HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > General Hockey Discussion > National Hockey League Talk
National Hockey League Talk Discuss NHL players, teams, games, and the Stanley Cup Playoffs.

Owners want $31 million hard cap

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
10-14-2003, 03:26 PM
  #26
degroat*
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: http://nhl.degroat.n
Posts: 8,108
vCash: 500
No, the NBA has a luxury tax on top of that.

degroat* is offline  
Old
10-14-2003, 03:34 PM
  #27
Dr Love
Registered User
 
Dr Love's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Location, Location!
Posts: 20,378
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by degroat
No, the NBA has a luxury tax on top of that.
Yeah, that is what I was saying. The NBA has a soft cap and a luxury tax.

Dr Love is offline  
Old
10-15-2003, 03:40 AM
  #28
Motown Beatdown
Need a slump buster
 
Motown Beatdown's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Indianapolis
Country: United States
Posts: 8,554
vCash: 450
I dont know if any of you watched Rome is Burning last night on ESPN. Anyways Bret Hull was on it, saying no way will the players allow a hard salary cap. He said they are willing to work with the owners, like the 5% reduction in salaries. (hey it's a start) How many union start negotiation off by already giving up money?

The ONLY reason the hard cap in the NFL works is because of the massive revenue sharing. Mainly because of the TV deals. The NHL doesn't have those revenues.
A luxury tax system will work if that "number" is right. MLB is a joke because of the number is so high.

Lets say the tax number is set at 40 million. Of the 15 teams over a 40 million dollar payroll, they total 199 million over that 40 million. Heck a 50% tax generates 99.5 million dollars.
Think how that 99.5 million could help benefit the small market teams.

Motown Beatdown is offline  
Old
10-15-2003, 03:55 AM
  #29
degroat*
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: http://nhl.degroat.n
Posts: 8,108
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by JWI19
The ONLY reason the hard cap in the NFL works is because of the massive revenue sharing. Mainly because of the TV deals.
No. That is not the reason at all. The reason it works is because the system they have adopted allows all teams to reach the cap while not losing money. That is the ONLY reason it works.

Quote:
A luxury tax system will work if that "number" is right. MLB is a joke because of the number is so high. Lets say the tax number is set at 40 million. Of the 15 teams over a 40 million dollar payroll, they total 199 million over that 40 million. Heck a 50% tax generates 99.5 million dollars.
Think how that 99.5 million could help benefit the small market teams.
No, it won't. All a luxury tax does is give more power to the teams that are profitting now. Plus, you're numbers are irrelevent because hardly any team would go over that cap, so in reality with a 50% cap over $40M you'd maybe get $30M. There needs to be a logical revenue sharing system in place because any system where the large teams just give money to small market teams is ridiculous.

degroat* is offline  
Old
10-15-2003, 04:22 AM
  #30
Motown Beatdown
Need a slump buster
 
Motown Beatdown's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Indianapolis
Country: United States
Posts: 8,554
vCash: 450
Quote:
Originally Posted by degroat
No. That is not the reason at all. The reason it works is because the system they have adopted allows all teams to reach the cap while not losing money. That is the ONLY reason it works.

If the NFL didn't have those TV deals some teams would be losing money.


Quote:
Originally Posted by degroat
No, it won't. All a luxury tax does is give more power to the teams that are profitting now. Plus, you're numbers are irrelevent because hardly any team would go over that cap, so in reality with a 50% cap over $40M you'd maybe get $30M. There needs to be a logical revenue sharing system in place because any system where the large teams just give money to small market teams is ridiculous.

Thats exactly the point of a "tax number" Most teams will not go over that number, thus decreasing payroll. Isn't that what the Owners want? And if some owner(s) want to go over the number it only benefits the rest of the leauge.

I agree the NHL needs some sort of revenue sharing. But the big market owners are not gonna let their local TV & Radio money and ticket reneuves get away from them. So that leaves it up to the National TV deals. Which isn't much money compared to the other biog sports. And any kind of work stoppage will kill the next TV deal.

Motown Beatdown is offline  
Old
10-15-2003, 04:32 AM
  #31
triggrman
HFBoards Sponsor
 
triggrman's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Nashville
Country: United States
Posts: 16,965
vCash: 500
Craig Leopold is the owner representing the small market teams, he said the other day on the radio the owners were working together on a type of revenue sharing, much like the revenue sharing with the Canadian teams now.

triggrman is offline  
Old
10-15-2003, 04:34 AM
  #32
degroat*
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: http://nhl.degroat.n
Posts: 8,108
vCash: 500
- No, if the NFL didn't have those TV deals the salary cap would be lower and the teams would still be making money. That is the reason why caps are based on a percentage of league revenues.

- Yes, MOST teams would not go over that number, but the few select teams that are not effected by that tax will have even more of an advantage over the other teams.

- What do you mean by "that leaves it up to the National TV deals". Splitting up those deals between the 30 team is not revenue sharing.. that's what you call common sense and that's already happening in the NHL. For this league to be healthy, the owners will have no choice but to share some of the gates and local tv money. Remember, not every owners has to agree to the deal for it to pass.

degroat* is offline  
Old
10-15-2003, 04:36 AM
  #33
degroat*
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: http://nhl.degroat.n
Posts: 8,108
vCash: 500
BTW, while this is a tad extreme, if 100% of tickets and 100% of local TV deals were shared, the disadvantage that the Canadian teams have would be virtually nonexistant.

degroat* is offline  
Old
10-15-2003, 04:40 AM
  #34
Motown Beatdown
Need a slump buster
 
Motown Beatdown's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Indianapolis
Country: United States
Posts: 8,554
vCash: 450
Quote:
Originally Posted by degroat
- What do you mean by "that leaves it up to the National TV deals". Splitting up those deals between the 30 team is not revenue sharing.. that's what you call common sense and that's already happening in the NHL. For this league to be healthy, the owners will have no choice but to share some of the gates and local tv money. Remember, not every owners has to agree to the deal for it to pass.


What i'm saying is if the bigger markets are not gonna give away their local revenues, that only leavs the national TV deal as a revenue sharing. Which we all know isn't enough money.

I agree the owners need to share some of their local revenues, but what a fair number? I really dont know.

Motown Beatdown is offline  
Old
10-15-2003, 04:52 AM
  #35
OlliMackBjugStud
Registered User
 
OlliMackBjugStud's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,648
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zippy
I agree with the sentiment that $40M is in the right vicinity, and allowing for existing contracts to expire before making it "hard" for all teams.
no its not the right vicinity. the whole concept of a salary cap is ridiculas. so what happens to all the revenue that the NYR generate if they can only pay 40m to their players ? Cablevision pockets the other 40m ? if i was a fan of the NYR, id be pissed that they cant use all their resources on their product.

a salary cap for the NHL wont work. it works in the NFL because they have so much revenue, that the players dont get short changed.

asking for a 31m hard cap is like the players asking for a 5million minimum salary. its so ridiculas, its not even worth talking about.

dr

OlliMackBjugStud is online now  
Old
10-15-2003, 05:37 AM
  #36
LoweDown
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 379
vCash: 500
Send a message via ICQ to LoweDown
Mabye its not...

The players have to take a paycut in this or the NHL will die out...

Do you have any idea how much 10 mil (which lotsa players are getting) is? Thats 10,000,000... Or 1000 times the average salary, 10k a year....

One thousand!...

Lower that down to 5 mil and its still 500... These guys deserve to be payed a lot but that is way too much (5-6 mil) and encourages the players to act like god and **** like Heatley did on the night.

LoweDown is offline  
Old
10-15-2003, 05:42 AM
  #37
OlliMackBjugStud
Registered User
 
OlliMackBjugStud's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,648
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Oilers All the Way!
Mabye its not...

The players have to take a paycut in this or the NHL will die out...

Do you have any idea how much 10 mil (which lotsa players are getting) is? Thats 10,000,000... Or 1000 times the average salary, 10k a year....

One thousand!...

Lower that down to 5 mil and its still 500... These guys deserve to be payed a lot but that is way too much (5-6 mil) and encourages the players to act like god and **** like Heatley did on the night.
1) i dont know where you live, but $10k is not the average salary. The average CDN family has an income of around $55k.

2) So what its alot of money. They generate it. If the NHL has 2billion in revenue, why should the players not get there share ? Just because its alot of money ?

Look, the fact is if the the owners want to pay the players $400k, then they can. All they need to do is offer ONLY $400k. The fact that they CHOOSE to offer much more is their right. Why should the players deny them their rights ? If no one offered Dan Bylsma $500k, he wouldnt make it. If no one offered Dave Lowry $500k, he wouldnt make it. If no one offered Petr Nedved 4m, he wouldnt make it either. Thats how it works.

DR

OlliMackBjugStud is online now  
Old
10-15-2003, 08:43 AM
  #38
degroat*
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: http://nhl.degroat.n
Posts: 8,108
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by DementedReality
no its not the right vicinity. the whole concept of a salary cap is ridiculas. so what happens to all the revenue that the NYR generate if they can only pay 40m to their players ? Cablevision pockets the other 40m ? if i was a fan of the NYR, id be pissed that they cant use all their resources on their product.
So, but the Rangers just so happen to live in a large market they should get the benefit to spend extra money on their team? Why? Give me an answer with a shred of common sense that explains why they should get an advantage over the other teams just because of the location.

Quote:
Originally Posted by DementedReality
a salary cap for the NHL wont work. it works in the NFL because they have so much revenue, that the players dont get short changed.
Wrong. The NFL is successful because they have set the cap at a percentage where the owners can cover costs and still make some money while the players get paid based on the revenues they help the league generate. Why should NHL players get paid a higher percentage than the NFL players get? They shouldn't and the NHL players wouldn't be getting short changed because the salaries would be based off the revenues that their sport generates. Yet more common sense.

degroat* is offline  
Old
10-15-2003, 08:48 AM
  #39
degroat*
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: http://nhl.degroat.n
Posts: 8,108
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by DementedReality
Look, the fact is if the the owners want to pay the players $400k, then they can. All they need to do is offer ONLY $400k. The fact that they CHOOSE to offer much more is their right. Why should the players deny them their rights ? If no one offered Dan Bylsma $500k, he wouldnt make it. If no one offered Dave Lowry $500k, he wouldnt make it. If no one offered Petr Nedved 4m, he wouldnt make it either. Thats how it works.
Sorry, but that is not true. As long as the Rangers who you're so obsessed with have the extra revenue to overpay players then the market will be set by them and the other teams will have to pay that to be competitive on the UFA market. Frankly, how you can argue this is beyond me. You're saying that the current NHL is the ideal system that that's just retarded.

degroat* is offline  
Old
10-15-2003, 09:01 AM
  #40
the future
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 274
vCash: 500
luxury taxes dont work. baseball proves that. the owners want cost certainty. that is a salary cap. whether its 30 or 45 million its what the owners can afford to pay out without upsetting the balance of salaries. if you want to get into the length of a deal like jagrs ridiculous deal. at 11 million /year. have no guarenteed contracts like the nfl. the caps could walk away from the deal leaving jagr a ufa and we move on. there will be a lockout and in the end the star players will be the ones sacrificing the big paychecks and teams with high payrolls will have to cut lose some high priced players.

the future is offline  
Old
10-15-2003, 09:42 AM
  #41
OlliMackBjugStud
Registered User
 
OlliMackBjugStud's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,648
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by degroat
Sorry, but that is not true. As long as the Rangers who you're so obsessed with have the extra revenue to overpay players then the market will be set by them and the other teams will have to pay that to be competitive on the UFA market. Frankly, how you can argue this is beyond me. You're saying that the current NHL is the ideal system that that's just retarded.
the current system is fine. yes, thats what i am saying.

i am at work, so i wont be able to give a full answer, but here is something to think about.

even if the rangers wanted to pay $10m to each player on its roster, it can only "hire" 23 of the some 600 players in the league. they cant pay everyone. so, if the other 580 players want to play, they will play for what the team thats owns their rights *agrees* to pay them.

tell me, who forced ANA to give Paul Kariya 10m per season a few seasons ago ? yup, no one did, they CHOSE to. and look, ANA used the system to correct their mistake. their free choice.

DR

OlliMackBjugStud is online now  
Old
10-15-2003, 10:01 AM
  #42
David A. Rainer
Registered User
 
David A. Rainer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Huntington Beach
Country: Italy
Posts: 7,293
vCash: 500
Send a message via MSN to David A. Rainer
Anyone else catch Roy Malaucher(sp?) on Jim Rome today (Oct 15)? He was on for an hour and talked about a bunch of stuff. Essentially, he summed up the owners position in the CBA battle: need to fix the system to allow self-restraint (salary cap); there is no way the players will allow a salary cap but are more willing to listen to solutions for the CBA (I took this as no way for a hard cap but possibly a soft cap and/or luxury tax); the teams are currently not on a level playing field and nearly half are failing; if the players want to keep the system as it is, they must be prepared to have only 12 teams, etc.

Also talked about the Ducks recent problems, Dan Snyder, and ways of improving the game.

__________________
Saxon Sports Information and Research
David A. Rainer is offline  
Old
10-15-2003, 10:05 AM
  #43
IGM
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2002
Posts: 1,074
vCash: 500
Interesting points trots. You are right. I guess that does make it more of a soft cap. Either way I think that there will have to be some sort of profit sharing in order for any of it to work. This will be a tough one.

IGM is offline  
Old
10-15-2003, 10:36 AM
  #44
Motown Beatdown
Need a slump buster
 
Motown Beatdown's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Indianapolis
Country: United States
Posts: 8,554
vCash: 450
Quote:
Originally Posted by the future
luxury taxes dont work. baseball proves that. the owners want cost certainty. that is a salary cap. whether its 30 or 45 million its what the owners can afford to pay out without upsetting the balance of salaries. if you want to get into the length of a deal like jagrs ridiculous deal. at 11 million /year. have no guarenteed contracts like the nfl. the caps could walk away from the deal leaving jagr a ufa and we move on. there will be a lockout and in the end the star players will be the ones sacrificing the big paychecks and teams with high payrolls will have to cut lose some high priced players.


No, MLB luxury tax doesn't work because they set the number to high. If the number was 80 million it would work. And yes as high as it is, it has kept a few team from exceeding that number.

Motown Beatdown is offline  
Old
10-15-2003, 10:53 AM
  #45
the future
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 274
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by JWI19
No, MLB luxury tax doesn't work because they set the number to high. If the number was 80 million it would work. And yes as high as it is, it has kept a few team from exceeding that number.
how is a luxury tax "cost certainty" if you can exceed it? the rangers are going to abide by a luxury tax?no. the wings? no. the flyers? no. the leafs? no. the big spenders will continue to spend because if the soft cap is 45 million and their current payroll is 65 million. thats 20 million they have to play with. if your taxing 50 cents for every dollar thats 15 million extra with a 7.5 million tax. how does that level the playing feild or keep the balance of salaries when poor teams would never even go near the cap. and a tax of twice the amount at 30 million cap would still give those teams 35 million to play with. cost certainty, forget the luxury tax idea. it is stupid

the future is offline  
Old
10-15-2003, 11:05 AM
  #46
degroat*
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: http://nhl.degroat.n
Posts: 8,108
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by JWI19
No, MLB luxury tax doesn't work because they set the number to high. If the number was 80 million it would work. And yes as high as it is, it has kept a few team from exceeding that number.
You have no evidence, nor have you given any reasoning to your belief that an $80M cap would work.

degroat* is offline  
Old
10-15-2003, 12:17 PM
  #47
davemess
Registered User
 
davemess's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Scotland
Country: Scotland
Posts: 1,884
vCash: 500
The Union needs to remember that there a whole bunch of clubs just hanging on finacially in this league, if the NHL lost just 4 of those teams during a lock out thats 100 Union members who are losing their jobs.

You think the players will be happy to see 14% of its members losing NHL paychecks?

You think the 100 borderline NHL players who are likely making the NHL minimum at the moment anyway will be too happy to lose their jobs to protect the guys making over $5mill a year from having to take a paycut?

Couple of issues that we need to see fixed.

1) Hard Cap, a soft cap isnt going to work because certain teams will just ignore it. So instead of making it easier and cheaper for clubs to retain free agents a soft cap encourages them to leave for clubs who will continue their out of control spending. Those signings will also continue to set the market value for other players and that cannot be allowed to continue, its the main reason for our current problems. I dont even think the cap has to be that low, provided its around the $40mill mark it will keep the league competative.

2) Salary Inflations, Why do clubs have to give guys a 10% raise to retain their rights? Why should league wide salaries increase by 10% each season? Why should players be rewarded with 10% raises for average performance? I've never understood that one and it needs to be changed.

3) Arbitration, works great in princple but guys are getting awarded way to much. A more strict system is needed where only long term rather than short term performance can be rewarded.

4) Rookie Contracts, i have little doubt this will be an easily fixed issue. The players will sell out the rookies in order to retain as much of the cash with the veterans as possible.

5) Revenue Sharing, with the rich clubs not being able to waste all that money on players salaries they should be able to funnel at least part of it back into the system to held out the teams who arent as strong. Having a strong competative and balanced league is only going to increase fan interest league wide and maybe generate a better tv contract which would be good for everybody long term, including the players who would likely see the owners raise the salary cap as revenues increase.

davemess is offline  
Old
10-15-2003, 12:55 PM
  #48
Trottier
Very Random
 
Trottier's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: San Diego
Posts: 27,564
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by degroat
As long as the Rangers...have the extra revenue to overpay players then the market will be set by them and the other teams will have to pay that to be competitive on the UFA market.
On that I agree 100% (though I wish you could make your often-salient points a bit more respectfully. )

Whether it's NYR, Detroit, whoever, the team spending the most $ will dictate the market, as the system is currently constituted.

***

Seems to me that one's point of view on these matters, whatever the details, starts with a simple premise:

Does one want what is best for the league overall or their own team?

That is, does one view the NHL as 30 separate businesses competing off the ice against each other in a classic business sense, or 30 franchises, members of the same "association," who's best interest is to to see their brethren remain economically viable?

Trottier is offline  
Old
10-15-2003, 01:14 PM
  #49
OlliMackBjugStud
Registered User
 
OlliMackBjugStud's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,648
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by davemess

2) Salary Inflations, Why do clubs have to give guys a 10% raise to retain their rights? Why should league wide salaries increase by 10% each season? Why should players be rewarded with 10% raises for average performance? I've never understood that one and it needs to be changed.
They dont have to give the player anything actually.

example .. the Canucks didnt want to give Letowski a 10% increase, so they didnt. They simply replaced him with a cheapr Jason King. Whats wrong with that ?

Letowski was able to get his contract from another team, why should he have been precluded from that ? CLB decided he was worth X, he decided it was fair and he took it.

It works both ways, Mike Comrie is worth a whole lot more than the 10% increase the Oil gave him, but they are now able to keep his rights by giving him a simple 10% increase

I see nothing wrong with the current system. It allows teams to spend whatever they choose on players.

DR

OlliMackBjugStud is online now  
Old
10-15-2003, 01:39 PM
  #50
degroat*
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: http://nhl.degroat.n
Posts: 8,108
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by davemess
a soft cap isnt going to work because certain teams will just ignore it.
A luxury tax may be ignored. A soft tax couldn't and wouldn't be ignored.

degroat* 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 11:03 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.