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.

TSN/The Source Reports Proposal Details

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
02-15-2005, 12:43 PM
  #26
bleedgreen
Moderator
 
bleedgreen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: colorado
Posts: 11,087
vCash: 500
i dont get the players proposal. where is the floor? if the range is 40-52 mill, how come the bottom feeders are paying a tax? it says 40-44 mill (guess) will pay a 25% tax? is that the floor? why would you have a team that is 12 mill below the top team still paying a tax? isnt there a "safe" range? if there is a safe range below 40 mill, then the disparity between these numbers is too big. you'll have teams at 38 mill with teams at over 52 (on occasion). that would seem to be defeating the purpose of all this a bit. i like the players offer overall - but it needs tightening. teams should have a floor in the 30-35 range. im a small market guy (carolina), and if my team cant get up to that they dont deserve a team. is say floor of 32-37, starty taxing after that incremently to 46 million. its a good compromise from where they are now.

bleedgreen is offline  
Old
02-15-2005, 12:45 PM
  #27
crossxcheck
Registered User
 
crossxcheck's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Nashvegas
Country: United States
Posts: 2,762
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to crossxcheck Send a message via MSN to crossxcheck Send a message via Yahoo to crossxcheck
Quote:
Originally Posted by Donnie D
The players have given on the cap, the owners must now give on the revenue sharing to make this work.
what do you mean? The owners gave up on linking salaries to revenues. I'd say that's quite a move.

crossxcheck is offline  
Old
02-15-2005, 12:45 PM
  #28
Cwood2
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Country: United States
Posts: 103
vCash: 500
It may be common for both sides to declare victory, and both will do so internally on this occasion (whether it's tomorrow or in 2010). Publicy, you may see both sides admit defeat this time, to try to get the fans back with them.

Cwood2 is offline  
Old
02-15-2005, 12:46 PM
  #29
JohnnyReb
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Posts: 658
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by PecaFan
I'm failing to see anything that will stop the $80 million dollar teams, they were willing to spend it before.
A cap of $52 million but with provisions for teams to spend as much as 10 per cent more than that on three occasions in a six-year period, with a luxury tax incorporated

So there you go. Teams can only spend 10% more than $52 million, which would work out to a little over $57 million. Not quite $80 million.

JohnnyReb is offline  
Old
02-15-2005, 12:48 PM
  #30
AM
Registered User
 
AM's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 4,968
vCash: 500
all you have to do......

Quote:
Originally Posted by PecaFan
No, it was widely *reported* by the pundits and analysts. Time has proven that they were absolutely dead wrong.

In looking over these proposals, I'm unsure just what we're seeing. This so-called "cap" the players ain't a cap, if it's just a tax. I'm failing to see anything that will stop the $80 million dollar teams, they were willing to spend it before.
Is look at the video of bob and gary signing the agreemnet to see who won.

Gary knew at the time they were SKRWED but he was forced into a deal.

AM is offline  
Old
02-15-2005, 12:48 PM
  #31
red devil
Registered User
 
red devil's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Country: Canada
Posts: 576
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by bleedgreen
i dont get the players proposal. where is the floor? if the range is 40-52 mill, how come the bottom feeders are paying a tax? it says 40-44 mill (guess) will pay a 25% tax? is that the floor? why would you have a team that is 12 mill below the top team still paying a tax? isnt there a "safe" range? if there is a safe range below 40 mill, then the disparity between these numbers is too big. you'll have teams at 38 mill with teams at over 52 (on occasion). that would seem to be defeating the purpose of all this a bit. i like the players offer overall - but it needs tightening. teams should have a floor in the 30-35 range. im a small market guy (carolina), and if my team cant get up to that they dont deserve a team. is say floor of 32-37, starty taxing after that incremently to 46 million. its a good compromise from where they are now.
In the Sportsnet Counter Proposal Article it states that the floor offered by the players is at $25 mill. All small market teams should be able to reach this level, even if the revenue sharing isn't that great. With the players wanting a meaningful revenue sharing plan the league better offer one, because this might be the only way to get their cap.

red devil is offline  
Old
02-15-2005, 12:58 PM
  #32
Patty Ice
Best in the World
 
Patty Ice's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: OxNard
Country: Northern Ireland
Posts: 10,437
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to Patty Ice Send a message via MSN to Patty Ice
Quote:
Originally Posted by JohnnyReb
A cap of $52 million but with provisions for teams to spend as much as 10 per cent more than that on three occasions in a six-year period, with a luxury tax incorporated

So there you go. Teams can only spend 10% more than $52 million, which would work out to a little over $57 million. Not quite $80 million.
Actually, with the 10% increase on three occassions during a period of six years, by year 5, you will have a cap close to $70.

__________________
Patty Ice is offline  
Old
02-15-2005, 01:04 PM
  #33
crossxcheck
Registered User
 
crossxcheck's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Nashvegas
Country: United States
Posts: 2,762
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to crossxcheck Send a message via MSN to crossxcheck Send a message via Yahoo to crossxcheck
Quote:
Originally Posted by Patty Ice XXX
Actually, with the 10% increase on three occassions during a period of six years, by year 5, you will have a cap close to $70.
I'm not sure how you figure that. I don't think they mean they could go from $52m to $57.2m, from $57.2m to $62.92m, and from $62.92m to $69.212. I was under the impression that it could only exceed the $52m mark three times in six years and even then a 150% lexury tax over $52m would apply. The details of all of this are kind of hazy, so there's a lot of ways this could or could not be even a good starting point for further negotiations.

crossxcheck is offline  
Old
02-15-2005, 01:07 PM
  #34
Charge_Seven
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,631
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Matty
Actually, I like the concept (I just think the players need to drop the numbers a bit. But the idea of allowing a team to exceed the cap a little allows a building team to keep their talent when they reach maturity.
Or for that trade deadline acquisition.

Charge_Seven is offline  
Old
02-15-2005, 01:10 PM
  #35
nyr7andcounting
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 1,919
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Patty Ice XXX
Actually, with the 10% increase on three occassions during a period of six years, by year 5, you will have a cap close to $70.
No, I think it means that a team can spend up to 57.2 million max 3 times in the next 6 years. Just gives a little extra room for the big markets. It doesn't mean that the cap for the league will increase by 10% 3 times.

nyr7andcounting is offline  
Old
02-15-2005, 01:30 PM
  #36
PecaFan
Registered User
 
PecaFan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Ottawa (Go 'Nucks)
Posts: 8,920
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by JohnnyReb
A cap of $52 million but with provisions for teams to spend as much as 10 per cent more than that on three occasions in a six-year period, with a luxury tax incorporated

So there you go. Teams can only spend 10% more than $52 million, which would work out to a little over $57 million. Not quite $80 million.
Yeah, that's what it says, but what does it really mean?

What stops somebody from going over $57 million? What's to stop them from going over $57 million six years in a row?

That's my point. If it's just a pure tax that "theoretically" prevents them from going over, I can tell you right now it won't.

PecaFan is offline  
Old
02-15-2005, 01:33 PM
  #37
crossxcheck
Registered User
 
crossxcheck's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Nashvegas
Country: United States
Posts: 2,762
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to crossxcheck Send a message via MSN to crossxcheck Send a message via Yahoo to crossxcheck
Quote:
Originally Posted by PecaFan
Yeah, that's what it says, but what does it really mean?

What stops somebody from going over $57 million? What's to stop them from going over $57 million six years in a row?

That's my point. If it's just a pure tax that "theoretically" prevents them from going over, I can tell you right now it won't.
If I read it correctly all is says is that a team can go over $52m and up to $57.2m 3 times in 6 years, but will still have to pay a 150% luxury tax on anything from $52m to $57.2m. But it seems to me it says that no one can go over the $57.2m.

crossxcheck is offline  
Old
02-15-2005, 01:37 PM
  #38
pacde
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Country: Canada
Posts: 85
vCash: 500
If that report is true and the NHL doesnt do something with it, Im changing sides in this debate. I think revenue sharing has to be a part of the new CBA and if this is truly the deal the PA is offering, then the NHL is crossing the line of reason where the PA used to be.I like the 60/40 model of revenue sharing, or even the 70/30. The teams split the gate at 60/40 or 70/30 for every game. The NHLPA is completely reasonable with this.

pacde is offline  
Old
02-15-2005, 01:38 PM
  #39
crossxcheck
Registered User
 
crossxcheck's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Nashvegas
Country: United States
Posts: 2,762
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to crossxcheck Send a message via MSN to crossxcheck Send a message via Yahoo to crossxcheck
Quote:
Originally Posted by pacde
If that report is true and the NHL doesnt do something with it, Im changing sides in this debate. I think revenue sharing has to be a part of the new CBA and if this is truly the deal the PA is offering, then the NHL is crossing the line of reason where the PA used to be.I like the 60/40 model of revenue sharing, or even the 70/30. The teams split the gate at 60/40 or 70/30 for every game. The NHLPA is completely reasonable with this.
I have to agree. Revenue sharing is very reasonable.

crossxcheck is offline  
Old
02-15-2005, 01:39 PM
  #40
Greschner4
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 755
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by PecaFan
Yeah, that's what it says, but what does it really mean?

What stops somebody from going over $57 million? What's to stop them from going over $57 million six years in a row?

That's my point. If it's just a pure tax that "theoretically" prevents them from going over, I can tell you right now it won't.
What stops you is that the cap is 57.2 million ... unless you've already spent over 52 three times.

And that's why the top of the top luxury tax bracket is 57.2 million.

Greschner4 is offline  
Old
02-15-2005, 01:40 PM
  #41
crossxcheck
Registered User
 
crossxcheck's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Nashvegas
Country: United States
Posts: 2,762
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to crossxcheck Send a message via MSN to crossxcheck Send a message via Yahoo to crossxcheck
Quote:
Originally Posted by Greschner4
What stops you is that the cap is 57.2 million ... unless you've already spent over 52 three times.

And that's why the top of the top luxury tax bracket is 57.2 million.
exactly.

crossxcheck is offline  
Old
02-15-2005, 01:51 PM
  #42
PecaFan
Registered User
 
PecaFan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Ottawa (Go 'Nucks)
Posts: 8,920
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Greschner4
What stops you is that the cap is 57.2 million ... unless you've already spent over 52 three times.

And that's why the top of the top luxury tax bracket is 57.2 million.
You're not getting what I'm saying. So I say "neener neener" and spend $70 million and win the Cup.

What happens? You wave your finger at me, and say "bad boy", you weren't supposed to do that? I think I can live with that. What's stopping me?

PecaFan is offline  
Old
02-15-2005, 01:54 PM
  #43
JohnnyReb
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Posts: 658
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by PecaFan
You're not getting what I'm saying. So I say "neener neener" and spend $70 million and win the Cup.

What happens? You wave your finger at me, and say "bad boy", you weren't supposed to do that? I think I can live with that. What's stopping me?
Every contract has to be approved by the NHL. Always has been the case, even under the old CBA.

If a team is at $55 million, and they try to sign a guy for $5 million, the league simply says "sorry, not allowed."

Its a cap, man. That's how it works. How do you think the NFL cap works? According to you, no cap would ever work, so why have this lockout? If the NHL proposed a $35 million cap, according to you everybody would just ignore it? What would be the point?

JohnnyReb is offline  
Old
02-15-2005, 02:00 PM
  #44
Greschner4
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 755
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by PecaFan
You're not getting what I'm saying. So I say "neener neener" and spend $70 million and win the Cup.

What happens? You wave your finger at me, and say "bad boy", you weren't supposed to do that? I think I can live with that. What's stopping me?
All of your posts up to now have been very intelligent if not brilliant, but you're losing me here.

Are you asking what the enforcement mechanism is?

If that's your question the answer is that the league office won't approve any contract that puts a team over the salary cap.

Greschner4 is offline  
Old
02-15-2005, 02:05 PM
  #45
NYIsles1*
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Posts: 9,539
vCash: 500
Maybe I'm reading this wrong but it's either a ten percent increase three times which approaches 70 million and changes nothing or it's a 57 million as a ceiling which they can only reach three times, which either way does not make a lot of sense because at some point those teams must increase and decrease. Three times in six years is three times in six years.

This is still way too big a disparity which corporate owners willing to spend and lose will continue to exploit for advantages. The game needs a hard-cap between 45-50 million with a real revenue sharing formula considering the financial trouble the sport is in even in the so-called large markets.

The frame work should be there for that kind of agreement.

NYIsles1* is offline  
Old
02-15-2005, 02:11 PM
  #46
SoundwaveIsCharisma
Moderator
 
SoundwaveIsCharisma's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Screw You Blaster
Country: Canada
Posts: 23,854
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to SoundwaveIsCharisma
The way I read that is that a team can go over the 52 million mark 3 times (with a 150% tax on the cash spent over the cap), within 6 years. The 52 million mark would not move, so if they did it three years in a row it would still be 57.2 million per year for those three years, not increasing towards 70 million.

I do think that they need revenue sharing as that is a more logical answer then just a Hard Cap with no give what-so-ever. So with increasing revenues the pay-roll cap would also gradually rise, that's the only way I see it working for both the players and the owner.

SoundwaveIsCharisma is offline  
Old
02-15-2005, 02:11 PM
  #47
tantalum
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Missouri
Posts: 11,351
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by NYIsles1
The frame work should be there for that kind of agreement.
Indeed and now that the players jumped the cap hurdle the owners may very well be much more forthcoming with the revenue sharing. THe owners wanted a cap system. I don't think they were going to play the revenue sharing card until that concession happened. Instead they only played the "we'll increase revenue sharing card". If it got the players over the hump it was a good strategy.

That said the owners proposed $80 mil in revenue sharing last week (from Saskin's mouth). The PA detailed 3 plans in their offer of Dec. 9. One of those plans called for LESS revenue sharing than the $80 mil at $65 mil while the top plan was $190 mil. Again the numbers aren't terribly far apart on that and the owners have already come past one plan in the PA's offer.

If the PA doesn't want to talk about linkage and what not why do they really care how the revenue sharing is done. A firm number should be satisfactory and a detailed plan not necessary. Not saying that absolves the league because I do believe that for the good of the league the owners should have a detailed revenue sharing plan. But if the players don't want to talk revenue streams and linkage they can't really expect to have a say in a revenue sharing plan that will be linked etc. etc.

tantalum is offline  
Old
02-15-2005, 02:11 PM
  #48
PecaFan
Registered User
 
PecaFan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Ottawa (Go 'Nucks)
Posts: 8,920
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by JohnnyReb
Every contract has to be approved by the NHL. Always has been the case, even under the old CBA.

If a team is at $55 million, and they try to sign a guy for $5 million, the league simply says "sorry, not allowed."

Its a cap, man. That's how it works. How do you think the NFL cap works? According to you, no cap would ever work, so why have this lockout? If the NHL proposed a $35 million cap, according to you everybody would just ignore it? What would be the point?
Owners are *extremely competitive*. Always have been, which is why there are so many "crazy contracts". They will do anything possible to gain an advantage over other teams.

That's what I'm getting at here. You have to "think weasel", and make sure you eliminate all potential ways of avoiding the cap, otherwise teams will simply blow right through this. And you have to implement *immense* fines if teams come up with ways of circumventing the cap that you didn't think of.

Remember the so called "cap" on entry level salaries? The ones that paid Kovalchuk over $4 million, when he was "capped" at $1 million? Same principle.

PecaFan is offline  
Old
02-15-2005, 02:14 PM
  #49
JOHNBOY
BUFFALO SABRES
 
JOHNBOY's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Denver NC
Country: United States
Posts: 10,161
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to JOHNBOY
I am optimistic

JOHNBOY is offline  
Old
02-15-2005, 02:14 PM
  #50
JohnnyReb
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Posts: 658
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by PecaFan
Owners are *extremely competitive*. Always have been, which is why there are so many "crazy contracts". They will do anything possible to gain an advantage over other teams.

That's what I'm getting at here. You have to "think weasel", and make sure you eliminate all potential ways of avoiding the cap, otherwise teams will simply blow right through this. And you have to implement *immense* fines if teams come up with ways of circumventing the cap that you didn't think of.

Remember the so called "cap" on entry level salaries? The ones that paid Kovalchuk over $4 million, when he was "capped" at $1 million? Same principle.
Of course. But thats a danger that would have existed if the players proposed a cap, or if the owners proposed a cap. Are you saying that they should chuck the whole cap idea because owners are too competitive?

JohnnyReb 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 11:34 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.