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.

Bob MaCown ..fan 590 makes a great point

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
12-12-2004, 08:41 PM
  #51
hockeytown9321
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 2,343
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Go Flames Go
Well we wont loose all of our good players because they have become either superstars or they are top tier players, and we cannot afford to pay them anymore.
But you're still losing them. Thats the point.

hockeytown9321 is offline  
Old
12-12-2004, 08:44 PM
  #52
hockeytown9321
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 2,343
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alfie#11

What a lot of small market fans seem to want is a league in which money doesn't matter. A cap of any sort means that money is always going to be the primary concern with any hockey matter.



One of my favorite comments from the pro cap people is that teams will no longer have to make decisions because of money.

hockeytown9321 is offline  
Old
12-12-2004, 08:50 PM
  #53
djhn579
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Tonawanda, NY
Country: United States
Posts: 1,747
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by hockeytown9321


One of my favorite comments from the pro cap people is that teams will no longer have to make decisions because of money.

I don't remember anyone saying that. I do remember people saying that all teams would have to operate on the same budget and that how teams make hockey decisions will be more important than who has the most money.

But then, maybe some people only see what they want to see...

djhn579 is offline  
Old
12-12-2004, 09:03 PM
  #54
hockeytown9321
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 2,343
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by djhn579
I don't remember anyone saying that. I do remember people saying that all teams would have to operate on the same budget and that how teams make hockey decisions will be more important than who has the most money.

But then, maybe some people only see what they want to see...
How are teams operating on the same budget? If I have $2 million in cap room and you have $3 million, we do not have the same budget.

hockeytown9321 is offline  
Old
12-12-2004, 09:18 PM
  #55
djhn579
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Tonawanda, NY
Country: United States
Posts: 1,747
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by hockeytown9321
How are teams operating on the same budget? If I have $2 million in cap room and you have $3 million, we do not have the same budget.
Ummm... You're not serious are you? You do know what a budget is, right?

Main Entry: bud·get
Pronunciation: 'b&-j&t
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English bowgette, from Middle French bougette, diminutive of bouge leather bag, from Latin bulga, of Celtic origin; akin to Middle Irish bolg bag; akin to Old English belg bag -- more at BELLY
1 chiefly dialect : a usually leather pouch, wallet, or pack; also : its contents
2 : STOCK, SUPPLY
3 : a quantity (as of energy or water) involved in, available for, or assignable to a particular situation; also : an account of gains and losses of such a quantity
4 a : a statement of the financial position of an administration for a definite period of time based on estimates of expenditures during the period and proposals for financing them b : a plan for the coordination of resources and expenditures c : the amount of money that is available for, required for, or assigned to a particular purpose
- bud·get·ary /'b&-j&-"ter-E/ adjective


In our case, each team would have a budget of $X dollars to allocate any way they desire.


If all teams have a budget capped at $30M (or $40M... whatever...) all teams have to manage themselves under that budget. If your favorite team doesn't have as much room under the cap as other teams, it's because of the choices that your team made. If they need more room under the cap, they will have to find a way to free up more room, just like every other team in the league...

djhn579 is offline  
Old
12-12-2004, 09:22 PM
  #56
hockeytown9321
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 2,343
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by djhn579
Ummm... You're not serious are you? You do know what a budget is, right?

Main Entry: bud·get
Pronunciation: 'b&-j&t
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English bowgette, from Middle French bougette, diminutive of bouge leather bag, from Latin bulga, of Celtic origin; akin to Middle Irish bolg bag; akin to Old English belg bag -- more at BELLY
1 chiefly dialect : a usually leather pouch, wallet, or pack; also : its contents
2 : STOCK, SUPPLY
3 : a quantity (as of energy or water) involved in, available for, or assignable to a particular situation; also : an account of gains and losses of such a quantity
4 a : a statement of the financial position of an administration for a definite period of time based on estimates of expenditures during the period and proposals for financing them b : a plan for the coordination of resources and expenditures c : the amount of money that is available for, required for, or assigned to a particular purpose
- bud·get·ary /'b&-j&-"ter-E/ adjective


In our case, each team would have a budget of $X dollars to allocate any way they desire.


If all teams have a budget capped at $30M (or $40M... whatever...) all teams have to manage themselves under that budget. If your favorite team doesn't have as much room under the cap as other teams, it's because of the choices that your team made. If they need more room under the cap, they will have to find a way to free up more room, just like every other team in the league...
Ok, thanks for the lesson.

Let me know when your well managed team loses someone under a cap becuase they didn't have enough room to sign him, then get back to me.

hockeytown9321 is offline  
Old
12-12-2004, 09:23 PM
  #57
djhn579
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Tonawanda, NY
Country: United States
Posts: 1,747
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by hockeytown9321
Ok, thanks for the lesson.

Let me know when your well managed team loses someone under a cap becuase they didn't have enough room to sign him, then get back to me.
Peca...

djhn579 is offline  
Old
12-12-2004, 09:24 PM
  #58
porknbeans
Registered User
 
porknbeans's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Ottawa
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,733
vCash: 500
djhn... whats the point in arguing something you dont understand?

porknbeans is offline  
Old
12-12-2004, 09:25 PM
  #59
Go Flames Go*
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 943
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by hockeytown9321
But you're still losing them. Thats the point.
1 or 2 wont matter, and usally its 1 primary player that is lost which is rare at times. Most teams are able resign players during the season withouth him going to UFA. We would still be able to fill the player loss with a bit less or equal talent.

Main think is we would keep core players Jarome Iginla, Kipper, Regher, Leopold and so on. Loosing Shean Donovan and maybe Rhett Warener even though I wouldnt want them to leave people can live with that, what we cant live with his big market teams snatching players we developed into superstars taken from us because we cannot afford them any longer. Its like we are a farm league in the major leagues.

Go Flames Go* is offline  
Old
12-12-2004, 09:29 PM
  #60
OlliMackBjugStud
Registered User
 
OlliMackBjugStud's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,705
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Go Flames Go
1 or 2 wont matter, and usally its 1 primary player that is lost which is rare at times. Most teams are able resign players during the season withouth him going to UFA. We would still be able to fill the player loss with a bit less or equal talent.

Main think is we would keep core players Jarome Iginla, Kipper, Regher, Leopold and so on. Loosing Shean Donovan and maybe Rhett Warener even though I wouldnt want them to leave people can live with that, what we cant live with his big market teams snatching players we developed into superstars taken from us because we cannot afford them any longer. Its like we are a farm league in the major leagues.
how come OTT has been able to have a 6 or 7 year run with a roster like that but CGY wont be able to ?

DR

OlliMackBjugStud is offline  
Old
12-12-2004, 09:31 PM
  #61
porknbeans
Registered User
 
porknbeans's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Ottawa
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,733
vCash: 500
How old are you, Go Flames GO because you sound like youre about 13.

How can anyone argue something so illogical? The players that you lose under a cap are the stars, not the role players. THe stars will still get the money under any siystem. The best sytem is the high-RFA age and unlimited budget system. The worst is a low RFA age and hard system.

not only is it simply idiotic to support the owners on almost every count, its even more idiotic to want whats bad for your team and yourself.

What kind of sadists are you? Well, it will ensure I can never have an elite team, but as long as it makes the owners more profitable! They can't reinvest in the product, so we'll never get past a certain level of mediocrity!


This is the NHL we need. It needs to be fixed so the product sucks and the integrity of the league is destroyed. We need it. Its our only salvation. I love Gary Bettman.

porknbeans is offline  
Old
12-12-2004, 09:32 PM
  #62
hockeytown9321
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 2,343
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Go Flames Go
1 or 2 wont matter, and usally its 1 primary player that is lost which is rare at times. Most teams are able resign players during the season withouth him going to UFA. We would still be able to fill the player loss with a bit less or equal talent.

Main think is we would keep core players Jarome Iginla, Kipper, Regher, Leopold and so on. Loosing Shean Donovan and maybe Rhett Warener even though I wouldnt want them to leave people can live with that, what we cant live with his big market teams snatching players we developed into superstars taken from us because we cannot afford them any longer. Its like we are a farm league in the major leagues.
If its ok with you if it happens, thats cool. I understand (though don't agree) why you think your team needs a cap. Its not really an argument I want to have anymore.

hockeytown9321 is offline  
Old
12-13-2004, 03:04 AM
  #63
myrocketsgotcracked
Guest
 
Country:
Posts: n/a
vCash:
Quote:
Originally Posted by scaredsensfan
How can anyone argue something so illogical? The players that you lose under a cap are the stars, not the role players. THe stars will still get the money under any siystem.
why? is it because, under a cap, NYR can still sign $40M+ worth of UFA like they did in '99? why would CGY lose iginla under the cap when they are nowhere near the limit?

 
Old
12-13-2004, 03:23 AM
  #64
Pepper
Registered User
 
Pepper's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 14,427
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by scaredsensfan
How old are you, Go Flames GO because you sound like youre about 13.
Oh the irony... :lol

Quote:
Originally Posted by scaredsensfan
How can anyone argue something so illogical? The players that you lose under a cap are the stars, not the role players. THe stars will still get the money under any siystem. The best sytem is the high-RFA age and unlimited budget system. The worst is a low RFA age and hard system.
You couldn't possibly any more wrong here. I suggest you take a long hard look at what you wrote and try to think where you went wrong.

Quote:
Originally Posted by scaredsensfan
not only is it simply idiotic to support the owners on almost every count, its even more idiotic to want whats bad for your team and yourself.
How can you argue against such compelling arguments?

Quote:
Originally Posted by scaredsensfan
What kind of sadists are you? Well, it will ensure I can never have an elite team, but as long as it makes the owners more profitable! They can't reinvest in the product, so we'll never get past a certain level of mediocrity!
You're a Sens fan for crying out loud! Melnyk is not going to start spending his own money to keep Alfredsson, Hossa, Chara, Redden, Havlat, Spezza, Bondra, Philips, Fisher etc. signed and if you don't get a new CBA with real luxury tax, you're going to lose those players to big spender like Wings or Rangers at some point.

With real luxury tax and the resulting drop in salaries, Ottawa can most likely keep them all signed and make several runs at the cup. Alfredsson got a new, high-money deal, Melnyk won't be paying the others huge contracts (which they will demand at some point) with his own money.

It never ceases to amaze me how ignorant & shortsighted some of you pro-PA yahoos are.

Pepper is offline  
Old
12-13-2004, 06:46 AM
  #65
me2
Seahawks 43
 
me2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Broncos 8
Country: Wallis & Futuna
Posts: 19,125
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by DementedReality
how come OTT has been able to have a 6 or 7 year run with a roster like that but CGY wont be able to ?

DR
Would this be the exceedingly dodgy bankrupt Ottawa Senators or the other ones?

me2 is offline  
Old
12-13-2004, 09:02 AM
  #66
hockeytown9321
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 2,343
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pepper
Oh the irony... :lol



You couldn't possibly any more wrong here. I suggest you take a long hard look at what you wrote and try to think where you went wrong.



How can you argue against such compelling arguments?



You're a Sens fan for crying out loud! Melnyk is not going to start spending his own money to keep Alfredsson, Hossa, Chara, Redden, Havlat, Spezza, Bondra, Philips, Fisher etc. signed and if you don't get a new CBA with real luxury tax, you're going to lose those players to big spender like Wings or Rangers at some point.

With real luxury tax and the resulting drop in salaries, Ottawa can most likely keep them all signed and make several runs at the cup. Alfredsson got a new, high-money deal, Melnyk won't be paying the others huge contracts (which they will demand at some point) with his own money.

It never ceases to amaze me how ignorant & shortsighted some of you pro-PA yahoos are.

Aren't the PA yahoos the ones arguing for a luxury tax, which is what you just argued for?

hockeytown9321 is offline  
Old
12-13-2004, 09:03 AM
  #67
hockeytown9321
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 2,343
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by SuperKarateMonkey
why? is it because, under a cap, NYR can still sign $40M+ worth of UFA like they did in '99? why would CGY lose iginla under the cap when they are nowhere near the limit?
Calgary has $30 million comitted without Iginla. How can they get him under a $31 million cap?

hockeytown9321 is offline  
Old
12-13-2004, 09:25 AM
  #68
SENSible1*
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,543
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by hockeytown9321
Calgary has $30 million comitted without Iginla. How can they get him under a $31 million cap?
You do understand that the $31M figure was just an opening bargaining chip right?

SENSible1* is offline  
Old
12-13-2004, 09:33 AM
  #69
Caseus
squirrelly wrath
 
Caseus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Ottawa
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,230
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pepper
With real luxury tax and the resulting drop in salaries, Ottawa can most likely keep them all signed and make several runs at the cup.
Well said.

Ottawa could really benefit from such a system. Goaltender questions aside, we have an amazing team and I think we have a good chance at multiple Cup runs. Unfortunately as our key players excel, so do their salaries. Melnyk is much better than Bryden (i.e., he actually has money) but that doesn't mean he'll be able to keep the team intact.

It saddens me to read posts by my fellow Sens fans who are in favour of the NHLPA and the current system. That is not good for Ottawa. A luxury tax would help, assuming the owners ever back down from this stupid "cap or nothing" idea.

Caseus is offline  
Old
12-13-2004, 09:45 AM
  #70
Pepper
Registered User
 
Pepper's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 14,427
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by hockeytown9321
Aren't the PA yahoos the ones arguing for a luxury tax, which is what you just argued for?
Some are, some are not but even those who are pushing for one believe the tax shouldn't be higher than the one PA proposed.

Pepper is offline  
Old
12-13-2004, 09:51 AM
  #71
Pepper
Registered User
 
Pepper's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 14,427
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by hockeytown9321
Calgary has $30 million comitted without Iginla. How can they get him under a $31 million cap?
Because the salaries will drop because of the cap, if the average salary goes from 1.8M to 1.3M as suggested by the league, Flames payroll will eventually (there will be a transition period of 2-3 years most likely) go down ~27% meaning a 30M payroll will become a ~22M payroll. Then Flames can afford Iginla.

Pepper is offline  
Old
12-13-2004, 10:24 AM
  #72
hockeytown9321
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 2,343
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pepper
Because the salaries will drop because of the cap, if the average salary goes from 1.8M to 1.3M as suggested by the league, Flames payroll will eventually (there will be a transition period of 2-3 years most likely) go down ~27% meaning a 30M payroll will become a ~22M payroll. Then Flames can afford Iginla.
Where do you get the 27% figure from?

hockeytown9321 is offline  
Old
12-13-2004, 10:27 AM
  #73
hockeytown9321
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 2,343
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pepper
Some are, some are not but even those who are pushing for one believe the tax shouldn't be higher than the one PA proposed.
I don't remember saying that and I'm pro tax. Obviously the tax numbers would have to be alot higher than what the PA proposed. But that was a starting point.

hockeytown9321 is offline  
Old
12-13-2004, 10:30 AM
  #74
hockeytown9321
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 2,343
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Thunderstruck
You do understand that the $31M figure was just an opening bargaining chip right?
I don't know that it is. So far Bettman hasn't given me any reason to beleive it is. You yourself like to point out that the players have absolutley no bargaining power and the league is just waiting to get maximum concessions. Why would Bettman increase the cap number if thats the case?

hockeytown9321 is offline  
Old
12-13-2004, 10:31 AM
  #75
SENSible1*
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,543
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by hockeytown9321
I don't know that it is. So far Bettman hasn't given me any reason to beleive it is. You yourself like to point out that the players have absolutley no bargaining power and the league is just waiting to get maximum concessions. Why would Bettman increase the cap number if thats the case?
It's called negotiating.

SENSible1* 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 07:30 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.