If the cut was any lower, teams would have bought out their stars and drowned in amnesty buyouts just to get under a $33-35m cap. It was the most favorable % for owners considering buyouts.
It seems to me there wasn`t that much salary commitment. But anyways, if the league was dictating the terms, why didn`t they gradually decrease the % over time?
Quote:
Originally Posted by DutchShamrock
If the league didn't want 57%, why buckle in Feb/Mar? Still 3-5 months from the draft.
The CBA was agreed upon in July.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DutchShamrock
The 27/7 was a disaster. Opposite impact. No one hit UFA, teams held onto players tighter because of the invest vs return.
But they players still got paid like UFAs 4 years earlier.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DutchShamrock
It's splitting hairs, but arbitration and rfa rules were established years before. Are we still treating carry over rights as a concession? It certainly wasn't a gain. Maybe a year here and there for the player, but seriously?
RFA used to be 5 firsts for a set $ amount (I think 3.5 - 4 million). In 2005 the draft pick compensation was greatly loosened, and they tied the boundaries to the cap number, so it increased over time.
Arbitration eligibility was made to happen one year earlier. Teams matching rights when they walk away from an award were taken away, and they were limited in the awards they could walk away.
NHL should get an even split of revenue. Get rid of the dive back contracts. The PA has made a proposal on dive backs. Those are the two must haves. Fine. Make a deal.
The Rangers will be contributing a ridiculous amount of cash into revenue sharing. It was $14M with revenue sharing at $150M. Now its supposed to increase to $220M. The top 10 teams will be contributing the money. You know the top 3 will be contributing more than teams 8-10. I read it will be at least $10M more for the top teams. If I'm Dolan,I'm not agreeing to handing over $25M of my money after losing an entire season. Make a deal Gary.
I hope the whole season is cancelled. Let them all suffer.
The problem I have with this kind of negative reasoning is it doesn't accomplish anything for anybody--apart from maybe a bit of 'I told you so' justification. Personally I've been getting along okay--apart from my dad recently dying that is--finding other things to do but when the Rangers are back I'll be back with the Rangers--whether it's this year or next year or even after. Then again I don't follow other sports much. Having other things to do besides watch sports night and day is at least key for me.
The problem I have with this kind of negative reasoning is it doesn't accomplish anything for anybody--apart from maybe a bit of 'I told you so' justification. Personally I've been getting along okay--apart from my dad recently dying that is--finding other things to do but when the Rangers are back I'll be back with the Rangers--whether it's this year or next year or even after. Then again I don't follow other sports much. Having other things to do besides watch sports night and day is at least key for me.
"Last year, Forbes estimated that the Panthers lost $7 million. Over the last nine seasons, they calculate the Panthers total losses at $68 million, an average deficit of $7.5 million per season."
Interestingly, the picture that Forbes paints is at odds with that presented by Broward County. Broward County was primarily responsible for the construction of the Panthers’ arena, and as a result gets to look at the books of the organization. According to the county auditor, the organization made $117.4 million in profit between 1998 and 2012.
"because hockey-related revenue is defined in such a way as to show losses: owners have generous deduction allowances – in some cases, as with television broadcasts, the owners can deduct up to 100 percent of revenues as a “direct cost” – and certain forms of revenue (including many of the government subsidies teams receive) are not included in the calculation.
The bottom line is that the Panthers’ current ownership did not get into hockey to lose money, and according to the county auditor they haven’t lost money. Florida, commonly presented as one of the league’s have-not teams, and an example of the dangers of over-expansion, is nothing of the sort: it’s a healthy business, carefully presented to appear like a money-losing operation.
"Unfortunately, it is impossible to know what the situation is in other NHL cities. NHL teams are private companies, and have no obligation to divulge their financial data. But the fact that the Panthers are seen as one of the poorest clubs in the league suggests that the vast majority of NHL teams are doing just fine."
Owners are cracking? My view they need a partial season but cracking? No. League revenues were increasing nicely so the owners have no desire to break any momentum. Players will get a decent compromise but need to come forward with a new proposal. Else, owners will wait.
Players want to play hockey now? Yes. My guess is that the players have been told that the owners are bending, the sides are close, and they'll see a deal soon. The two week hiatus has has them confused.
My guess, talks...soon possibly FRiday after Thanksgiving and we're still on target for A Dec 1 deal +/- a few days.
The sad truth is that whatever deal comes down could have taken place early in the process. Each side was looking to get leverage on the other.
"Last year, Forbes estimated that the Panthers lost $7 million. Over the last nine seasons, they calculate the Panthers total losses at $68 million, an average deficit of $7.5 million per season."
Interestingly, the picture that Forbes paints is at odds with that presented by Broward County. Broward County was primarily responsible for the construction of the Panthers’ arena, and as a result gets to look at the books of the organization. According to the county auditor, the organization made $117.4 million in profit between 1998 and 2012.
"because hockey-related revenue is defined in such a way as to show losses: owners have generous deduction allowances – in some cases, as with television broadcasts, the owners can deduct up to 100 percent of revenues as a “direct cost” – and certain forms of revenue (including many of the government subsidies teams receive) are not included in the calculation.
The bottom line is that the Panthers’ current ownership did not get into hockey to lose money, and according to the county auditor they haven’t lost money. Florida, commonly presented as one of the league’s have-not teams, and an example of the dangers of over-expansion, is nothing of the sort: it’s a healthy business, carefully presented to appear like a money-losing operation.
"Unfortunately, it is impossible to know what the situation is in other NHL cities. NHL teams are private companies, and have no obligation to divulge their financial data. But the fact that the Panthers are seen as one of the poorest clubs in the league suggests that the vast majority of NHL teams are doing just fine."
Definitely a good read. Something I have long believed for awhile, was not aware of numbers of any team though.
ANOTHER good read, if this is true that Snider has switched, this is excellent for ending the lockout sooner rather than later, and if this is true about what bettman told the owners he would get them, well, bye bye bettman, this has to be the end of bettman, I really hope it is
Owners are cracking? My view they need a partial season but cracking? No. League revenues were increasing nicely so the owners have no desire to break any momentum. Players will get a decent compromise but need to come forward with a new proposal. Else, owners will wait.
Players want to play hockey now? Yes. My guess is that the players have been told that the owners are bending, the sides are close, and they'll see a deal soon. The two week hiatus has has them confused.
My guess, talks...soon possibly FRiday after Thanksgiving and we're still on target for A Dec 1 deal +/- a few days.
The sad truth is that whatever deal comes down could have taken place early in the process. Each side was looking to get leverage on the other.
I agree, but my concern is that even if they get back to negotiating on Friday, they have to cancel 2 more weeks of games, it just has too much uncertainty unless they have plow through on Friday and have an agreement by the end of their meeting.
I truly believe that if the nhl came with a reasonable offer in july we would have been playing hockey by now, I blame bettman!
Imagine your neighbor knocking down his house, then rebuilding it from scratch as his family lived in a hotel. You had to listen to the construction guys hammering, sawing and banging for a solid year. Finally the house goes up, the family moves back in … and seven years later, suddenly they're knocking the house down again. You ask the neighbor what happened and he says, "Yeah, sorry about that — we screwed up when we rebuilt the house, had too many flaws, we needed to do it over again."
Naturally, you say, "Why didn't you figure out all that stuff before you rebuilt the house the first time?"
He says, "Because I'm an idiot, that's why."
And then, there's an awkward silence before he walks away, as you don't know whether he's kidding or not.
I agree, but my concern is that even if they get back to negotiating on Friday, they have to cancel 2 more weeks of games, it just has too much uncertainty unless they have plow through on Friday and have an agreement by the end of their meeting.
I truly believe that if the nhl came with a reasonable offer in july we would have been playing hockey by now, I blame bettman!
I suspect the 1st two weeks of Dec are gone. It'll take a week to get the players back and another week of camps.
