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, and NHL revenues.

TSN/The Source Reports Proposal Details

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
02-15-2005, 02:16 PM
  #51
CGG
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: 416
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,235
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by NYIsles1
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.
Absolute max is $57.2 million, there's no compound 10% raise each year. Not sure where you got that from.

If you are at $52 million, you are already dishing out an extra $6 million in luxury taxes, so you're paying $58 million. If you really want to sign a player for $5.2 million to get you to the over-cap, you will have to pay $13 million total. I would say that's a huge pay cheque for a $5 million player, and a pretty good detriment. Only a few teams, if that, would be able and willing to pay that. On top of that, you only have three years, so eventually this grossly over-spending big market team will have to go into cut-salary mode, which takes them right out of any type of free agent bidding mode.

The PA knows that without revenue sharing, a bunch of teams will be spending at or near the lower limit. So they have to allow some teams to go up to (and possibly over) the $52 million in order to balance out the average salary. More revenue sharing would allow a lower cap.

CGG is offline  
Old
02-15-2005, 02:17 PM
  #52
John Flyers Fan
Registered User
 
John Flyers Fan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Country: United States
Posts: 22,345
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.
It's not hard to do, you just institue extremely harsh penalties ala the NBA and NFL. Huge fines and losst of draft picks.

The Minnesota Timberwolves lost 5 first round picks for trying to circumvent the cap a few years back.

John Flyers Fan is offline  
Old
02-15-2005, 02:27 PM
  #53
eye
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: around the 49th para
Posts: 1,607
vCash: 500
Now speaking the same language but still miles apart on the economics side of things.

30 teams at 40 million is already far too high at 1.2 billion or at least 75% of potential gross revenues so the owners would be no further ahead.

One thing has become crystal clear though = the owners always said this fight was about money and how they didn't want to pay more than 52-55% of G.R. to the players = the players just made a statement with their 52 million cap figure that proves they don't really care about the health of the NHL, just their pocket books.

Unless the owners get a 32-40 mill hard cap at both ends with a luxury tax starting at 35 mill they will be no further ahead and actually may be worse off because of the damage done to the image of the game in recent months and years.

eye is offline  
Old
02-15-2005, 02:27 PM
  #54
Greschner4
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 754
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by John Flyers Fan
It's not hard to do, you just institue extremely harsh penalties ala the NBA and NFL. Huge fines and losst of draft picks.

The Minnesota Timberwolves lost 5 first round picks for trying to circumvent the cap a few years back.
That wasn't going over the cap number, that was a secret agreement for the years after the current contract year when the Wolves could then use the exception to go over the cap to sign their "own" player.

You had to be three years with the team to get those rights, so the Wolves and player (Joe Smith) agreed to a one year deal for year three with a secret and completely illegal deal for the five years after year three.

Shouldn't be a problem in a hard cap regime unless there are some sort of under the table payments, which you'd just enforce with fines or losses of draft picks.

Greschner4 is offline  
Old
02-15-2005, 02:28 PM
  #55
ceber
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Wyoming, MN
Country: United States
Posts: 3,500
vCash: 500
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'll give you 90/10. Maybe better, like 70/30, if the visiting team has a similar or lower salary. I don't see why so much of my season ticket payment should go to teams with higher salaries when many of them can't fill their own buildings. I want my dollars to go towards the improvement of my team. Why should the fans in strong markets pay premium prices to support the teams in weaker markets? The owners and the players should be able to make it work without putting the burden on the fans.

ceber is offline  
Old
02-15-2005, 02:29 PM
  #56
ScottyBowman
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Detroit
Country: United States
Posts: 1,972
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by eye
Now speaking the same language but still miles apart on the economics side of things.

30 teams at 40 million is already far too high at 1.2 billion or at least 75% of potential gross revenues so the owners would be no further ahead.

One thing has become crystal clear though = the owners always said this fight was about money and how they didn't want to pay more than 52-55% of G.R. to the players = the players just made a statement with their 52 million cap figure that proves they don't really care about the health of the NHL, just their pocket books.

Unless the owners get a 32-40 mill hard cap at both ends with a luxury tax starting at 35 mill they will be no further ahead and actually may be worse off because of the damage done to the image of the game in recent months and years.
And you keep on repeating everything that comes from the owners as FACT. My god, you're a sheep.

ScottyBowman is offline  
Old
02-15-2005, 02:45 PM
  #57
CGG
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: 416
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,235
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by eye
Now speaking the same language but still miles apart on the economics side of things.

30 teams at 40 million is already far too high at 1.2 billion or at least 75% of potential gross revenues so the owners would be no further ahead.

One thing has become crystal clear though = the owners always said this fight was about money and how they didn't want to pay more than 52-55% of G.R. to the players = the players just made a statement with their 52 million cap figure that proves they don't really care about the health of the NHL, just their pocket books.

Unless the owners get a 32-40 mill hard cap at both ends with a luxury tax starting at 35 mill they will be no further ahead and actually may be worse off because of the damage done to the image of the game in recent months and years.
I see, it's in bold, therefore it must be true.

The owners would be doing backflips if they got salaries down to $1.2 billion. Of course they would have to take it upon themselves to get revenues back up to the pre-lockout days, god forbid the owners would have to do this themselves instead take a chunk of the players' salaries back.

The owners got rid of linkage, but you're still wrapped up in percentages of gross revenues. You're more pro-owner than the owners are. Enough already.

CGG is offline  
Old
02-15-2005, 02:45 PM
  #58
eye
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: around the 49th para
Posts: 1,607
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by ScottyBowman
And you keep on repeating everything that comes from the owners as FACT. My god, you're a sheep.
Sorry to disappoint you but I have done enough research to draw my own conclussions. Like I told you before you don't do your username any justice. Feel free to back up your argument agaisnt what I said; but getting personal is not contributing to this board and you have done more than your share of just that. Scotty would set much higher standards for those that want to use his name.

eye is offline  
Old
02-15-2005, 03:42 PM
  #59
PecaFan
Registered User
 
PecaFan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Ottawa (Go 'Nucks)
Posts: 8,904
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by JohnnyReb
Are you saying that they should chuck the whole cap idea because owners are too competitive?
No, I'm just saying it may not actually be a cap, if there are no actual restrictions.

We haven't seen any sign yet of penalties, restrictions, what counts as salaries, how are the numbers calculated, are signing bonuses considered salary, etc.

PecaFan 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 02:23 PM.

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.