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
Notices

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.

NHL Payrolls..2001 -> 2004

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
12-22-2004, 05:57 PM
  #26
CarlRacki
Registered User
 
CarlRacki's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 1,438
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by John Flyers Fan

I think you would find the NHLPA very receptive to the NBA CBA.
Though I don't disagree that NHL owners aren't eager for an NBA-style cap, this statement is a big stretch. After all, haven't numerous players and player reps come out and said there is no way they would accept any sort of cap?
Don't get me wrong, eventually they'll have to. But the idea that they're "very receptive" to it seems unlikely.

CarlRacki is offline  
Old
12-22-2004, 06:03 PM
  #27
mooseOAK*
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 42,435
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Skittles
Didn't the NBA extend their CBA? Because owners often own a NHL and NBA team.
It has been extended already.

The key issue with them are these six and seven year contracts the teams have to give out and the player ends up putting no effort in until the last season of it.

mooseOAK* is offline  
Old
12-22-2004, 09:04 PM
  #28
John Flyers Fan
Registered User
 
John Flyers Fan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Country: United States
Posts: 22,398
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by CarlRacki
Though I don't disagree that NHL owners aren't eager for an NBA-style cap, this statement is a big stretch. After all, haven't numerous players and player reps come out and said there is no way they would accept any sort of cap?
Don't get me wrong, eventually they'll have to. But the idea that they're "very receptive" to it seems unlikely.
The NBA "cap" has so many exceptions, it almost can't even be called a cap.

There are teams that are $40 million over the so-called "cap".

John Flyers Fan is offline  
Old
12-22-2004, 09:39 PM
  #29
me2
Callng out the crap
 
me2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Blasting the bull***
Country: Wallis & Futuna
Posts: 29,676
vCash: 93
Quote:
Originally Posted by John Flyers Fan
The NBA "cap" has so many exceptions, it almost can't even be called a cap.

There are teams that are $40 million over the so-called "cap".
Shaq gets $27.7 million this coming season and $30.6 million in 2005-06. Kind of makes the NBAs cap look rather flawed.

me2 is offline  
Old
12-22-2004, 10:23 PM
  #30
Hockey_Nut99
Guest
 
Country:
Posts: n/a
vCash:
I said these payrolls aren't exact because of deadline deals and such. i said they were for the starting for the 2003-2004 year for anyone who said they are lower now.

 
Old
12-23-2004, 12:45 AM
  #31
Scoot
Registered User
 
Scoot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Texas
Country: United States
Posts: 1,041
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Newsguyone
So teams that were in trouble then or now should not have unreasonable expectations of revenue growth, and should therefore realize the importance of living within their budget.
So therefore my big money team can still steal your star players because we can buy them off you.

Scoot is offline  
Old
12-23-2004, 07:37 AM
  #32
CoolburnIsGone
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 8,072
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by T@T
Why? the PA doesn't want to link salaries with revenues..remember!

Anyway i'm sure you can find your numbers here
I think the point he was driving at was that if revenues increased at the same rate as player salaries...then the inflation was not out of control. However, I'm pretty sure it did not increase the approximate 25% that salaries did.

eye made an important point that I had pointed out once before. The league is using "player costs" and not just "salaries" when justifying a cap. Unfortunately, those costs other than salary are not part of the inflationary problem and really shouldn't be used by the league. The percentage of revenues that went to salaries in 2003-2004 was 64% and the player's offered a 24% roll back in salaries (resulting in 40% of revenues going to salary). The league is looking for that linkage at 53% on player costs which would mean the players would actually have a "salary" rollback of approximately 22% (11% goes towards other costs + 64% salaries = 75% league claims...so that would mean the the league would continue to have 11% for other costs + 42% for salaries). So the player's offer more than what the league is asking for but the major inflationary problem is the arbitration process. If the league would be willing to negotiate off the player's proposal and find a way to virtually eliminate arbitration (ie players can only use it once in their career and can't use it until after their 2nd contract) and alter the qualifying offer amounts, there would be enough that would help control the inflation on player salaries. Well, maybe make the luxury tax stiffer as well.

CoolburnIsGone is offline  
Old
12-23-2004, 10:43 AM
  #33
GKJ
Global Moderator
Entertainment
 
GKJ's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Country: United States
Posts: 128,781
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by BLONG7
WOW!!! When you see it on paper like that, it's no wonder we have a work stoppage...at this point I am still on side with the owners for some sort of cost certainty or cost controls, but at the same time you have to the union some credit for the 24% rollback, and although their rollback doesn't address the systemic issues the league talks about, it was still a large hit for the players.
Isn't it amazing what happens when you open up that checkbook too much? Yet people still think that the owners are the ones that are innocent because, you know, they had no choice but to almost double their payroll and blame it on the players. Does anyone out there think Martin Lapointe is paying himself $5 million dollars a year?



Why can't people figure out that owners pay the players. It's that simple. Everyone says its on the greedy players who take and take and take. This is because the owners give and give and give.

GKJ is offline  
Old
12-23-2004, 12:43 PM
  #34
It Kills Me
Registered User
 
It Kills Me's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 10,789
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by go kim johnsson
Isn't it amazing what happens when you open up that checkbook too much? Yet people still think that the owners are the ones that are innocent because, you know, they had no choice but to almost double their payroll and blame it on the players. Does anyone out there think Martin Lapointe is paying himself $5 million dollars a year?



Why can't people figure out that owners pay the players. It's that simple. Everyone says its on the greedy players who take and take and take. This is because the owners give and give and give.
Owners - Santa Clause
Players - the kids

they get what they want, and Santa complains?

It Kills Me is offline  
Old
12-23-2004, 01:27 PM
  #35
YellHockey*
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 2,830
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Skittles
Owners - Santa Clause
Players - the kids

they get what they want, and Santa complains?
Bad comparison.

Here in Ottawa the players are the ones who we hear about giving to charities and devoting their time to help others. Meanwhile I have yet to hear about any of Eugene Melnyk's charitable causes. Although he could be doing them in his native Barbados where he lives to avoid paying income taxes.

Santa Claus gives without any alterior motives on his part. The owners spend because they hope it will benefit them financially.

YellHockey* is offline  
Old
12-23-2004, 02:05 PM
  #36
Johnnybegood13
Registered User
 
Johnnybegood13's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Country: Switzerland
Posts: 6,982
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by go kim johnsson



Why can't people figure out that owners pay the players. It's that simple. Everyone says its on the greedy players who take and take and take. This is because the owners give and give and give.
I think it's you who need a blast of brain juice..whats so hard to figure out?

You think the Flames owners wanted to pay Iginla 7 mil last year? they had to or risk loseing him because of other contracts,the Owners HAVE to protect themselfs from a few retarted owners.

It's as simple as that!

Johnnybegood13 is offline  
Old
12-23-2004, 02:15 PM
  #37
Beatnik
Registered User
 
Beatnik's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Québec
Country: Canada
Posts: 5,700
vCash: 500
Send a message via MSN to Beatnik
The 2001-2003 inflation is'nt necessary systemic, It's because Bettman promised a hard cap in 2004-2005 with great guaranteed profits. The teams wanted to leave a good impression to the fans before the lock-out.

Beatnik is offline  
Old
12-23-2004, 06:36 PM
  #38
PecaFan
Registered User
 
PecaFan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Ottawa (Go 'Nucks)
Posts: 8,924
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by RichPanther
The percentage of revenues that went to salaries in 2003-2004 was 64% and the player's offered a 24% roll back in salaries (resulting in 40% of revenues going to salary).
Um, not a math major, I presume. A 24% cut doesn't mean you just subtract the percentages. A demonstration:

Assume $100 total salary.
Players cut = $64
24% rollback = $15.36
$64 - $15.36 = $48.64

New percentage = 48.64%, not 40%

PecaFan is offline  
Old
12-23-2004, 11:35 PM
  #39
John Flyers Fan
Registered User
 
John Flyers Fan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Country: United States
Posts: 22,398
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by T@T
I think it's you who need a blast of brain juice..whats so hard to figure out?

You think the Flames owners wanted to pay Iginla 7 mil last year? they had to or risk loseing him because of other contracts,the Owners HAVE to protect themselfs from a few retarted owners.

...and where were the Flames going to lose Iginla to ??? ... he doesn't turn 31 until 2008.

Flames hold his rights, and the only leverage Iginla has is to hold out.

John Flyers Fan is offline  
Old
12-23-2004, 11:43 PM
  #40
Lanny MacDonald*
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Tuvalu
Posts: 4,457
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by John Flyers Fan
...and where were the Flames going to lose Iginla to ??? ... he doesn't turn 31 until 2008.

Flames hold his rights, and the only leverage Iginla has is to hold out.
Right. Just like the Flames weren't going to lose Joe Nieuwendyk or Doug Gilmour when they held out? Holding out can be extremely effective, especially against a small market team. But you wouldn't know that. You cheer for a team that has contributed to the insane contracts being demanded these days.


Lanny MacDonald* is offline  
Old
12-24-2004, 11:01 AM
  #41
A Good Flying Bird*
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Ann Arbor
Country: Canada
Posts: 9,359
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Beatnik
The 2001-2003 inflation is'nt necessary systemic, It's because Bettman promised a hard cap in 2004-2005 with great guaranteed profits. The teams wanted to leave a good impression to the fans before the lock-out.
You know, this is a very good point.
Seemed like owners were deliberately drinking the KoolAid until about 16 months ago, when some of them realized they didn't want to be stuck with too many long-term contracts.

A Good Flying Bird* is offline  
Old
12-24-2004, 11:54 AM
  #42
John Flyers Fan
Registered User
 
John Flyers Fan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Country: United States
Posts: 22,398
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Iconoclast
Right. Just like the Flames weren't going to lose Joe Nieuwendyk or Doug Gilmour when they held out? Holding out can be extremely effective, especially against a small market team. But you wouldn't know that. You cheer for a team that has contributed to the insane contracts being demanded these days.

...and how did that Nieuwendyk trade work out for the Flames ??? ... really killed the franchise huh ???

Just because a player puts pressure on a team, doesn't mean that the team has to give in until a deal makes sense.

the Flames made a great deal for Nieuwendyk, the Senators made a great deal for Yashin. Amazing how much better those things work out when you have a smart GM.

John Flyers Fan is offline  
Old
12-24-2004, 12:25 PM
  #43
HF2002
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Ottawa
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,841
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Newsguyone
You know, this is a very good point.
Seemed like owners were deliberately drinking the KoolAid until about 16 months ago, when some of them realized they didn't want to be stuck with too many long-term contracts.
Which, ironically, is ammo for the PA.

Sure, they can admit the previous CBA could use a little tweaking, but it's easy for them to point out that the owners can control themselves and don't need the players to save them under the terms of the previous CBA.

This is a very simplistic interpretation but I"m sure the PA and their hired economic expertise could take it from here.

HF2002 is offline  
Old
12-24-2004, 12:37 PM
  #44
CarlRacki
Registered User
 
CarlRacki's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 1,438
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by John Flyers Fan
...and where were the Flames going to lose Iginla to ??? ... he doesn't turn 31 until 2008.

Flames hold his rights, and the only leverage Iginla has is to hold out.
It's not quite that simple, as I imagine you well know. Under the CBA, the Flames must pay Iginla a certain amount (i.e. the qualifying offer) in order to retain his rights. At some point, for financial reasons, the Flames may not be able to afford that qualifying offer and will therefore choose between a) going belly up b) trading him or c) trading other players to afford him.
Also, Iginla is one of the few NHL players who as a RFA could get a substantial contract offer from a deep pockets team who would be willing to part with many draft picks in exchange for a superstar entering his prime.

CarlRacki is offline  
Old
12-24-2004, 01:29 PM
  #45
John Flyers Fan
Registered User
 
John Flyers Fan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Country: United States
Posts: 22,398
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by CarlRacki
It's not quite that simple, as I imagine you well know. Under the CBA, the Flames must pay Iginla a certain amount (i.e. the qualifying offer) in order to retain his rights. At some point, for financial reasons, the Flames may not be able to afford that qualifying offer and will therefore choose between a) going belly up b) trading him or c) trading other players to afford him.
Also, Iginla is one of the few NHL players who as a RFA could get a substantial contract offer from a deep pockets team who would be willing to part with many draft picks in exchange for a superstar entering his prime.
#1. The qualifying offers, and arbitration systems were both changed under the NHLPA's proposal, drastically reducing the inflationary ways of the past CBA.

#2. No RFA has gotten a bid since 1998, and plenty of "stars" have come up for new deals.

#3. If a big market American team bid on Iginla, Calgary could match the offer in cdn funds, and the NHL assistance fund would make up the difference.

John Flyers Fan is offline  
Old
12-24-2004, 03:12 PM
  #46
s7ark
Moderator
Fast and Up - JP
 
s7ark's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Country: Canada
Posts: 27,136
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by John Flyers Fan
#1. The qualifying offers, and arbitration systems were both changed under the NHLPA's proposal, drastically reducing the inflationary ways of the past CBA.

#2. No RFA has gotten a bid since 1998, and plenty of "stars" have come up for new deals.

#3. If a big market American team bid on Iginla, Calgary could match the offer in cdn funds, and the NHL assistance fund would make up the difference.

It doesn't matter if no one else would bid on Iggy. If he wants 9 million next year, with the PA's proposal, he would have every right to hold out and even if the owner took him to arrbitration, the comparisons would all be 8-10 million dollar players. Becuase it has gotten this bad there is no way the PA proposal would help a team like Calgary hold onto Iginla.

and if they don't take him to arbitration then he would sit until they caved or traded him. If they cave then they have to lose other players to afford him and if they trade him, they won't get a lot in return since the other teams know they have to move them. Also a lot of times, players demand to be traded to specfic teams or they won't sign with them either, that further limits the hand of the GM.

You brought up the Yashin and Nieuwendyk trade as comparisons. Those were as much luck as skill from the GM. Most trades are like Weight, Tkachuk, Jagr... salary dumps don't bring back a lot in return, generally.

The system needs to change. Small market teams cannot afford to keep their stars today, or under the PA proposal.

__________________
Let's see how this plays out...
s7ark is offline  
Old
12-24-2004, 03:44 PM
  #47
PecaFan
Registered User
 
PecaFan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Ottawa (Go 'Nucks)
Posts: 8,924
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by John Flyers Fan
...and how did that Nieuwendyk trade work out for the Flames ??? ... really killed the franchise huh ???
Geez, I love this stuff. They missed the playoffs for seven straight years after that trade. Yeah, worked out great for Calgary. Maybe they can trade Iginla, and get seven more years of similar"success".

God. You guys would point to some passed out drug addict in a gutter and say "See? nothing wrong with crack addiction. He's getting a free drink out of it. And free needles too!"

Quote:
Originally Posted by John Flyers Fan
The qualifying offers, and arbitration systems were both changed under the NHLPA's proposal, drastically reducing the inflationary ways of the past CBA.
Not at all. QO's are still minimum 100%. Arbitrators will still be able to award any contract they want, based on comparables. All new contracts are immediately comparables, so a *ton* of players currently unsigned would *instantly* inflate the comparable system.

The only change to the arbitration system was allowing owners to take players to arbitration, but that was so limited it will have *zero* effect on the inflationary ways.

PecaFan is offline  
Old
12-24-2004, 06:30 PM
  #48
Lanny MacDonald*
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Tuvalu
Posts: 4,457
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by John Flyers Fan
...and how did that Nieuwendyk trade work out for the Flames ??? ... really killed the franchise huh ???
Gee, I dunno? Seven straight years out of the playoffs? Yes, the trade got them Iginla, but Iginla didn't come to the NHL capable of playing at Nieuwendyk's level, and wasn't at that level for five long seasons. How about if you had to trade your top players for prospects all the time? Would you be happy knowing that you had to invest five years of developing a player and then getting two years out of them at their prime before being forced to gtrade them away? Probably not. That deal started a vicious cycle for the Flames. It was a terrible point in team history and that is very bitter sweet for the Flames fans out there.

Lanny MacDonald* 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 02:37 PM.

monitoring_string = "e4251c93e2ba248d29da988d93bf5144"

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. ©2017 All Rights Reserved.