HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > General Hockey Discussion > The Business of Hockey
The Business of Hockey Discuss the financial and business aspects of the NHL. Topics may include the CBA, work stoppages, broadcast contracts, franchise sales, and NHL revenues.

tsn reports: cap on the table from both sides

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
02-15-2005, 08:02 AM
  #76
Ronnie Bass
elite pissy upside
 
Ronnie Bass's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: New Jersey
Country: Ireland
Posts: 19,985
vCash: 500
Awards:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Top Shelf

I'm pro-owner and if Bettman doesn't work off this deal than there will be no doubt he was out to bust the union.
Agreed.

__________________
1995, 2000, 2003..........
Ronnie Bass is offline  
Old
02-15-2005, 08:06 AM
  #77
Brewleaguer
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Country: Scotland
Posts: 260
vCash: 500
Looking at poll I found, it looks as if the damage has been done. I can't post the link cause it won't show up but here are the results.

"Will the NHL play next year?"
123688 votes since Feb 14 2005
Yes 17% 21630 votes
No 17% 20716 votes
I don't care 66% 81342 votes

Brewleaguer is offline  
Old
02-15-2005, 08:06 AM
  #78
Leaf Army
Registered User
 
Leaf Army's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Leaf Nation
Posts: 8,393
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by eye
Valentine's Day in the Honeymoon Capital of the World
Niagara Falls, New York is not the Honeymoon Capital of the World. More like the "Boarded-up-Window Capital of the World".

I read the thread quickly so maybe I'm wrong, but some people don't seem to realize that the 24% rollback is also part of the NHLPA's offer.

Btw, this was brilliant by Goodenow. If Bettman was planning on taking this dispute into the courts, he was going to have to base it on the fact the union was unwilling to take a cap. Now that Goodenow's offered the cap, it puts a lot of pressure on Bettman. It would make any battle in the courts much, much tougher on him. No doubt Goodenow needed that hard deadline.

Leaf Army is offline  
Old
02-15-2005, 08:08 AM
  #79
kremlin
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Posts: 854
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by westcoast
....

I suppose this statement comes from a reliable media outlet or the players themselves?

Not at all, it's just my own educated opinion.

kremlin is offline  
Old
02-15-2005, 08:09 AM
  #80
Levitate
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 20,435
vCash: 500
Quote:
Looking at poll I found, it looks as if the damage has been done. I can't post the link cause it won't show up but here are the results.

"Will the NHL play next year?"
123688 votes since Feb 14 2005
Yes 17% 21630 votes
No 17% 20716 votes
I don't care 66% 81342 votes
to be honest i think some of the "i don't care"s are just being "trendy". they say they dont' care cuz they're pissed about the whole lockout, but if it comes back...they'll care alright.

i mean hell, if you have the time and initiative to go around voting on stuff like this, obviously you care some eh? if you didn't care, you wouldn't even be around to vote and say you don't care

Levitate is offline  
Old
02-15-2005, 08:12 AM
  #81
Bobby Lou
We Surrender
 
Bobby Lou's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: The Crease
Country: Canada
Posts: 15,329
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Leaf Army
Niagara Falls, New York is not the Honeymoon Capital of the World. More like the "Boarded-up-Window Capital of the World".

I read the thread quickly so maybe I'm wrong, but some people don't seem to realize that the 24% rollback is also part of the NHLPA's offer.

Btw, this was brilliant by Goodenow. If Bettman was planning on taking this dispute into the courts, he was going to have to base it on the fact the union was unwilling to take a cap. Now that Goodenow's offered the cap, it puts a lot of pressure on Bettman. It would make any battle in the courts much, much tougher on him. No doubt Goodenow needed that hard deadline.
Omg, where did Superman go on his honeymoon?!?

Bobby Lou is offline  
Old
02-15-2005, 08:12 AM
  #82
littleD
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Ottawa, Ontario
Country: Italy
Posts: 4,939
vCash: 500
Send a message via MSN to littleD
Quote:
Originally Posted by OilKiller
I see training camp starting Monday and the season starting on March 1st. There were reports that the NHL already had the 28 game schedule completed and ready to go just in case. Perhaps bookings were made just in case as well?
I thought all along we've heard the CBA will take up to 2 weeks to get down on paper, and that they wouldn't start without every little detail being covered. Have they talked about any rule changes, length of schedule, the Olympics, arbitration etc.?

I hope they get things settled, but this season should be cancelled. A 28 game season is pointless in my eyes.

littleD is offline  
Old
02-15-2005, 08:16 AM
  #83
Greschner4
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 754
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by tantalum
The difference between a $40 mil cap and a $52 mil cap is NOT simply $12 mil, it's over a third of a billion dollars....$360,000,000. It's 17% of reported leaguewide revenues. That is a HUGE difference yet. Especially with there being unknown business damage caused by the lockout. THe greedy puck is not in the owners end of the ice yet....it's still with the players.

That said it is MAJOR progress. If the season is saved than I can see the owners dropping linkage...why? Because the revenues could very well bounce back before the end of the 05-06 season. After that the revenues increase while the cap stays the same...in that case for the last years of the deal the owners laugh their way to the bank. I believe that no linkage is truly only a win for the players after the season gets cancelled and major harm is done to the business. With a shortened season and a lengthy CBA deal the players are going to wish they had linkage by that final year IMO.

What is interesting is the report that the tax thresholds and tax rate were also made significantly tougher...seems to me that the NHLPA brought forth that soft cap-tax-hard cap system. It's probably workable depending on the numbers: bring the cap down to $50 mil and dollar for dollar tax between 40 and 50 mil that counts towrad the cap (i.e. essentially a $45 mil cap).

The PA has bent significantly...they need to bend a bit more on the cap issue while reaping some free agency awards.

My guess is that the PA is talking to the executive trying to determine if they can split the difference while the league does the same with the governors. They then get back together this afternoon and see if it can be hammered out. 90% of the CBA will not change from the last one making it easy to put to paper quite quickly.

There is still a huge gulf between the sides money wise but atleast now it is simply money and not system issues. Kudos to the players for atleast getting over the cap is evil BS.
The league-wide numbers are only important if everybody spends up to the cap which they're not going to.

The point of a cap shouldn't be to bring everybody's payroll down to the average, it should be to limit the top so that the 30M teams' payrolls are in the same ballpark as the top teams, and so that the top teams don't spend ridiculous money on stiffs ... money that trickles down to the middle and small market teams' payrolls and ability to compete.

A $50 million hard cap accomplishes everything needed; to me if you get that there's no need for a luxury tax.

Greschner4 is offline  
Old
02-15-2005, 08:17 AM
  #84
nyr7andcounting
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 1,919
vCash: 500
NHL would have to be insane not to get a deal done, and if we don't have a season it falls squarely on Bettman's shoulders. The PA proposed a cap....and a luxury tax before that cap, what more do they want. The big teams will not be able to spend like they are anymore. The difference of $52 million to around $30 million is not too big of a difference especially considering that highest team will be paying a tax that's going right into the low payroll teams' pockets. The NHL needs to just get it's foot in the door with the cap, in x years they could say that's a little too high, and negotiate it down next time. As for now, just accept any cap you can get and be happy you still have a league.

nyr7andcounting is offline  
Old
02-15-2005, 08:18 AM
  #85
Brewleaguer
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Country: Scotland
Posts: 260
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Levitate
to be honest i think some of the "i don't care"s are just being "trendy". they say they dont' care cuz they're pissed about the whole lockout, but if it comes back...they'll care alright.

i mean hell, if you have the time and initiative to go around voting on stuff like this, obviously you care some eh? if you didn't care, you wouldn't even be around to vote and say you don't care
This came from an NHL webpage (not THE NHL). So one would think if you botherd to vote you are interested in the game in some sort of way.
It just shows some kind of trend.
I'm pissed about the whole thing too and went with the yes (becasue of the latest developments)
You could be right about a "trendy" thing, but I'd say at least half of those 'don't cares' are truly finished with supporting the game.

Brewleaguer is offline  
Old
02-15-2005, 08:19 AM
  #86
Levitate
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 20,435
vCash: 500
Quote:
I thought all along we've heard the CBA will take up to 2 weeks to get down on paper, and that they wouldn't start without every little detail being covered. Have they talked about any rule changes, length of schedule, the Olympics, arbitration etc.?
i think they've probably gotten a lot of the little details out of the way during this whole process. i remember they even met last summer to go over some of the minor details that didn't relate to the "big problem".

things like arbitration are probably being included in the main talks and rule changes, etc, have probably been talked about as well. i'm not saying that it'd be an easy write up once a deal is agreed to but i'd bet most everything has already been done except the big points

Levitate is offline  
Old
02-15-2005, 08:21 AM
  #87
McDonald19
Hampus
 
McDonald19's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: California
Country: United States
Posts: 17,134
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Levitate
to be honest i think some of the "i don't care"s are just being "trendy". they say they dont' care cuz they're pissed about the whole lockout, but if it comes back...they'll care alright.

i mean hell, if you have the time and initiative to go around voting on stuff like this, obviously you care some eh? if you didn't care, you wouldn't even be around to vote and say you don't care
Good post!

I agree it's easy to click "Don't care if NHL ever comes back" when your pissed off about the whole situation. Doesn't mean that people really mean it.

McDonald19 is offline  
Old
02-15-2005, 08:22 AM
  #88
Bobby Lou
We Surrender
 
Bobby Lou's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: The Crease
Country: Canada
Posts: 15,329
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by littleD
I thought all along we've heard the CBA will take up to 2 weeks to get down on paper, and that they wouldn't start without every little detail being covered. Have they talked about any rule changes, length of schedule, the Olympics, arbitration etc.?

I hope they get things settled, but this season should be cancelled. A 28 game season is pointless in my eyes.
A lot of the trivial stuff I'm sure they can just transfer over from the previous CBA, things that don't really require changing and that don't have much bearing on the economic climate. So yah, I really don't think that is an issue as I'm sure a vast majority of details are already agreed upon or can be quite quickly. Once they flesh out the main concerns (cap #, UFA age, arbitration, etc.) it shouldn't be a problem. As for the logisitics of a season, consider it done. Things like rules changes, schedule length and getting some players back from Europe have all been taken into consideration by the league and Bettman has indicated they have protocol in place that allows them to get a season rolling very quickly.

Bobby Lou is offline  
Old
02-15-2005, 08:23 AM
  #89
McDonald19
Hampus
 
McDonald19's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: California
Country: United States
Posts: 17,134
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brewleaguer
You could be right about a "trendy" thing, but I'd say at least half of those 'don't cares' are truly finished with supporting the game.
Of the 60% I think only about 10%(or even less) are honestly finished with the NHL.

Polls like that are worthless.

McDonald19 is offline  
Old
02-15-2005, 08:27 AM
  #90
Levitate
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 20,435
vCash: 500
Quote:
This came from an NHL webpage (not THE NHL). So one would think if you botherd to vote you are interested in the game in some sort of way.
yeah that's what i figure...if you truly don't care, then why are you looking up NHL related websites? heh

Quote:
It just shows some kind of trend.
I'm pissed about the whole thing too and went with the yes (becasue of the latest developments)
You could be right about a "trendy" thing, but I'd say at least half of those 'don't cares' are truly finished with supporting the game.
i'd agree it's a trend, and it's easy to say "i don't care", i know i've done it. last time the talks broke down it pissed me off and i said "screw them both i hope the NHL flounders". but if a deal comes through? i'll be watching. i know i will, i can't pretend otherwise, i'm not gonna fool myself. I love hockey and I love watching the NHL. even if it's not as good as it has been in the past, i still love watching it. as pissed as i've gotten through this whole thing, i know i'll be watching the NHL if it comes back (assuming no replacement players, which seems like a remote possibility at this point...i definatly would not watch replacement players, it doesn't make sense to me)

Levitate is offline  
Old
02-15-2005, 08:29 AM
  #91
OlliMackBjugStud
OlliMacBjugStrome
 
OlliMackBjugStud's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,641
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Top Shelf
I'm pro-owner and if Bettman doesn't work off this deal than there will be no doubt he was out to bust the union.
you doubted this ?

dr

OlliMackBjugStud is offline  
Old
02-15-2005, 08:32 AM
  #92
habitue*
 
habitue*'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Country: Canada
Posts: 9,252
vCash: 500
They Will Settle For 45 Million Hard Cap

Players want 52, owners want 40... So they will settle for 45 million - no strings attached. But I think that owners should then require a 25 million floor to save smaller markets.

habitue* is offline  
Old
02-15-2005, 08:35 AM
  #93
X0ssbar
 
X0ssbar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: ...on a star!
Country: United States
Posts: 13,011
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by DR
you doubted this ?

dr

Yes I did and still do. If an agreement is reached by tomorrow - which looks extremely likely now that a cap is on table - then Bettman was not out to bust the union.

X0ssbar is offline  
Old
02-15-2005, 08:35 AM
  #94
Brewleaguer
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Country: Scotland
Posts: 260
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Levitate
.....i definatly would not watch replacement players, it doesn't make sense to me)
Especially if the tic prices remain the same with replacement players. I might turn on the tube to get my fix, but shelling out an average of $60US a pop is not worth it.

Brewleaguer is offline  
Old
02-15-2005, 08:37 AM
  #95
Ola
Registered User
 
Ola's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Sweden
Country: Sweden
Posts: 17,277
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by tantalum
The difference between the two sides offers are $12 million between a cap or a possible $360,000,000. It has nothing to do with if a side is going to spend that money or not at this time while revenues are where they are at. What I'm saying is that it has become a money issue....a BIG money issue worth a POTENTIAL $360,000,000 per year of the agreement to each side. That is a huge gap.

If the players want some room for teams to grow into that cap (i.e. revenue growth) they can do so with linkage. Heck they can probably sign a deal at this time that says the cap can not drop below $40 mil for x number of years. After that link it revenues with the expectation that revenues will have rebounded and continue to grow. Grow the cap with the league not leave room for some teams to grow into a set cap...which btw could destroy the unions desire to have teams with differing payrolls.
Your numbers isn´t in anyway attatched to reality. One player could make 52 million dollar a year under the new NHLPA offer, we can´t have that can we?...

I am gooing to tell you what the one big diffrence between the "NHL's 40" and the "NHLPA's 52" is. Under the NHLPA´s offer there will still be a extended room for special players to make allot of money. Or in other words, "if any idiot GM´s want to spend money let them, but with this offer they won´t be able to hurt the league and small market teams".

NHL's 40 would keep the majority(10-15 teams atleast) close to a 40 million payroll, there won't be much room in a that cap when special players becomes UFA ect. The PA is giving up everything except that. However there is no way that all teams suddenly are gooing to start spending big money over 40 million if it will cost them a dollar for dollar in luxary tax. This will keep the salarys down dramatically without a doubt. And in the end that will accomplish what the NHL have asked for, or atleast what its reasonible for them to ask for. It will lower the avg. salary by a mile. It will further make it possible to be competetive with a much lower salary budget. It will make it impossible for teams to constantly take players away from the smaller markets like the Oilers.

For example teams like Colorado who had a chance to build something special with loads of star players(Blake, Sakic & Forsberg) would spend over the lower tax level. NY would probably do it anyways. But there is no way a team would sign a 3-4th defensemen, a 2nd line winger or as we have seen 3rd line players to a amount that takes them past the tax level. No way. If you sign a player like Martin Lapoint to a 2.5 million deal its gooing to cost you 5 million. That won´t happend. And this would put a huge restrain on the market. If Bettman doesn´t get something done with what the PA has put on the table its r ap e....


Last edited by Ola: 02-15-2005 at 08:51 AM.
Ola is online now  
Old
02-15-2005, 08:46 AM
  #96
Levitate
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 20,435
vCash: 500
Quote:
Especially if the tic prices remain the same with replacement players. I might turn on the tube to get my fix, but shelling out an average of $60US a pop is not worth it.
even if they reduced ticket prices like 30-40% i dont' think i'd bother, cuz i wouldn't even want to watch on TV. it'd be a sham, i dont' want to watch ECHL players pretending they're NHL players. i could run down to charlotte to visit my friend and catch some ECHL games if i wanted to watch those guys play. slapping a NHL logo on them doesn't make them NHL players and doesn't catch my interest except to disgust me

Levitate is offline  
Old
02-15-2005, 08:52 AM
  #97
chiavsfan
Registered User
 
chiavsfan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Chicagoland, IL
Country: United States
Posts: 4,426
vCash: 500
I love the Media today as well...they all are talking about the players accepting a cap, but most of the American media won't mention the numbers. Non-biased media my keester

chiavsfan is offline  
Old
02-15-2005, 08:55 AM
  #98
tantalum
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Missouri
Posts: 10,105
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Greschner4
The league-wide numbers are only important if everybody spends up to the cap which they're not going to.

The point of a cap shouldn't be to bring everybody's payroll down to the average, it should be to limit the top so that the 30M teams' payrolls are in the same ballpark as the top teams, and so that the top teams don't spend ridiculous money on stiffs ... money that trickles down to the middle and small market teams' payrolls and ability to compete.

A $50 million hard cap accomplishes everything needed; to me if you get that there's no need for a luxury tax.
I think it's too high yet and the difference between lower end teams and high end teams too high. Make no mistake I think there has to be a minimum payroll and revenue sharing/tax as well to bump teams up to 30-32 mil mark for minimum salary. In that case I don't think $50 mil is the end of the world with a harsh tax above $40 mil. In fact it is pretty much what I proposed early on in the lockout and still think it can work. But ideally I'd prefer to see simple hard cap between 40-45 mil with a floor of $32 mil, with or without linkage, which is where this is heading I think.

But with the cap hurdle jumped there is all sorts of common ground...hopefully they have time to come to an agreement. Though I'm sure much of it was already explored in the past month.

tantalum is offline  
Old
02-15-2005, 09:04 AM
  #99
naihlflames
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Detroit MI
Country: United States
Posts: 2,034
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by habitué
Players want 52, owners want 40... So they will settle for 45 million - no strings attached. But I think that owners should then require a 25 million floor to save smaller markets.
It's a multi-year deal. Structure it so both sides can declare victory. $40m cap in 2005, $42 in 2006, $44 in 2007, $46 in 2008, $48 in 2009, $50 in 2010, and $52 in 2011. Owners can declare victory with a $40m initial cap. Players can declare victory with an eventual cap of $52m. Fans can declare victory that there is a labor agreement until 2011.

naihlflames is offline  
Old
02-15-2005, 09:06 AM
  #100
Ola
Registered User
 
Ola's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Sweden
Country: Sweden
Posts: 17,277
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by tantalum
I think it's too high yet and the difference between lower end teams and high end teams too high. Make no mistake I think there has to be a minimum payroll and revenue sharing/tax as well to bump teams up to 30-32 mil mark for minimum salary. In that case I don't think $50 mil is the end of the world with a harsh tax above $40 mil. In fact it is pretty much what I proposed early on in the lockout and still think it can work. But ideally I'd prefer to see simple hard cap between 40-45 mil with a floor of $32 mil, with or without linkage, which is where this is heading I think.

But with the cap hurdle jumped there is all sorts of common ground...hopefully they have time to come to an agreement. Though I'm sure much of it was already explored in the past month.
There won't be a deal that seems like a fact. Like you said I am sure much of it has already been explored. The NHLPA seems to be dooing everything to atleast save one issue, some room to create a small market for the top players where its possible for teams to take on big salarys and Bettman won´t give them that. Bettman and the owners seem content with gambling with the games future.

If something is gooing to get done now, the NHLPA have to completly give in for everything they have fought for. And it does seems like a small possiblity but it doesn´t seem likely with only 1 day left.

Its obvious that Bettman is a businessman , and in business if you have a problem you take care of it and the longrun it will be worth all the efforth. He looks at this as a investment. Break the union now and in 20 years we will have made up for it. However while dooing this he completly screws the fans. And with his record I am not so sure how positive the endline is gooing to be. Where will NHL be after a 2-year lockout? He have already dug a enourmous whole for the league with the crappy product he have had on the ice.


Last edited by Ola: 02-15-2005 at 09:11 AM.
Ola is online now  
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 02:33 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.