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.

New Eklund Post! Re:Cap/NHL teams Splitting?

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
01-20-2005, 04:13 PM
  #51
incawg
Registered User
 
incawg's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Canuckland
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,009
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bruwinz37
What better way to get attention than through a small blog with no advertisements?
Advertisements have nothing to do with it, and the "size" of the blog is determined by the readership. It really is painfully obvious that this guy is just seeking attention, but it's equally as obvious that nothing I say will change the opinion of the large group of people that intently follow this charlatan's every word.

I bet you dollars to doughnuts he's reading this thread and loving every minute of it. It's no different from an attention-seeking troll as far as I'm concerned. On that note, I think I'll stop contributing to the problem and leave this thread alone.

incawg is offline  
Old
01-20-2005, 04:26 PM
  #52
Chayos
Registered User
 
Chayos's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Whitehorse, Yukon
Posts: 2,682
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by HF2002
"Inside sources", "sources tell me" or "I heard on good authority" are phrases you hear all the time.

Someone like Bob McKenzie uses these lines and he's often closer to the truth than most others, which makes him more believeable and credible over time. Real 'people in the know' give him the info because they want to see what kind of reaction it will get from a player or the fans. For example, a GM may say to McKenzie "we've had discussions about moving so and so". Often, this is done to send a player a message. Players read the papers and hear the rumours (despite their insistence that they don't).

Who is more likely to be believed - McKenzie or an anonymous blogger such as Eklund? If you're Eklund, and you're constantly being fed misinformation, after a while you're just not going to listen to what you're being fed because it's always wrong.

Let's be honest, everyone loves being told secrets and everyone loves to be heard. People stop listening to you very quickly if they think you're talking through your rear.
I find it funny that everyone is ready to shoot down everything Eklund is saying as crap yet it gets reposted again the next day when he writes something new. The question you have to ask yourself is why do you keep going back to his site if he is serving up crap? Answer:: Because the stuff on his site is at least plausible and while the stuff today seems super far fetched it is not something outside of the realm of possiblity. The funny thing is yesterday he said a deal had been in teh works since the weekend and now its sounding like that is true so why can't some of the other stuff be true too?


Could the league have a power struggle going on in this time of crisis among the owners? Of course and the only realy power those owners have now that Bettman has his 8 votes to continue the lockout card, is to threaten legal action. The part about leaving the league and forming a super league sounds like blustering to me and should really be discounted.

Chayos is offline  
Old
01-20-2005, 04:39 PM
  #53
ceber
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Wyoming, MN
Country: United States
Posts: 3,500
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by HF2002
"Inside sources", "sources tell me" or "I heard on good authority" are phrases you hear all the time.

Someone like Bob McKenzie uses these lines and he's often closer to the truth than most others, which makes him more believeable and credible over time.
In my opinion, when Bob McKenzie says "sources tell me" etc., he is not spreading a rumor. He's acting as a reporter, and he's simply not revealing the source of his information, which is all well and good. If he says "rumor has it" that's a lot different. Reporting facts and not revealing sources is quite a bit different than repeating a rumor.

This Eklund guy, while he says he works in the media, is certainly not acting in that role on his blog, and his rumors are just as valid or invalid as anyone else's.

ceber is offline  
Old
01-20-2005, 05:10 PM
  #54
me2
Seahawks 43
 
me2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Broncos 8
Country: Wallis & Futuna
Posts: 17,326
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by JohnnyReb
Player wise, the Super League would very easily, and very quickly stock up on the best players in the world. Remember, these six all had massive payrolls anyways, so its not like it would be any different for them. $60 million is $60 million, regardless of whether you are spending it on NHL players or Super League players. They could bid on every free agent that comes available. Think of all the free agents that haven’t been signed from last season. Think of all the players whose contracts expire after this year/season. And we’re not just talking UFAs here. Restricted free agents would be free to sign with the Super League too. Like Kovalchouk.

Then there are the undrafted players, like Sydney Crosby. “Hey Sydney, you can play for the Nashville Predators, for a rookie-capped $800,000 a year, or you can play in Toronto, for $3 million.”

If money is no object, the Super League would have no trouble finding players.
Sure they'll find players but they won't be significantly better. They won't have all stars from the 1st line to the 4th. Even a weak team like Calgary can still find $8m for Igilna. If the SL 6 want to ice all star lineups they'll need $140m payrolls because they'll have to outbid the 24 lesser clubs, not even they can afford that. At the end of the day the buying power of the 24 lesser teams is higher than that of the 6 SL teams (24 lesser clubs carrying 1 star player each = 6 SL clubs carry 4 stars).

If it gets into a bidding way, then both sides lose.

me2 is offline  
Old
01-20-2005, 05:51 PM
  #55
thinkwild
Veni Vidi Toga
 
thinkwild's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Ottawa
Country: Canada
Posts: 8,266
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by JohnnyReb
These big market owners have listened to everyone, including Gary Bettman, tell them that they are idiots and morons, that they are ruining hockey, and can’t control themselves. And really, what have they done? Spend money to get the best players, to ice the best team, to give their fans the best chance at a Stanley Cup? Up until this year, fans always said Bill Wirtz and Jeremy Jacobs were cheap, greedy you-know-whats, who only cared about making money, and “not doing what it takes to win.” Now, all of a sudden, the “good” owners, who did do what it takes to win, are being called incompetent fools, while everyone is lining up to get on the Wirtz/Jacobs school of NHL team building?? From a pure ego standpoint, the rich owners might look at the profits they are making, the players they can sign, the arenas they own, the TV broadcasts they can make, and say “screw you, I’ll show you who the moron is.’

Like I said, I don’t for a second think it will happen. But its certainly not as crazy as some make it out to be.
LOL. And lease a couple concords and have 6 Euro teams as well. It almost seems the inevitable evolution.

There must be a big battle going on between the owners that we never hear of. When the lockout started, it was said to be as much owner v owner as owner v player. But we never hear the owner v owner part. Its probably the way more interesting gossip.

thinkwild is offline  
Old
01-21-2005, 08:50 AM
  #56
JohnnyReb
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Posts: 558
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Benji Frank
Good point. It'd sure suck having to watch Joe Sakic, Peter Forsberg, Chris Pronger, Jerome Iginla, Eric Lindros & Paul KAriya 8 or 9 times a year (are they all FA's???) instead of getting an opportunity to cheer on Dave Lowry, Ramzi Abid, Shawn Horcoff, Mike Leclerc, Steve Ott, and Turner Stevonson a couple of times per year form those same $120 seats!!!!
Not just unrestricted free agents. Restricted free agents too. They don't have contracts, they can sign with whoever they want, outside the NHL.

Iginla, Heately, Kovalchouk, St. Louis, just from last season. How many more players have their contracts expiring after this year?

Quote:
Originally Posted by me2
Sure they'll find players but they won't be significantly better. They won't have all stars from the 1st line to the 4th. Even a weak team like Calgary can still find $8m for Igilna. If the SL 6 want to ice all star lineups they'll need $140m payrolls because they'll have to outbid the 24 lesser clubs, not even they can afford that. At the end of the day the buying power of the 24 lesser teams is higher than that of the 6 SL teams (24 lesser clubs carrying 1 star player each = 6 SL clubs carry 4 stars).

If it gets into a bidding way, then both sides lose.
Not in a salary cap world, the Flames couldn't. Not unless they want to tie up $8-10 million in one player. And if your options are playing in Calgary for $8 million, with Stephane Yelle as your center, or playing in Detroit, with Steve Yzerman as your center...

The Super Six wouldn't have to ice four lines of All Stars, with a $140 million payroll. They would just have to do what they are doing now - ice a $60 million team...

Like I said, its not going to happen, but if it did...

JohnnyReb is offline  
Old
01-21-2005, 09:08 AM
  #57
Lanny MacDonald*
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Tuvalu
Posts: 4,457
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by JohnnyReb
The Super Six wouldn't have to ice four lines of All Stars, with a $140 million payroll. They would just have to do what they are doing now - ice a $60 million team...

Like I said, its not going to happen, but if it did...
... it would be about as successful as the NLL. No network would take them seriously. You think the NHL is niche? A Super league would become a joke very quickly, nothing more than the way the WHA faded into nothingness. You have to understand something, and I know the pro-player side has not figured this out yet. The teams are what make the players. The league is what makes the team. The oplayers would have a run of a season, maybe two on their own, and fade to nothing. The NHL would continue and would survive nicely, creating new stars.

I have yet to see one person actually give a good reason why the big market teams are the ones against the cap proposal? Those markets are all about making money too, and with a cap they are guaranteed about making record profits. You think for a minute that MSG wouldn't want an extra $30 million in profits from reduction in salaries? That the Ontario Teachers wouldn't want an additional $30 million in profits? You're kidding yourself. That is money right in the bank for these corporate interests. You think for a minute they really like to spend all that money or care that the fans want to see all of these aging bums get all this money? No. They are just doing what they can to make a buck, and this plan guarantees them another $30 million in profits. And some of you argue that they are against this plan and want to break away start their own league where they can spend foolishly and assume greater risks than they already do, for an even smaller market? Wow, and I thought the Brothers Grimm wrote a good tale.

Lanny MacDonald* is offline  
Old
01-21-2005, 10:00 AM
  #58
JohnnyReb
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Posts: 558
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Iconoclast
... it would be about as successful as the NLL. No network would take them seriously. You think the NHL is niche? A Super league would become a joke very quickly, nothing more than the way the WHA faded into nothingness. You have to understand something, and I know the pro-player side has not figured this out yet. The teams are what make the players. The league is what makes the team. The oplayers would have a run of a season, maybe two on their own, and fade to nothing. The NHL would continue and would survive nicely, creating new stars.

I have yet to see one person actually give a good reason why the big market teams are the ones against the cap proposal? Those markets are all about making money too, and with a cap they are guaranteed about making record profits. You think for a minute that MSG wouldn't want an extra $30 million in profits from reduction in salaries? That the Ontario Teachers wouldn't want an additional $30 million in profits? You're kidding yourself. That is money right in the bank for these corporate interests. You think for a minute they really like to spend all that money or care that the fans want to see all of these aging bums get all this money? No. They are just doing what they can to make a buck, and this plan guarantees them another $30 million in profits. And some of you argue that they are against this plan and want to break away start their own league where they can spend foolishly and assume greater risks than they already do, for an even smaller market? Wow, and I thought the Brothers Grimm wrote a good tale.
I will assume that English is not your first language. See, in every post I have made in this thread, I stated "I don't think it will happen" which in English, means "I don't think it will happen."

The original assertion was that it was a crazy idea. Its not crazy. Yes, the big market owners would be better off in a salary cap world. But aren't we having this lockout because some people think the rich owners don't care about making profits, and are only in it because they regard their teams as toys? You say the big market owners wouldn't be so foolish as to break away and start their own league, because there is no money in it, and then turn around and say that we have to have a lockout because the big market owners are so foolish and are losing money? Either way, aren't they being foolish??

As for a network taking them seriously, what network currently takes the NHL seriously?? NBC? Oh yeah, they're going to rake in the money on that deal. The CBC? You think these big markets are making any significant money on the CBC deal? Please. You know better than that.

As for the team "making the players" what is your point? The "teams" would be in the Super League. That's the original assertion. And they may even fight in court to retain their "team" names. What then? What would the NHL be without the Leafs, Flyers, Rangers, Avalanche, Red Wings and Stars? Make their own, new stars? And what would stop the Super League from simply poaching them too? As I said in the original thread, in the new NHL, Sydney Crosby would make $800,000. In the Super League, he could make whatever some team would be willing to give him. Hypothetically (which means "its not actually real, but an interesting speculation"). The WHA snagged Gretzky, didn't they?

As I have said all along, I don't believe it will happen (that means "I don't believe it will happen"). But its interesting speculation.

JohnnyReb is offline  
Old
01-21-2005, 11:04 AM
  #59
Lanny MacDonald*
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Tuvalu
Posts: 4,457
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by JohnnyReb
As I have said all along, I don't believe it will happen (that means "I don't believe it will happen"). But its interesting speculation.
Yeah, interesting speculation for people who don't have a clue and don't bother to actually consider the ramifications of such a move. How does a six team league have any credability? In a world where globalism is king, it doesn't. Six teams has appeal to those markets only. How does Toronto vs Philadelphia play in Phoenix? How does it play in Nashville? How does it play in Montreal? It doesn't. Especially if players abandon their teams to go there. Players are not the game. Once a player leaves a team the majority of fans don't bother following him any longer. In fact a lot of them harbor resentment toward them. You think anyone is going to watch this glorified ice capades show other than those in the cities in question? If you do I have some ocean front property in Arizona I wish to sell you.

Lanny MacDonald* is offline  
Old
01-21-2005, 11:10 AM
  #60
FLYLine24*
 
FLYLine24*'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: NY
Country: United States
Posts: 29,102
vCash: 500
People are still posting this little kids garbage?? Sigh..this is just as bad as someone posting info on the board with no sources.....Eklund never has sources....suprised this wasnt locked.

FLYLine24* is offline  
Old
01-21-2005, 11:12 AM
  #61
Greschner4
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 754
vCash: 500
I'm 99.99% certain a team owner owns all the logos, colors, and team names -- in legal terms, they're trademarks and trade names and, as someone has already mentioned, are worth a lot of money because of their history and value as well-known brands.

The owners -- not the league -- also own the leases for the buildings they play in (or in some cases the building itself).

All of which is to say that the super league concept is not that far-fetched. As I see it, the only thing of value the NHL holds is the Stanley Cup and I suppose some may say the name "National Hockey League." So if the Big 6 or Big 8 could buy the Stanley Cup from the NHL (everything has a price) they could play hockey against only each other that from a marketing and brand name perspective would look to a viewer exactly like things look now ... without having to keep their spending on players within artificial limits.

One obstacle may be the league constitution or by-laws which may have provisions disallowing teams from breaking away from the league.

Greschner4 is offline  
Old
01-21-2005, 11:24 AM
  #62
Lanny MacDonald*
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Tuvalu
Posts: 4,457
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Greschner4
I'm 99.99% certain a team owner owns all the logos, colors, and team names -- in legal terms, they're trademarks and trade names and, as someone has already mentioned, are worth a lot of money because of their history and value as well-known brands.

The owners -- not the league -- also own the leases for the buildings they play in (or in some cases the building itself).

All of which is to say that the super league concept is not that far-fetched. As I see it, the only thing of value the NHL holds is the Stanley Cup and I suppose some may say the name "National Hockey League." So if the Big 6 or Big 8 could buy the Stanley Cup from the NHL (everything has a price) they could play hockey against only each other that from a marketing and brand name perspective would look to a viewer exactly like things look now ... without having to keep their spending on players within artificial limits.

One obstacle may be the league constitution or by-laws which may have provisions disallowing teams from breaking away from the league.
And I'm 99.99% sure you are wrong. The NHL is a franchise operation, meaning all the things you outline are owned by the league and are granted to an ownership group to use under the banner of NHL operations, as granted by the NHL board of govenors.. This is no different from a franchised fast food restaurant wanting to go its own way and start doing things differently from the corporate standard. The owner gets to keep his location, but gets stripped of the franchise. The guy has to change the presentation of the product and go out on his own. And as we have seen, they almost always fail, and if they do survive end up doing a fraction of the business they originally did. There is something to be said for name brand recognition, and without the brand the teams and the players are nothing.

Lanny MacDonald* is offline  
Old
01-21-2005, 11:40 AM
  #63
chiavsfan
Registered User
 
chiavsfan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Chicagoland, IL
Country: United States
Posts: 4,426
vCash: 500
Where is dippity doodles latest "rumor?" It's usually up by now?

chiavsfan is offline  
Old
01-21-2005, 12:39 PM
  #64
Isles72
Registered User
 
Isles72's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Canada
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,811
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by chiavsfan
Where is dippity doodles latest "rumor?" It's usually up by now?
he's run to the hills

Isles72 is offline  
Old
01-21-2005, 12:47 PM
  #65
Greschner4
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 754
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Iconoclast
And I'm 99.99% sure you are wrong. The NHL is a franchise operation, meaning all the things you outline are owned by the league and are granted to an ownership group to use under the banner of NHL operations, as granted by the NHL board of govenors.. This is no different from a franchised fast food restaurant wanting to go its own way and start doing things differently from the corporate standard. The owner gets to keep his location, but gets stripped of the franchise. The guy has to change the presentation of the product and go out on his own. And as we have seen, they almost always fail, and if they do survive end up doing a fraction of the business they originally did. There is something to be said for name brand recognition, and without the brand the teams and the players are nothing.
It's probably not as simple as either of us say.

All we have to do is look on the fine print on the front page of nhl.com ... the league name, league shield, and Stanley Cup are owned only by the league; teams themselves have an ownership piece of the team logos.

Owners can change their team name, change their logo, change their colors, take a new name upon moving to a new city, etc. They couldn't do these things if they didn't own them. There may be a side agreement that for marketing purposes they'll wait a year, or get league approval, but the owners clearly have an ownership interest in the team trademarks. What they get from the league is the right to conduct the game under the brand "National Hockey League" against other league members, and to compete for and possess the "Stanley Cup." My opinion is that what they get from the league pales in comparison to what they get from their team names and logos.

The question really is, as you say, whether the league constitution or by-laws or franchise agreements allow (1) use of the logos in something other than a game under the auspices of the "National Hockey League" and/or (2) a franchise owner to withdraw from the league and under what conditions. And unfortunately I couldn't find the constitution and by-laws on the 'net so I don't know the answer, even though I'd really like to.

Greschner4 is offline  
Old
01-21-2005, 12:58 PM
  #66
GodZillaAteMyZamboni
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 147
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Iconoclast
And I'm 99.99% sure you are wrong. The NHL is a franchise operation, meaning all the things you outline are owned by the league and are granted to an ownership group to use under the banner of NHL operations, as granted by the NHL board of govenors..
Not sure about the NHL, but that isn't true in the NFL. When the Colts moved to Indy, they took the logo with them even though the league had not approved a move. The league and the city of Baltimore wanted the logo to stay in Baltimore. Irsay took it with him anyway.

When Art Modell took his team to Baltimore, it was a deal made by the city of Cleveland and Modell that got him to leave the Browns name in Ohio.

This also became an issue with the Washyington Redskins, who recently experienced some trademark issues with their logo. All news reports stated that the logo is owned by the Redskins, who are in turn owned by Dan Snyder, not the league.

GodZillaAteMyZamboni is offline  
Old
01-21-2005, 01:36 PM
  #67
CREW99AW
Registered User
 
CREW99AW's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 28,384
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by JohnnyReb
Sure, why not? How did they do it in the olden days?
.
because in the olden days
1.there weren't 24 other professional teams with their own fan bases.Those 6 teams will be a novelty to the fans of the 24 other teams,they won't be the only professional hockey league in NA like they were in the olden days.

2.we're seen the last decade, how some of the big market teams ignored their own finanacial losses in the middle of playoff races.It wouldn't be a surprise to see these teams with huge payrolls and high tix prices.

3.this 6 team league will have the same major problem the nhl has...rising salaries and no major tv deal.

CREW99AW is offline  
Old
01-21-2005, 02:03 PM
  #68
JohnnyReb
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Posts: 558
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by CREW99AW
because in the olden days
1.there weren't 24 other professional teams with their own fan bases.Those 6 teams will be a novelty to the fans of the 24 other teams,they won't be the only professional hockey league in NA like they were in the olden days.
Well, if we learned anything from the last 10 years, its that hockey is a regional sport. As long as those six teams do well in their own cities, as long as fans in their cities attend the games and fans in their cities watch the TV broadcast, it will be pretty much the exact same thing as what they have now. The Flyers get no money from the Philly fan living in Columbus.

Quote:
Originally Posted by CREW99AW
2.we're seen the last decade, how some of the big market teams ignored their own finanacial losses in the middle of playoff races.It wouldn't be a surprise to see these teams with huge payrolls and high tix prices.
They already have huge payrolls and high ticket prices. Again, from their standpoint, nothing changes.

Quote:
Originally Posted by CREW99AW
3.this 6 team league will have the same major problem the nhl has...rising salaries and no major tv deal.
But, the argument goes, these six teams are already making gobs of money, even with high salaries and no major TV deal. Again, for them, nothing has changed.

JohnnyReb is offline  
Old
01-21-2005, 03:30 PM
  #69
Lanny MacDonald*
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Tuvalu
Posts: 4,457
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Greschner4
It's probably not as simple as either of us say.

All we have to do is look on the fine print on the front page of nhl.com ... the league name, league shield, and Stanley Cup are owned only by the league; teams themselves have an ownership piece of the team logos.

Owners can change their team name, change their logo, change their colors, take a new name upon moving to a new city, etc. They couldn't do these things if they didn't own them. There may be a side agreement that for marketing purposes they'll wait a year, or get league approval, but the owners clearly have an ownership interest in the team trademarks. What they get from the league is the right to conduct the game under the brand "National Hockey League" against other league members, and to compete for and possess the "Stanley Cup." My opinion is that what they get from the league pales in comparison to what they get from their team names and logos.

The question really is, as you say, whether the league constitution or by-laws or franchise agreements allow (1) use of the logos in something other than a game under the auspices of the "National Hockey League" and/or (2) a franchise owner to withdraw from the league and under what conditions. And unfortunately I couldn't find the constitution and by-laws on the 'net so I don't know the answer, even though I'd really like to.
All with the approval of the Board of Govenors. You don't do jack to your franchise in the NHL without it being cleared by the league. That's what owning a franchise is all about.

Lanny MacDonald* is offline  
Old
01-21-2005, 08:07 PM
  #70
CREW99AW
Registered User
 
CREW99AW's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 28,384
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by JohnnyReb
Well, if we learned anything from the last 10 years, its that hockey is a regional sport. As long as those six teams do well in their own cities, as long as fans in their cities attend the games and fans in their cities watch the TV broadcast, it will be pretty much the exact same thing as what they have now. The Flyers get no money from the Philly fan living in Columbus.



They already have huge payrolls and high ticket prices. Again, from their standpoint, nothing changes.



But, the argument goes, these six teams are already making gobs of money, even with high salaries and no major TV deal. Again, for them, nothing has changed.
I agree that those 6 teams would continue to be supported by their fans in their cities.My point was that in olden days,those 6 teams would have also had the attention and support from other cities across NA.That's not the case today because those other cities now have their own teams to support.


The argument being made by fans who think those 6 teams could successfully form their own league, is that those 6 teams would outbid the 24 nhl teams,taking star players from the 24 nhl teams.Well if players like Kovalchuk,Luongo etc, are going to be the object of bidding wars among those 6 teams,expect their $55m-$75m payrolls to go up even higher.Those 6 teams haven't exactly shown spending restraint in the past,so why would they now?And as I pointed out earlier in the thread,they still won't have the major tv contract that the NBA,NFL and baseball have.


are all 6 of the highest spending teams making gobs of $?Detroit's owner claimed to be losing $ the last few yrs,despite his continued spending and the Dallas Stars payroll got so tight they were unable to retain Hatcher who they wanted to keep badly enough, that they unsuccessfully shopped other players,trying to free up payroll.

CREW99AW is offline  
Old
01-23-2005, 03:27 AM
  #71
me2
Seahawks 43
 
me2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Broncos 8
Country: Wallis & Futuna
Posts: 17,326
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by JohnnyReb

Not in a salary cap world, the Flames couldn't. Not unless they want to tie up $8-10 million in one player.
Which they might have to. Its bad news for the lesser players but I doubt the better players knock back the $8m.

Quote:
The Super Six wouldn't have to ice four lines of All Stars, with a $140 million payroll. They would just have to do what they are doing now - ice a $60 million team...

Try and build a team for $60m. List the players one of these Super 6 clubs will sign and for how much.

me2 is offline  
Old
01-23-2005, 09:21 AM
  #72
JohnnyReb
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Posts: 558
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by me2
Try and build a team for $60m. List the players one of these Super 6 clubs will sign and for how much.
Umm, okay??


Forsberg, Peter $ 11,000,000 C
Sakic, Joe $ 9,880,939 C
Blake, Rob $ 9,326,519 D
Selanne, Teemu $ 5,800,000 RW
Foote, Adam $ 4,300,000 D
Morris, Derek $ 3,500,000 D
Hejduk, Milan $ 3,200,000 RW
Nikolishin, Andrei $ 1,750,000 C
Konowalchuk, Steve $ 1,575,000 LW
Tanguay, Alex $ 1,500,000 LW
Skoula, Martin $ 1,350,000 D
Skrastins, Karlis $ 1,200,000 D
Kariya, Paul $ 1,200,000 LW
Worrell, Peter $ 800,000 LW
McCormick, Cody $ 700,000 C
Hinote, Dan $ 700,000 RW
McAllister, Chris $ 650,000 D
Larsen, Brad $ 565,000 LW
Aebischer, David $ 550,000 G
Liles, John-Michael $ 550,000 D
Sauve, Philippe $ 500,000 G
Smith, D.J. $ 500,000 D
Svatos, Marek $ 450,000 RW
Moore, Steve $ 425,000 C
Hahl, Riku $ 385,000 C
Cummins, Jim $ 350,000 RW
Kliazmine, Sergei $ 350,000 LW
Brigley, Travis $ 325,000 C

Total: $ 63,382,458

JohnnyReb is offline  
Old
01-23-2005, 09:58 AM
  #73
CREW99AW
Registered User
 
CREW99AW's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 28,384
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by JohnnyReb
Umm, okay??


Forsberg, Peter $ 11,000,000 C
Sakic, Joe $ 9,880,939 C
Blake, Rob $ 9,326,519 D
Selanne, Teemu $ 5,800,000 RW
Foote, Adam $ 4,300,000 D
Morris, Derek $ 3,500,000 D
Hejduk, Milan $ 3,200,000 RW
Nikolishin, Andrei $ 1,750,000 C
Konowalchuk, Steve $ 1,575,000 LW
Tanguay, Alex $ 1,500,000 LW
Skoula, Martin $ 1,350,000 D
Skrastins, Karlis $ 1,200,000 D
Kariya, Paul $ 1,200,000 LW
Worrell, Peter $ 800,000 LW
McCormick, Cody $ 700,000 C
Hinote, Dan $ 700,000 RW
McAllister, Chris $ 650,000 D
Larsen, Brad $ 565,000 LW
Aebischer, David $ 550,000 G
Liles, John-Michael $ 550,000 D
Sauve, Philippe $ 500,000 G
Smith, D.J. $ 500,000 D
Svatos, Marek $ 450,000 RW
Moore, Steve $ 425,000 C
Hahl, Riku $ 385,000 C
Cummins, Jim $ 350,000 RW
Kliazmine, Sergei $ 350,000 LW
Brigley, Travis $ 325,000 C

Total: $ 63,382,458

and you don't think one of the 24 nhl teams wouldn't offer Tanguay more then the $1.5m the Avs are paying him,Kariya more then the $1.2m he'd get from the Avs or Liles more then the $ 550,000 he'd get from the Avs?

CREW99AW is offline  
Old
01-23-2005, 10:12 AM
  #74
JohnnyReb
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Posts: 558
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by CREW99AW
and you don't think one of the 24 nhl teams wouldn't offer Tanguay more then the $1.5m the Avs are paying him,Kariya more then the $1.2m he'd get from the Avs or Liles more then the $ 550,000 he'd get from the Avs?
And if they do? So what? More than enough other players to go around. 27 players made over $6.5 million last year, if you give one each to the 24 teams in the "new" NHL, that still leaves dozens and dozens of other players free for the Super Six. Like Tanguay, and Kovalchouk, and Heately and so on.

If the 24 up the salaries of those guys, into the $6 million + range, not only are they contributing to the "inflationary system" they are so afraid, but they eat up all their cap room. 27 guys making over $6.5 million. Over 50 more made over $4 million. And that DOESN'T include up and comers like Gaborik, Hejduk, Gagne, Hossa, Lecavalier and a bunch of others. Nor does it include rookies like Ovechkin, Malkin and Crosby, who in theory would be forced to accept $800,000 caps on their earnings (or up to a million, whatever).

You'd end up with a bidding war. One side has tonnes of money, and no restrictions on how to spend it. The other side claims they have no money, and they aren't allowed to spend past a certain amount anyways.

Who do you think would win?

JohnnyReb is offline  
Old
01-23-2005, 10:19 AM
  #75
SuperUnknown
Registered User
 
SuperUnknown's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 4,513
vCash: 500
I doubt a 6 team league would gather enough interest to survive on its own. About a super league including Europe, the teams in Europe wouldn't generate enough revenues to compete with the ones in NA, so better forget about it.

SuperUnknown 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 01:19 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.