (that make them a slightly better team, but just adding, instead of moving laterally is what teams like this need to do in order to continue to stay at the next level).

dawgbone is offline  
Old
11-12-2004, 03:29 PM
  #98
PecaFan
Registered User
 
PecaFan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Ottawa (Go 'Nucks)
Posts: 8,920
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by scaredsensfan
whats dominant about Colorado exactly? Man you're dense.
Jesus. Follow hockey much? I guess all those western teams play after your bedtime, so you have no clue about who's dominant in this league.

Here's a few hints for you:

Nine consecutive division championships.
Two President's Trophys
Two large shiny Silver Mugs
*Twenty five* rounds of playoffs in the last 10 years. Second only to Detroit's twenty seven.

PecaFan is offline  
Old
11-12-2004, 04:14 PM
  #99
YellHockey*
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 2,830
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by PecaFan
Jesus. Follow hockey much? I guess all those western teams play after your bedtime, so you have no clue about who's dominant in this league.

Here's a few hints for you:

Nine consecutive division championships.
Two President's Trophys
Two large shiny Silver Mugs
*Twenty five* rounds of playoffs in the last 10 years. Second only to Detroit's twenty seven.

But that all pales compared to Montreal's 24 Cup wins. If we're basing contenders on history shouldn't Montreal be the odds on favourite every year?

YellHockey* 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 04:47 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.