HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > General Hockey Discussion > The Business of Hockey
Mobile Hockey's Future Become a Sponsor Site Rules Support Forum vBookie Page 2
The Business of Hockey Discuss the financial and business aspects of the NHL. Topics may include the CBA, work stoppages, broadcast contracts, franchise sales, NHL revenues, relocation and expansion.

NHL Willing to Negotiate with NO Linkage

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
02-11-2005, 09:50 PM
  #76
SuperUnknown
Registered User
 
SuperUnknown's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 4,669
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by vanlady
I saw both interviews, Saskin's reaction was very telling, he got upset when the host told him the Daly was willing to accept a cap with no linkage. As Saskin put it, it would be nice if the NHL told the PA that and not the media. He also said that the NHL put something in writing making him beleive the triggers were not negotiable. Don't know which one of them is lying but Saskins anger seemed to be very real
Either he was faking or he's a tool. To think that because something is written it's not negociable is foolish at best. As well, the NHLPA has been negociating for a no-cap since the beginning. Obviously, if they're negociating for a no-cap, then they believe the cap issue is negotiable, no?

SuperUnknown is offline  
Old
02-11-2005, 10:09 PM
  #77
Leafer4Life
Go Jays Go!
 
Leafer4Life's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Owen Sound,Ontario
Country: Canada
Posts: 6,188
vCash: 500
Send a message via MSN to Leafer4Life Send a message via Yahoo to Leafer4Life
Quote:
Originally Posted by vanlady
Daly and Saskin were interviewed on the Score today.

www.thescore.com
Broken link.........

Leafer4Life is offline  
Old
02-11-2005, 10:11 PM
  #78
DownFromNJ
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 2,536
vCash: 500
1050 ESPN radio reported two seconds ago:

"The NHL players want some sort of a season, the deadline for which would be sometime this weekend"

Anyone know what this means?

DownFromNJ is offline  
Old
02-11-2005, 10:46 PM
  #79
vanlady
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 810
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Leafer4Life
Broken link.........
Sorry

www.thescore.ca

vanlady is offline  
Old
02-11-2005, 10:58 PM
  #80
thinkwild
Veni Vidi Toga
 
thinkwild's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Ottawa
Country: Canada
Posts: 8,328
vCash: 500
Triggers = Linkage.

thinkwild is offline  
Old
02-11-2005, 11:07 PM
  #81
Flukeshot
Hextall Activate!
 
Flukeshot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Milton, Ont
Country: Orkney Islands
Posts: 2,127
vCash: 1100
I don't think the players would be willing to negotiate off as this. As it has been mentioned, this idea was floating around in September at least.

Whenever Bettman came up with those 6 concepts for cost certainty. A Hard Cap by the way IS cost certainty. $XXm Hard Cap x 30 teams= League wide Player expenses. So the league would not be caving or backing down really. They simply would not have "linkage" directly tied to league revenues. They would however know the exact maximum that player costs would be each year. I'm sure the initial salary cap number would be closely related to league revenues though. Which is what Goodenow and Saskin would say. I'd would make a guess that the hard cap would be set around at least $37m which happens to be...
___
$2.0b revenue x 0.55 NHL's ideal player % of revenues / 30 teams= $36.666m

Flukeshot is offline  
Old
02-12-2005, 12:17 AM
  #82
kerrly
Registered User
 
kerrly's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Regina
Country: Canada
Posts: 806
vCash: 500
Send a message via MSN to kerrly
Quote:
Originally Posted by go kim johnsson
$47M cap. That's what I think. I would be happy with that.
I don't think 67% of revenues going to the players would fly with the league especially after they will make much less next season. The NHLPA possibly could have negotiated one at around $45m at the start of this mess, but there is absolutely no chance of it now.

kerrly is offline  
Old
02-12-2005, 12:20 AM
  #83
habs_24x
Registered User
 
habs_24x's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: montreal
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,389
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by nomorekids
If it's a cap with no linkage, it better be lower than the 45 million we heard tossed around. 38 million ideal, 42 million TOPS.

this is pretty much the best deal for all. If its around 41 million, the rollback should look more like 15% instead of the 24% offered.

If the players dont take this, they truly are the biggest tools of this whole fiasco.

habs_24x is offline  
Old
02-12-2005, 12:20 AM
  #84
kerrly
Registered User
 
kerrly's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Regina
Country: Canada
Posts: 806
vCash: 500
Send a message via MSN to kerrly
Quote:
Originally Posted by vanlady
I saw both interviews, Saskin's reaction was very telling, he got upset when the host told him the Daly was willing to accept a cap with no linkage. As Saskin put it, it would be nice if the NHL told the PA that and not the media. He also said that the NHL put something in writing making him beleive the triggers were not negotiable. Don't know which one of them is lying but Saskins anger seemed to be very real
If they are not willing to ask these things, that seems to have some interest, then who's really inept. Negotiating is really about trying to find out where the other side stands, and if they are getting their information through the media, then something is wrong with them. Saskin is using these comments, that don't float, to stop a barrage of questions of their willingness to negotiate.

kerrly is offline  
Old
02-12-2005, 10:30 AM
  #85
Jaded-Fan
Registered User
 
Jaded-Fan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 34,677
vCash: 500
Can someone explain to me how this will be necessarily a good thing for the players? It is an eight year deal afterall. True the first year they may . . . and that is just may . . . have much lower revenues so the players have a guarenteed $32 million floor, $42 million ceiling so would be dividing amoung themselves a minimum of $960 million ($32 million x 30 teams). But I sense that with the system fixed, some seriousness about opening up the game brought on by a desire to reach out to fans, the game could grow and has much room to grow quite a bit. Aren't the players taking a huge risk that if the game does grow that they could be playing for a very low percentage of revenues, who knows maybe as low as 30%?

If I were a player the last thing that I would want is linkage, I would want to instead be assured of a certain fair percentage of actual revenues. Why would they want this Vegas type gamble that very likely will only be a year or two advantage and then bite them in the rear the last 6 years of the contract?

Or am I misreading?

Jaded-Fan is offline  
Old
02-12-2005, 10:34 AM
  #86
ScottyBowman
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Detroit
Country: United States
Posts: 2,173
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jaded-Fan
Can someone explain to me how this will be necessarily a good thing for the players? It is an eight year deal afterall. True the first year they may . . . and that is just may . . . have much lower revenues so the players have a guarenteed $32 million floor, $42 million ceiling so would be dividing amoung themselves a minimum of $960 million ($32 million x 30 teams). But I sense that with the system fixed, some seriousness about opening up the game brought on by a desire to reach out to fans, the game could grow and has much room to grow quite a bit. Aren't the players taking a huge risk that if the game does grow that they could be playing for a very low percentage of revenues, who knows maybe as low as 30%?

If I were a player the last thing that I would want is linkage, I would want to instead be assured of a certain fair percentage of actual revenues. Why would they want this Vegas type gamble that very likely will only be a year or two advantage and then bite them in the rear the last 6 years of the contract?

Or am I misreading?

People need to get the fairy tale mindset out of their system. The NHL is not going to grow all of a sudden and even if it did grow the owners are going to say they lost money and cry poverty. Linkage is a sham.

ScottyBowman is offline  
Old
02-12-2005, 10:38 AM
  #87
Crazy Lunatic
Guest
 
Country:
Posts: n/a
vCash:
Quote:
Originally Posted by ScottyBowman
People need to get the fairy tale mindset out of their system. The NHL is not going to grow all of a sudden and even if it did grow the owners are going to say they lost money and cry poverty. Linkage is a sham.
It's grown over the past 10 years and so has every other pro sport.

 
Old
02-12-2005, 10:40 AM
  #88
ScottyBowman
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Detroit
Country: United States
Posts: 2,173
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Crazy Lunatic
It's grown over the past 10 years and so has every other pro sport.
Of course it has grown because of expansion. The question is how much will it grow in the next 5 years coming off a long lockout and no tv deal? I'd say very little.

ScottyBowman is offline  
Old
02-12-2005, 10:46 AM
  #89
Jaded-Fan
Registered User
 
Jaded-Fan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 34,677
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by ScottyBowman
People need to get the fairy tale mindset out of their system. The NHL is not going to grow all of a sudden and even if it did grow the owners are going to say they lost money and cry poverty. Linkage is a sham.

You may be right . . . I am totally convinced otherwise, but you may be right. It does not change what I said. Right now, if I am the players, I do not take that chance, I take the sure thing of revenue division like every capped league has, NBA, NFL, each go up every almost year making players salaries rise each year. If it were my job, if I were a player I would not take that Vegas type gamble that revenues will not go up in 8 years.

Jaded-Fan is offline  
Old
02-12-2005, 10:48 AM
  #90
CarlRacki
Registered User
 
CarlRacki's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 1,435
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by ScottyBowman
People need to get the fairy tale mindset out of their system. The NHL is not going to grow all of a sudden and even if it did grow the owners are going to say they lost money and cry poverty. Linkage is a sham.
If it's such a sham, why do the NFLPA and NBAPA insist upon it?

No, the NHL will not grow "all of a sudden", but it will grow. Over the next eight years, ticket prices will go up. Concessions will cost more. Parking will cost more. The price of arena ads will increase. The TV deal? Well, it can only get better.

If the players choose to forego this almost certain growth, i guess that's their right. But they'll lose out before the contract ends.

CarlRacki is offline  
Old
02-12-2005, 11:02 AM
  #91
Motown Beatdown
Need a slump buster
 
Motown Beatdown's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Indianapolis
Country: United States
Posts: 8,570
vCash: 500
I always liked the idea of linkage because it would force both parties to promote the game and increase revenue. The more revenue the more both parties would make. Now i can see why the players wouldn't want it, because if revenues goes down so does their cut. If any deal is to come out of this, it will be a moderate cap around 44 million with a lower salary floor that the owners originally proposed, i'd say around 25 million.

Motown Beatdown is offline  
Old
02-12-2005, 11:03 AM
  #92
Crazy Lunatic
Guest
 
Country:
Posts: n/a
vCash:
Quote:
Originally Posted by ScottyBowman
Of course it has grown because of expansion. The question is how much will it grow in the next 5 years coming off a long lockout and no tv deal? I'd say very little.
You may be right, but for the long-term, players should want linkage. The NHL, for all its troubles, will not only be 2 billion dollar industry 10 years from now (especially if they get a cap).

 
Old
02-12-2005, 11:12 AM
  #93
Crazy Lunatic
Guest
 
Country:
Posts: n/a
vCash:
Quote:
Originally Posted by JWI19
I always liked the idea of linkage because it would force both parties to promote the game and increase revenue. The more revenue the more both parties would make. Now i can see why the players wouldn't want it, because if revenues goes down so does their cut. If any deal is to come out of this, it will be a moderate cap around 44 million with a lower salary floor that the owners originally proposed, i'd say around 25 million.
I think it could go a LOT higher than 44. I'm thinking mid 50's or even 60.

 
Old
02-12-2005, 11:15 AM
  #94
DownFromNJ
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 2,536
vCash: 500
Your acting as if the NHLPA couldn't negociate a higher cap every time the CBA needs to be renewed.

DownFromNJ is offline  
Old
02-12-2005, 11:16 AM
  #95
likea
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 599
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Crazy Lunatic
I think it could go a LOT higher than 44. I'm thinking mid 50's or even 60.
what dream world are you in

lol

likea is offline  
Old
02-12-2005, 11:19 AM
  #96
Scoogs
Registered User
 
Scoogs's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Toronto, Ontario
Country: Canada
Posts: 18,040
vCash: 500
Send a message via MSN to Scoogs
Quote:
Originally Posted by Crazy Lunatic
I think it could go a LOT higher than 44. I'm thinking mid 50's or even 60.
Yea dude, that would never happen. It will not be over 50, not a chance. The only way it will would be down the road, if the industry starts to do amazingly well, and the owners agree to then link the salaries to revenues. The players would say "YAAAAAAAAAAAAYYYYYYYY "

Then the players would accept and have their cap raised.

Scoogs is offline  
Old
02-12-2005, 11:24 AM
  #97
Motown Beatdown
Need a slump buster
 
Motown Beatdown's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Indianapolis
Country: United States
Posts: 8,570
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Crazy Lunatic
I think it could go a LOT higher than 44. I'm thinking mid 50's or even 60.

I'd be pissed if that happened, and i'm a fan of a big spending club. Maybe it;s just Holland has me so jaded this is the only way i can see him being stopped

Motown Beatdown is offline  
Old
02-12-2005, 01:31 PM
  #98
SENSible1*
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,543
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Crazy Lunatic
I think it could go a LOT higher than 44. I'm thinking mid 50's or even 60.
A non-linked cap would likely be well under 40M.

SENSible1* is offline  
Old
02-12-2005, 01:33 PM
  #99
Joe T Choker
Las Vegas Black Aces
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Melrose
Country: Italy
Posts: 25,855
vCash: 500
If the owners are willing to negotiate w/o linkage ... I say duck the league ... I won't watch it anymore

Joe T Choker is offline  
Old
02-12-2005, 01:35 PM
  #100
Scoogs
Registered User
 
Scoogs's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Toronto, Ontario
Country: Canada
Posts: 18,040
vCash: 500
Send a message via MSN to Scoogs
Quote:
Originally Posted by Joe_Strummer
If the owners are willing to negotiate w/o linkage ... I say duck the league ... I won't watch it anymore
Yes you would, don't kid yourself.

Scoogs 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 07:14 AM.

monitoring_string = "e4251c93e2ba248d29da988d93bf5144"
Contact Us - HFBoards - Archive - Privacy Statement - Terms of Use - Advertise - Top - AdChoices

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. 2015 All Rights Reserved.