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.

24% rollback

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
12-09-2004, 08:24 PM
  #101
Trottier
Very Random
 
Trottier's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: San Diego
Posts: 29,239
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kid Canada
The Yankees are a prime example of what's wrong with baseball and on a smaller scale, sports in general.
Might help clarify if you could expound on your declarations with more than one sentence.

Since you didn't, let's guess: "The Yankees are a prime example of what's wrong with baseball and on a smaller scale, sports in general."

Meaning, a team that has an incredible revenue base (admittedly one that dwarfs all other franchises), spends lavishly on acquiring talent...and has yet to win a World championship in this century. That's bad. I guess if they won the last four years, it would have been "less" horrible?

Wealthy, highly profitable sports franchises are bad. Give us more of those great franchises that bleed losses annually.

Cla$$ envy is awkward as is. When it is totally unjustified, it's insufferable.

(Disclosure: not a Yankee fan.)


Last edited by Trottier: 12-09-2004 at 08:30 PM.
Trottier is offline  
Old
12-09-2004, 08:30 PM
  #102
Heimy
Registered User
 
Heimy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: I was just here
Posts: 4,736
vCash: 500
After reading all the back and forth on the past 7 pages, all I hope is the owners and PA are a lot less intractable than some here.

I see some criticism of small market teams. But those teams didn't just show up and join on a lark. They were invited to join and PAID for the privilege. And as members in a league, shouldn't they expect (if not demand) the rules work equally for ALL it's members? It seems like some believe allowing "free markets" to determine the league's destiny is the way to go. They view the teams as individual businesses. I'd like them to view a LEAGUE differently. Consider taking the view that a league is designed and intended to allow competition using common rules developed to bring out the best in sports rather than to give an unfair advantage to the wealthiest teams. Afterall, why should any team that is considered to be an equal member of a league get any advantage? Why should any team be placed at a disadvantage? If you aren't playing on a level playing field then what's the point of joining?

Providing for cost certainty for the NHL isn't some horrible idea. Done reasonably, it won't lessen the quality of the game or enhance the risk of losing the best players to other leagues. It also may not guarantee profitability to each and every owner. But it should guarantee that no members lose money season in, season out, due to a handful of wealthy, if short-sighted members.

Heimy is offline  
Old
12-09-2004, 08:36 PM
  #103
MacDaddy TLC*
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Leafin La Vida Loca
Country: Canada
Posts: 6,478
vCash: 500
I'm extremely disheartened to see so many buying into this very obvious attempt by the players' union to make gains in popular opinion. This propsal is a starting point, but just barely. 10 years of damage has been done, but this offer they have made lacks the concessions to sustain cost certainty. It is barely a change from the current situation that has created this mess.
This is what needs to be done to have a deal;

In lieu of a salary cap, luxury tax of $0.75/dollar over 30 million; dollar for dollar over 35 million; 1.25 at 36 1.5 at 38; 1.75 at 40 and 2.00 for every dollar at 42 million. After 42 million, it increases a dollar for every million A salary floor of 26 million is also implemented. A team must have a payroll of this amount to share in the luxury tax fund.

There is also an individual salary cap of 6 million. No player can earn over 6 million, including bonuses.

The money collected from the luxury tax is split as follows: 70% paid to teams over the salary threshold of 26 million and below 32 million. All teams within this salary bracket receives an equal share. 25% goes to the NHLPA retirement fund.

Salary rollbacks of 5% on all remaining years of all contracts. Each year after this year the rollback is from the previous years amount.

Restricted Free agency is abolished. Players get Unrestricted Free agency across the board. A player 1 time in his career can opt for salary arbitration (with the one or the other system, not an arbitrator picking a middle ground) in lieu of free agency.

The season is reduced to 72 games.

MacDaddy TLC* is offline  
Old
12-09-2004, 08:49 PM
  #104
FLYLine24
The Mac Truck
 
FLYLine24's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: NY
Country: United States
Posts: 32,622
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by kerrly
Or not put an elecrtric dog collar on the dog and he runs out in the street and gets pulverized by a bus.

News flash, the NHL is in bad shape. Not just because of some of the bad contracts given out either i.e. Holik, Yashin etc. But also because of the system. Certain teams will do certain things that suit them based upon their budgets, which in turn effect teams with different budgets through arbitration, contract negotiations, qualifying offers etc.
Ok...so they dont need to put a 30 million dollar or 40 million dollar cap. Let the big teams spend up to 55 million and then let them shell out another 7 million(from luxary tax/revenue sharing) to the teams that dont have that type of money and let them spend more or help there money state.

FLYLine24 is offline  
Old
12-09-2004, 08:50 PM
  #105
FLYLine24
The Mac Truck
 
FLYLine24's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: NY
Country: United States
Posts: 32,622
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mayor of MacAppolis
I'
The season is reduced to 72 games.

Why oh WHY would ANY REAL hockey fan want to see LESS games?!?! Im still trying to figure this out. I can understand why players and owners would but FANS...i mean COME ON...are you really fans of the sport????? I am Missing something here?? Please give me a reason why I fan would like to see less games....dont give me a reason the players or owners would like...less injuries because EVERY team plays the same amount of games and that is EQUAL for all teams.

FLYLine24 is offline  
Old
12-09-2004, 08:54 PM
  #106
MacDaddy TLC*
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Leafin La Vida Loca
Country: Canada
Posts: 6,478
vCash: 500
it is a concession to the players to give them more rest between games . It is the one issue that both at one time seemed to agree on--less games for more rest. If anything the owners would be against and the players in favour. The quality of the games may improve if the players get more rest. There are enough games with a 64 game schedule and playoffs.

EDIT: I am not making this proposal as a fan, but attempting to from the persective of somewhere between the NHL and PA. like I said I get enough hockey. I am a Hockey fan, not just an NHL fan. I watch NHL, CIS, CHL, NCAA, AHL. The NHL players could use more rest days. They average 4 games for 9 nights. That doesn't offer enough time for players to get quality rest when you factor in travel schedules. it could reduce injuries as well and lost time to injuries in addition to what I already pointed out as benefits.

and son, I have been a hockey fan a lot longer than the mere 22 years you've been around.

MacDaddy TLC* is offline  
Old
12-09-2004, 08:58 PM
  #107
kerrly
Registered User
 
kerrly's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Regina
Country: Canada
Posts: 806
vCash: 500
Send a message via MSN to kerrly
Quote:
Originally Posted by FLYLine4LIFE
Ok...so they dont need to put a 30 million dollar or 40 million dollar cap. Let the big teams spend up to 55 million and then let them shell out another 7 million(from luxary tax/revenue sharing) to the teams that dont have that type of money and let them spend more or help there money state.
7 million in taxes for a $55 million payroll, is not even close to enough.

kerrly is offline  
Old
12-09-2004, 09:01 PM
  #108
kerrly
Registered User
 
kerrly's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Regina
Country: Canada
Posts: 806
vCash: 500
Send a message via MSN to kerrly
Quote:
Originally Posted by FLYLine4LIFE
Why oh WHY would ANY REAL hockey fan want to see LESS games?!?! Im still trying to figure this out. I can understand why players and owners would but FANS...i mean COME ON...are you really fans of the sport????? I am Missing something here?? Please give me a reason why I fan would like to see less games....dont give me a reason the players or owners would like...less injuries because EVERY team plays the same amount of games and that is EQUAL for all teams.
In the overall picture it would lessen injuries. And I think that people would like to see this because we think the players are overworked and think less games would bring the competition level up.

kerrly is offline  
Old
12-09-2004, 09:02 PM
  #109
djhn579
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Tonawanda, NY
Country: United States
Posts: 1,747
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mayor of MacAppolis
it is a concession to the players to give them more rest between games . It is the one issue that both at one time seemed to agree on--less games for more rest. If anything the owners would be against and the players in favour. The quality of the games may improve if the players get more rest. There are enough games with a 64 game schedule and playoffs.
The owners are trying to make more money as it is. Cutting off five home games off each teams schedule will cost each team at least $3.6M (5 games X 18000 games (assuming sellouts) x $40.00 per ticket). More if you include merchandise, concessions and other revenue lost.

If you just want to allow players to rest, you can have an 82 game schedule, but each player can only play in 72 games? Rosters may need to be expanded or the rules for bringing players up from the minors may need to be modified, but this would accomplish the same thing without reducing the owners income.

djhn579 is offline  
Old
12-09-2004, 09:07 PM
  #110
MacDaddy TLC*
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Leafin La Vida Loca
Country: Canada
Posts: 6,478
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by djhn579
If you just want to allow players to rest, you can have an 82 game schedule, but each player can only play in 72 games? Rosters may need to be expanded or the rules for bringing players up from the minors may need to be modified, but this would accomplish the same thing without reducing the owners income.

OI!

There is already about 8 teams worth of players who should have been career minor leaguers and now you want to add more. The idea is to improve the quality of the game to justify the ridiculous ticket prices. The owners have to give a little too, that being the loss of 5 home dates.

MacDaddy TLC* is offline  
Old
12-09-2004, 09:18 PM
  #111
djhn579
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Tonawanda, NY
Country: United States
Posts: 1,747
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mayor of MacAppolis
OI!

There is already about 8 teams worth of players who should have been career minor leaguers and now you want to add more. The idea is to improve the quality of the game to justify the ridiculous ticket prices. The owners have to give a little too, that being the loss of 5 home dates.
The 8 teams worth of career minor leaguers is a matter of opinion. I disagree, but that is not what is important.

The reason for this lockout is because owners are losing too much money. Your idea takes even more money away from the owners (I'm assuming attendance is not going to improve a lot just because you cut 5 home games off the schedule), so the owners are not going to want to do it.

Most likely, there will be some sort of cost certainty and since your idea will reduce revenue, the players are not going to like it either since they will see their salaries reduced even further. Even if their is not cost certainty, revenues are decreased, so salaries will still need to come down. Either way the players lose.

At least with what I'm suggesting, some of those AHL players will get more of a chance to see the NHL and hopefully show what they can do and further their development.

djhn579 is offline  
Old
12-09-2004, 10:14 PM
  #112
Potatoe1
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 764
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Potatoe
I'm an "owners guy" but if the owners refuse to negotiate this proposal they have clearly lost their minds.

24% roll back, 75% Luxery Tax, and several other concessions.....

That is one hell of an offer.

Nice job players


My mistake, the offer isn't quite as nice considering the Luxury tax isn't 75%, but I still think the league should drop the hard cap position and negotiate based on the PA's offer. This deal with a stiffer cap would solve the majority of the NHL's problems IMO

Potatoe1 is offline  
Old
12-09-2004, 10:27 PM
  #113
Trottier
Very Random
 
Trottier's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: San Diego
Posts: 29,239
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mayor of MacAppolis
The season is reduced to 72 games.
With you 100% on this one. Less = more. As in fresher players, better play during a six-month marathon exhibition, er, regular season.

Trottier is offline  
Old
12-09-2004, 10:37 PM
  #114
HF2002
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Ottawa
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,839
vCash: 500
At least with the rollback a team can claim in future contract negotiations when the season starts (this one or the next) is to compare players to the "new" salaries of other players. Depending on who they're trying to re-sign, this could translate into big savings.

HF2002 is offline  
Old
12-09-2004, 11:05 PM
  #115
me2
Seahawks 43
 
me2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Broncos 8
Country: Wallis & Futuna
Posts: 22,925
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by Trottier
With you 100% on this one. Less = more. As in fresher players, better play during a six-month marathon exhibition, er, regular season.
Indeed. But would the players be prepared to forego a further 15% (12 games lost) on top of the 24% rollback. I doubt it, good idea though.

me2 is offline  
Old
12-09-2004, 11:09 PM
  #116
SwisshockeyAcademy
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Posts: 3,094
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by me2
Indeed. But would the players be prepared to forego a further 15% (12 games lost) on top of the 24% rollback. I doubt it, good idea though.
The players would not.

SwisshockeyAcademy is offline  
Old
12-09-2004, 11:32 PM
  #117
thinkwild
Veni Vidi Toga
 
thinkwild's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Ottawa
Country: Canada
Posts: 8,328
vCash: 500
The owners however would gladly give up that revenue, but the greedy players wont let them

thinkwild is offline  
Old
12-09-2004, 11:58 PM
  #118
SwisshockeyAcademy
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Posts: 3,094
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by thinkwild
The owners however would gladly give up that revenue, but the greedy players wont let them
The owners of course want that revenue too. The players like the concept of less games just not less money. The owners would be more open to a reduction in games if player salaries were adjusted accordingly although they probably are not all that interested at all.

SwisshockeyAcademy is offline  
Old
12-10-2004, 01:21 AM
  #119
cws
...in the drink
 
cws's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Country: United States
Posts: 1,631
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Heimy
After reading all the back and forth on the past 7 pages, all I hope is the owners and PA are a lot less intractable than some here.

I see some criticism of small market teams. But those teams didn't just show up and join on a lark. They were invited to join and PAID for the privilege. And as members in a league, shouldn't they expect (if not demand) the rules work equally for ALL it's members? It seems like some believe allowing "free markets" to determine the league's destiny is the way to go. They view the teams as individual businesses. I'd like them to view a LEAGUE differently. Consider taking the view that a league is designed and intended to allow competition using common rules developed to bring out the best in sports rather than to give an unfair advantage to the wealthiest teams. Afterall, why should any team that is considered to be an equal member of a league get any advantage? Why should any team be placed at a disadvantage? If you aren't playing on a level playing field then what's the point of joining?

Providing for cost certainty for the NHL isn't some horrible idea. Done reasonably, it won't lessen the quality of the game or enhance the risk of losing the best players to other leagues. It also may not guarantee profitability to each and every owner. But it should guarantee that no members lose money season in, season out, due to a handful of wealthy, if short-sighted members.
Unfortunately, the bigger picture is less attractive to talk about that the smaller tidbits; the points of contention that make up a fairly small amount of the overall picture, but are often discussed as though they comprise vital elements to a reasonable solution. Interesting for debate but not something that will provide a meaningful insight into the problem.

There are posts we can learn from, gain a bit more knowledge. That helps of course, but there won't be any revelations in it.

"THE" issue is making the NHL healthy for many years to come. We all want this, of course. But too many of the good intentions get bogged down in mis-information, lack of information, assumptive reasoning based on that lack of info/knowledge, dis-placed loyalty, unfamiliarity with the actual economic situation pertaining to the league, etc, etc.

I do agree with what you said. For the denizens of this board, a broad idea isn't what they're looking for (for the most part at least). Personally, I'm just happy that someone else brought up the topic in this manner. Rare, to be sure.

cws is offline  
Old
12-10-2004, 01:54 AM
  #120
Fish on The Sand
Untouchable
 
Fish on The Sand's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Nanaimo
Country: Canada
Posts: 52,722
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Trottier
As much as it does in the NHL. Which means sometimes. Nothing wrong with that, IMO. In the spirit of fairness, I'm sure you inadvertently omitted mention of the Anaheim Angels ('02) and the Florida Marlins ('03), two lower-to mid payroll teams (at the time) that won championships more recently than the big payroll Yankees.

Spending more money shouldn't guarantee success. And it never has. Which makes the argument specious.
Now look, the marlins are moving and the Angels have the 3rd highest payroll in baseball 2 years later, just so they could compete.

Fish on The Sand is offline  
Old
12-10-2004, 01:55 AM
  #121
Fish on The Sand
Untouchable
 
Fish on The Sand's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Nanaimo
Country: Canada
Posts: 52,722
vCash: 500
I love the people who say the owners just have to control themselves. Well, if a player signs for under market value, the union cries collusion.

Fish on The Sand is offline  
Old
12-10-2004, 02:02 AM
  #122
vanlady
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 810
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fish on The Sand
Now look, the marlins are moving and the Angels have the 3rd highest payroll in baseball 2 years later, just so they could compete.
If you think high payroll is a guarentee of success I suggest you read this.

http://www.andrewsstarspage.com/10-31-04cba.htm

vanlady is offline  
Old
12-10-2004, 03:37 AM
  #123
PecaFan
Registered User
 
PecaFan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Ottawa (Go 'Nucks)
Posts: 8,920
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by vanlady
If you think high payroll is a guarentee of success I suggest you read this.

http://www.andrewsstarspage.com/10-31-04cba.htm
Yes, that backs it up quite nicely. High payroll teams make the playoffs much more often, and go further than low payroll teams.

"The top seven teams in the [playoff appearances] rankings were among the top ten in average payroll. Team number eight -- Pittsburgh -- spent the first three years of the previous CBA as a top ten payroll team, ranking fourth, sixth and second."

LOL. You thought you were disproving it?

PecaFan is offline  
Old
12-10-2004, 03:55 AM
  #124
cws
...in the drink
 
cws's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Country: United States
Posts: 1,631
vCash: 500
Think medically.

What is more prudent and more practical to treat, the symptoms or the disease?

Treat the symptoms, in most cases there is little to prevent the symptoms from returning. Treat the disease, you eliminate the root of the problem and prevent the symptoms from returning.

Given every factor involved in this issue (the few we know and the many that we don't), this analogy doesn't speak to the truth of the matter. Was never meant to.

It's only to give some perspective to the rhetoric pandered about, no matter which side you happen to believe in.


Last edited by cw7: 12-10-2004 at 04:18 AM.
cws is offline  
Old
12-10-2004, 04:09 AM
  #125
Whakahere
Registered User
 
Whakahere's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Germany
Country: New Zealand
Posts: 1,325
vCash: 500
Send a message via MSN to Whakahere
Once again it shows that the NHLPA doesn´t give a crap about small market clubs.

RFA will now become easier to gt for clubs with money. Say a small market club is at 39 million. big market clubs can take their free agents for LESS. They can do this by offering the player enough money so the small market club has to pay tax (which the big market can afford). in turn they do not lose so many 1st round picks.

the rich get richer while the poor just get poorer.

If there is going to be a tax system then it needs to be alot harder on the big spenders. 20 cents on the dollar is just a joke. Poor effort NHLPA.

Whakahere 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 12:40 AM.

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.