I know that message boards are all about exerting superior knowledge and you really, really want to/love to prove people wrong on here (ive lurked long enough), but take the hit this time.
Over/under on Phoenix leaving? Two seasons? Looks like the bigger cut for ownership is coming just in time.
Phoenix is being sold to interests in Seattle. Jamison is a caretaker for the NHL which will recoup the money they sunk into Phoenix. The NHL will expand into Markham,Ontario and Quebec City. The NHL will have a new TV deal within 2 years when the CBC contract is up. The NHL teams will get the expansion fees which are not part of HRR. The players will benefit from the increased revenue from those 3 teams.
Phoenix is being sold to interests in Seattle. Jamison is a caretaker for the NHL which will recoup the money they sunk into Phoenix. The NHL will expand into Markham,Ontario and Quebec City. The NHL will have a new TV deal within 2 years when the CBC contract is up. The NHL teams will get the expansion fees which are not part of HRR. The players will benefit from the increased revenue from those 3 teams.
Expand or move? Very different contexts.
I can't imagine the league expanding to even more teams at this juncture(even with the expansion fees). But I would not be surprised if a couple teams moved north.
I still am not completely sold on move to Seattle. I think that is a very temperamental market. No guarantee it would be a success. Especially since they couldn't hold on to the Supersonics.
I always thought Portland, Oregon could be a great fit.
I can't imagine the league expanding to even more teams at this juncture(even with the expansion fees). But I would not be surprised if a couple teams moved north.
I still am not completely sold on move to Seattle. I think that is a very temperamental market. No guarantee it would be a success. Especially since they couldn't hold on to the Supersonics.
I always thought Portland, Oregon could be a great fit.
Why couldn't you see expansion? It'd be a huge win for the NHL money wise. Especially in Canada.
__________________
"Of course giving Sather cap space is like giving teenagers whiskey and car keys." - SBOB "Watching Sather build a team is like watching a blind man with no fingers trying to put together an elaborate puzzle." - Shadowtron
Sestito still on the make a wish tour. - rholt168
__________________
"Trust me I'm an expert, I watched 13 rangers games on NHL center Ice this year through streaming." -Starburst
"I don't even understand what the point of all this arguing is. Are you guys hoping that the other side is going to have an epiphany and go 'Oh, OH! You're right, we ARE going to lose this series!'" -Crease
How is it more of the same? They want to lessen to top amount the players can receive.
If an individual team blows its finances somehow, no, of course I would say that isn't the players' fault.
If the vast majority of the league is losing money, and is only supported by the Rangers, Habs and Leafs, I would say that is a systemic problem that needs to be fixed.
It's not the players' "fault"... outside of the fact that they should realize the sport is not healthy and should be more willing to accept a lesser salary cap.
They don't want the same system. The system right now provides so that each team spends between $48 million and $64 million on player salaries.
At that level, most teams are still bleeding.
If we reduced that, to say, between $10 million and $20 million, well, each team would probably be making tens of millions of dollars. So that wouldn't be fair either.
The fair thing to do is find a range where most teams are independently profitable, with revenue sharing to help the few teams on the bottom who are not profitable still.
Revenue sharing is ok to a degree. However, it's a problem when the Rangers, Habs, and Leafs are the only 3 teams making serious profits and those three teams have to carry the rest of the league's losses. That is not ok.
That is what Forbes said just happened, though.
So that needs to change. We have to drop player salaries to a range where more teams are profitable.
Dude, it's the same system, different numbers. A new system is no cap (ceiling or floor), luxury tax, the MLS style of league autonomy.
The bottom teams simply cannot fund the cap floor. Lower percentages only delay the inevitable. These teams will lose money before the next CBA expires.
Insanity is doing the same thing wrong even when you know it's wrong.
I'm sure many of you would think this crazy, but the NHL needs to cut out the weak franchises, IMO.
Any team with weak market, fan base or balance sheet. To me that may be as many as ten teams, as few as maybe six.
Quebec has demonstrated a robust desire to have a team there from what I have seen. I talk to people in Toronto that think the area could easily support a second team.
People talk about growing hockey. You can't do that with a crappy business model and a league that is not taken seriously.
Expansion is stupid, counterproductive, and inevitable. The money is free of player hands. It will also drive up salaries and water down the product. Some teams will never make the playoffs let alone sniff a cup.
Contraction is not a possibility. Why? Because the League would have to pay back the entrance fee the team paid to join the league. And the entry fee paid ain't chopped liver.
As of this weekend who is pushing for an immediate settlement? Clearly both sides would like the season to start but.... Are both sides / either side lighting up the switchboards?
1The owners
2)The players
3)both
4)neither ?
The option of a full season is still out there if a deal is done by next week.
“@NYP_Brooksie: From Fehr memo tonight: "Owners did advise players that their last offer was, in essence, take it or leave it, subject to 'tweaks' only."”
“@NYP_Brooksie: Fehr: Bettman told him that when players agree to all other aspects of proposal except tweaks, PA should call to discuss "make-whole" issue.”
Dude, it's the same system, different numbers. A new system is no cap (ceiling or floor), luxury tax, the MLS style of league autonomy.
The bottom teams simply cannot fund the cap floor. Lower percentages only delay the inevitable. These teams will lose money before the next CBA expires.
Insanity is doing the same thing wrong even when you know it's wrong.
I'm confused as to how this is the case.
The cap is set at a percentage of revenue. If you set the salary cap at 99% of revenue, every team in the league will lose money because they only have 1% of the money coming in remaining to pay the rest of their costs.
If you set set the cap at 1% of revenue, the players will get so little money that as long as the NHL revenues are enough to cover it's other costs (stadiums, ticket sale staff, concession employees, marketing, etc), every team will make lots of money.
In theory if NHL revenues never go down from this point (and it's fairly safe to say that they should continue to go up based on inflation alone, not that I'm predicting growth that we've seen the last 6 years to continue or anything), then there should be a percent you can set the cap at where every team makes money.
Right? Am I missing something? The league just has to determine what that percentage should be.
The owners are responsible for righting their financial ships.
This is how they are doing it. By capping player salaries.
It is dishonest for one to argue "Well, the owners should just stop handing out big contracts." No, they shouldn't. They should hand out whatever contracts they can under the current salary structure.
The reason they should do that is because, if they're not, that means they aren't trying to win. The goal of this league is to win the Stanley Cup. If you're not trying to put your team in the best position to do that, you're not being a good owner. You can't do that without trying to get the best players which means paying them lots of money and often times outbidding other owners. That will naturally drive up costs to the limit of your rules. If you haven't set rules, it will keep going up and up until you reach a scenario where the rich teams (Yankees) can simply outspend all the little teams (Twins) and so the little teams have to hope they can win with players on rookie contracts before they bolt in free agency.
So when it comes time to evaluate the CBA, that is the owners chance to set new rules for what it makes sense for them to spend every season.
So you are right... the players aren't the ones running their franchises into the grounds, the owners are.
This is their attempt to stop it. This is the correct way to stop it.
The other alternatives are either not competing or outright collusion (which is illegal).
I think that making contracts public leads to the superfast inflation that causes so much trouble.
In 'real life' salary isnt public knowledge. Why is it made public in sport? Kind of weird, actually.
I think that making contracts public leads to the superfast inflation that causes so much trouble.
In 'real life' salary isnt public knowledge. Why is it made public in sport? Kind of weird, actually.
State and municipal salaries are published on websites. You're not wrong though. Before public salaries, Gordie Howe was one of the lowest paid on his team
I can't imagine the league expanding to even more teams at this juncture(even with the expansion fees). But I would not be surprised if a couple teams moved north.
I still am not completely sold on move to Seattle. I think that is a very temperamental market. No guarantee it would be a success. Especially since they couldn't hold on to the Supersonics.
I always thought Portland, Oregon could be a great fit.
Expand. Expansion fees are worth more than relocation fees. Winnipeg paid $60M to relocate the Thrashers to Winnipeg. Expansion fees could bring the NHL $200M-$300M per team.
“@NYP_Brooksie: From Fehr memo tonight: "Owners did advise players that their last offer was, in essence, take it or leave it, subject to 'tweaks' only."”
“@NYP_Brooksie: Fehr: Bettman told him that when players agree to all other aspects of proposal except tweaks, PA should call to discuss "make-whole" issue.”
Ah yes, the demanding "take it or leave it" style of negotiating where you throw a fit if the other side doesn't agree to exactly everything
While no negotiating sessions are currently scheduled for next week, it would be a surprise if the parties do not reconvene early in the week — if not in some form over the weekend — in New York or Toronto.
In addition to the dispute over the split of hockey-related revenue, the NHL and NHLPA are 180 degrees apart regarding contractual and freedom issues the league is seeking to restrict on an across the board basis.
If the PA moves on contract term limits(which they should),the NHL won't go to the wall for an extra year before free agency and arbitration. Arbitration is 4 years for players 18-20 signing their ELC. NHL proposed moving it to 5 years which is was in the 1995 CBA. Free agency is 7 years or 27. NHL is proposing 8 or 28.
Both sides have room to move. Brooks reported the PA proposals are negotiable. Bettman has room to move.
Put a cap of 4% on escrow which comes out of the players end and the owners are responsible for any overage. If its as high as 12%,ownership funds the make whole fund to cover the difference.
