HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > NHL Eastern Conference > Atlantic Division > Toronto Maple Leafs
Notices

Biggest contracts could take hit under new CBA

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
09-24-2012, 07:48 AM
  #251
MorriPage
Registered User
 
MorriPage's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Earth
Country: Canada
Posts: 716
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Disgruntled Observer View Post
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.

MorriPage is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-24-2012, 08:29 AM
  #252
ULF_55
Global Moderator
 
ULF_55's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Mountain Standard Ti
Posts: 55,525
vCash: 500
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?

__________________
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bA3LN_8hjM8.

Vaive and Ludzik on collapse, and Phaneuf.
ULF_55 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-24-2012, 08:41 AM
  #253
jumptheshark
Give the dog a bone
 
jumptheshark's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: hf retirement home
Country: United Nations
Posts: 52,292
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by ULF_55 View Post
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

__________________
trying to fend off exwife number 2
45000/010113
GO SHARKS GO
jumptheshark is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-24-2012, 08:50 AM
  #254
ULF_55
Global Moderator
 
ULF_55's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Mountain Standard Ti
Posts: 55,525
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by jumptheshark View Post
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.

ULF_55 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-24-2012, 09:51 AM
  #255
416Leafer
Registered User
 
416Leafer's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 5,522
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by diceman934 View Post
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).

416Leafer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-24-2012, 10:39 AM
  #256
ULF_55
Global Moderator
 
ULF_55's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Mountain Standard Ti
Posts: 55,525
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by 416Leafer View Post
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.

Quote:
Originally Posted by 416Leafer View Post
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.

Quote:
Originally Posted by 416Leafer View Post
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.

ULF_55 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-24-2012, 10:43 AM
  #257
416Leafer
Registered User
 
416Leafer's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 5,522
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by ULF_55 View Post
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.

416Leafer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-24-2012, 10:44 AM
  #258
ULF_55
Global Moderator
 
ULF_55's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Mountain Standard Ti
Posts: 55,525
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by 416Leafer View Post
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.

ULF_55 is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

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 06:42 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.