Cox: Biggest contracts could take hit under new CBA

[MorriPage]

Originally Posted by Disgruntled Observer

But under that system, the players would only be able to afford six sports cars... as opposed to the current seven.
And we can't have that.
That would be terrible.

Much better to gouge it and then "revenue share" it out of the rich teams fans.

You know, when you put it like that, I guess it does makes se....... actually, no. Never mind. Still hate the idea.

[ULF_55]

Market determines the ticket prices, that's why a family of 4 can go to a Coyotes game for $100 including food and beverages.

Oh, and the team can deduct the cost of the food and beverages from the $100 to reduce the amount included in HRR. I'm okay with this, but I think the term should be HRR-AE (Hockey related revenues minus applicable expenses).

What would the cost of 4 hotdogs and 4 drinks be at ACC during a Leafs' game?

[jumptheshark]

Originally Posted by ULF_55

Market determines the ticket prices, that's why a family of 4 can go to a Coyotes game for $100 including food and beverages.

Oh, and the team can deduct the cost of the food and beverages from the $100 to reduce the amount included in HRR. I'm okay with this, but I think the term should be HRR-AE (Hockey related revenues minus applicable expenses).

What would the cost of 4 hotdogs and 4 drinks be at ACC during a Leafs' game?

last year against the oilers the dogs were offering 75bucks family of four with parking and burgers tossed in

100 bucks barely gets you into a leaf, oilers, nucks and canucks game

[ULF_55]

Originally Posted by jumptheshark

last year against the oilers the dogs were offering 75bucks family of four with parking and burgers tossed in

100 bucks barely gets you into a leaf, oilers, nucks and canucks game

Tickets are reasonable in Calgary, your family of 4 could get in (bad seats) for probably less than $200. No food or beverages.

Love watching Center Ice and hearing this family packs in the US though. Cheaper than going to a movie here.

[416Leafer]

Originally Posted by diceman934

Who said the owners would not honour the contracts?

However in order for a contract to be valid the services have to take places.....so if a player retires why would the owner have to honour the contract as the contract is no longer in force.

If the GMs were operating in good faith, then the have NOTHING to worry about, because the expectation SHOULD be that the player plays out the entire contract.

The ONLY reason for them to get up in arms over it, is if they don't expect the player to play the full contract, in which case they had designed the contract under the idea/plan that the player WOULD retire prior to playing out the whole contract, which is a violation of the previous CBA, let alone the new one.

I would LOVE it if the NHL forced teams to carry the cap hit of retired players. We're not talking about actual money here, so the owners are still honouring the monetary committment to retired players (which would be zero dollars).

[ULF_55]

Originally Posted by 416Leafer

If the GMs were operating in good faith, then the have NOTHING to worry about, because the expectation SHOULD be that the player plays out the entire contract.

Yes, if the player can and is willing to still play that should be the expectation.

Originally Posted by 416Leafer

The ONLY reason for them to get up in arms over it, is if they don't expect the player to play the full contract, in which case they had designed the contract under the idea/plan that the player WOULD retire prior to playing out the whole contract, which is a violation of the previous CBA, let alone the new one.

There is no such thing as a violation in the current CBA.

Originally Posted by 416Leafer

I would LOVE it if the NHL forced teams to carry the cap hit of retired players. We're not talking about actual money here, so the owners are still honouring the monetary committment to retired players (which would be zero dollars).

All the player has to do is show up for training camp and the team would have to pay him.

It is going to be fun watching these contracts play out if there is no relief.

Heck, Coyotes (if still in league) could trade for AO and Kovie and have 13 million against their cap without paying a cent.

[416Leafer]

Originally Posted by ULF_55

There is no such thing as a violation in the current CBA.

Then why did they reject the first Kovy deal on the grounds that it "circumvents the salary cap"?

If verbal agreements were made that the player would retire prior to the final few seasons in a contract, so that they player could get more money up front and the owner/team could lower the cap hit, that would fall under the same thing.

[ULF_55]

Originally Posted by 416Leafer

Then why did they reject the first Kovy deal on the grounds that it "circumvents the salary cap"?

If verbal agreements were made that the player would retire prior to the final few seasons in a contract, so that they player could get more money up front and the owner/team could lower the cap hit, that would fall under the same thing.

It was a trick question/answer.

There is no current CBA.