HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > NHL Eastern Conference > Metropolitan Division > New York Rangers
Notices

Who is praying for a salary cap?

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
01-06-2004, 12:09 PM
  #1
Profet
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: NY
Country: United States
Posts: 547
vCash: 500
Who is praying for a salary cap?

I for one am praying that a fairly strict salary cap is put in place this offseason.

Maybe then we can finally see a playoff birth.

Profet is offline  
Old
01-06-2004, 12:16 PM
  #2
Fletch
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Brooklyn
Posts: 21,123
vCash: 500
Who knows...

in the end, talent still needs to be evaluated and draft picks need to be used properly, and equally as important, a coach needs to be coaching this team. While 16 team do make the playoffs, there are many that do not, and there's not much of a reason that with a cap, the Rangers won't be among them.

Fletch is offline  
Old
01-06-2004, 02:47 PM
  #3
Edge
Registered User
 
Edge's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Sin City
Country: United States
Posts: 13,196
vCash: 500
i dont think the league can survive without one, but i dont think it changes anything for the rangers {see the knicks}.

so long as this team is seen as an investment by a corporation, things wont change.

Edge is offline  
Old
01-06-2004, 03:28 PM
  #4
DarthSather99
Registered User
 
DarthSather99's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: NYC
Country: United States
Posts: 3,260
vCash: 500
I am praying for a Salary Cap, a HARD one at that. Not like the NBA,more like the NFL. Then maybe we will not be stuck with these overpaid aged veterans. I'd rather see young energized players that play hard and have no place to go but up rather than old worn down non caring players than are only going to get worse. The Rangers need to be forced to take youth and low salaried players more seriously.

Sather is in a bad need of retirement, the game has passed him by .....

DarthSather99 is offline  
Old
01-06-2004, 03:30 PM
  #5
RangersFan
Registered User
 
RangersFan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: LA, CA & NY, NY
Country: United States
Posts: 6,659
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to RangersFan Send a message via MSN to RangersFan
A salary cap would not help the Rangers. It will not make them develop talent better, it will not help them draft better. And it certainly will not help them play defence any better. If anything a salary cap may hurt the Rangers, if you could imagine that...

RangersFan is offline  
Old
01-06-2004, 04:17 PM
  #6
NYR469
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 5,785
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by RangersFan
A salary cap would not help the Rangers. It will not make them develop talent better, it will not help them draft better. And it certainly will not help them play defence any better. If anything a salary cap may hurt the Rangers, if you could imagine that...
i disagree with you 1000000000000000000% on every point...

the cap WOULD force the rangers to develop players better because it would force them to play kids from the system...

it WOULD help them play defense because they would be forced to play hard working kids over lazy overpaid vets...

and a cap can't possibly hurt the rangers because the biggest cause of the rangers problems is the fact that they constantly throw $$ at the problem when throwing $$ at the problem IS the problem...

it might make us alot worse immediate after that cause our system isn't that good, but in the long run it would be the best thing for us

NYR469 is offline  
Old
01-06-2004, 05:10 PM
  #7
Brooklyn Ranger
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Brooklyn, of course
Posts: 7,682
vCash: 500
Boo Hoo, poor owners just can't make enough money off of hockey fans, so they need a cap. I'll be for a cap, the day they tie it into LOWERING ticket prices. After all, if the kind of cap Bettman envisions is enacted, it will lower the cost of doing business significantly for owners. Think the fans (who already kick in 3/4 of the revenue for the NHL) will see a reduction in ticket prices, much less beer?

Brooklyn Ranger is online now  
Old
01-06-2004, 08:22 PM
  #8
Edge
Registered User
 
Edge's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Sin City
Country: United States
Posts: 13,196
vCash: 500
yeah but in some cities even with those high prices the teams arent even breaking even, the league as a whole is losing money.

Sure teams like NY, Detroit and some others are milking it and doing fine, i'd say over 50% of the league is losing money or right on the brink. if there is a work stoppage for a significant amount of time i am guessing that at least 4 teams are going away and maybe, in all honesty as many as ten.

Edge is offline  
Old
01-06-2004, 08:44 PM
  #9
Vito Andolini
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: New Jersey
Posts: 923
vCash: 500
Pray if you want, but I dont see any way the NHL adopts a hard cap. Look at it from the leagues point of view. The NHL needs big market teams to be successful because they bring in more fans/viewers and more money cash ho's. If the league instituted a hard cap, it would force even more parity into the league. The big markets teams wouldnt be able to throw their money around and they'd stand less of a chance of winning then they do now, cause as all of us Rangers fans know, money leads to winning.... The small market teams would now make the playoffs and win the cup more often. This is nice for the small market clubs, but stinks for the league cause it woulda made a hell of a lot more money if the Red Wings or Rangers had won that cup.

So...unfortunately, I'm afraid the Rangers are going to have to climb out of the hole they've dug on their own, without the league forcing us to act in a responsible manner.

Vito Andolini is offline  
Old
01-06-2004, 08:54 PM
  #10
Vito Andolini
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: New Jersey
Posts: 923
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Edge
Sure teams like NY, Detroit and some others are milking it and doing fine, i'd say over 50% of the league is losing money or right on the brink. if there is a work stoppage for a significant amount of time i am guessing that at least 4 teams are going away and maybe, in all honesty as many as ten.
Would that be a bad thing? It's blatently obvious that the league has really bit off way more than it can chew in the 90's. 9 expansion teams in the 1990's is ridiculous, especially for a league that has trouble marketing itself to new viewers.

I think contraction would be the best thing for the sport. It would increase the teams talent levels, which would decrease all the clutching and grabbing that is currently suffocating the sport.

Vito Andolini is offline  
Old
01-06-2004, 09:04 PM
  #11
MisterUnspoken
Vintage
 
MisterUnspoken's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Orlando, FL
Country: United States
Posts: 10,073
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to MisterUnspoken
Quote:
Originally Posted by DarthSather99
I am praying for a Salary Cap, a HARD one at that. Not like the NBA,more like the NFL. Then maybe we will not be stuck with these overpaid aged veterans. I'd rather see young energized players that play hard and have no place to go but up rather than old worn down non caring players than are only going to get worse. The Rangers need to be forced to take youth and low salaried players more seriously.

Sather is in a bad need of retirement, the game has passed him by .....
Im just hoping for no guaranteed contracts, yeah.... that way you earn your money, like we have to

MisterUnspoken is offline  
Old
01-06-2004, 10:13 PM
  #12
LondonFan
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Harlow, UK
Posts: 535
vCash: 500
I'm for NO cap. If a team can't afford to operate at this level then it should shed costs and operate in a lower league. The NHL should be retracted more in the direction of 20 healthy teams. As for the Rangers - well they've always found new ways of sucking.

LondonFan is offline  
Old
01-06-2004, 11:18 PM
  #13
Pens Fan
Registered User
 
Pens Fan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Pittsburgh PA
Country: United States
Posts: 40
vCash: 500
Send a message via ICQ to Pens Fan
I am 100% against a cap also> it doesnt stop teams from being stupid. And like someone said up top that doesnt mean the owners will make less money. Everyone needs to realize that the Commissioner is not a mediator he is the spokesman for the Owners, that is why baseball is doing so bad, the commissioner thinks he is doing things for the good of the game when really he is the puppet of the owners. If you are stupid enough to pay players more than they are worth then face the consequences. You can still win and be small. the key is be SMART. I know it is hard for a lot of big market teams to realize this but it can be done(ala Oakland A's). The only problem is hockey's union is not as strong as baseball and the cap probably will be introduced unless the players will stick together and hold out as long as they can but i dont think they will. Baseball is the only sport where the players have never folded because of a lockout. And the players in baseball where treated as pieces of property with there teamsand had 100 years of treatment like that. Hockey has a little better history i just hope they fix it unlike baseball and just put a bandaid on it. But i will tell you in my opinion a cap is no the way to go.

Pens Fan is offline  
Old
01-07-2004, 04:07 AM
  #14
Edge
Registered User
 
Edge's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Sin City
Country: United States
Posts: 13,196
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vito Andolini
Would that be a bad thing? It's blatently obvious that the league has really bit off way more than it can chew in the 90's. 9 expansion teams in the 1990's is ridiculous, especially for a league that has trouble marketing itself to new viewers.

I think contraction would be the best thing for the sport. It would increase the teams talent levels, which would decrease all the clutching and grabbing that is currently suffocating the sport.

I dont think it solves the clutching and grabbing at all. the only way to solve that is to get the officiating in order. for too many years these refs have been bi-polar in their approach. either it is a penalty or it isnt. The reason players do what they do is because they won't get called for it. it doesnt matter if there are 6 teams or 30.

as for contraction i def. think the league got too big too fast. and i dont think contraction is a bad thing, but we are talking about some cities that love hockey who are gonna be lost. cities like calgary and edmonton. the reason for them going wouldnt be because people aren't interested, it would be because they are jaded. you think we are bitter as ranger fans? try having a team that actually takes the time to develop their talent only to trade them because they can't afford them.

and we say it now, but a 10 team league wouldn't be all that exciting for me personally.

hockey needs a makeover and it really needs new management. the fact of the matter is that the players salaries are too high for the revenue hockey takes in.

the franchise owners are millionares, but they certainly didn't become that way through hockey.

and yes some teams will be smart but mark my words those smart teams winning championships are the exception to the rule in baseball and hockey, not the trend for the future.

oakland's window for winning is already starting to close. tejada and giambi are gone, and hudson becomes a freeagent at the end of year {going to braves IMO).

for every new jersey devils there are a half dozen other teams who don't even stand a chance when the season starts.

the only reason the rangers exist? because they are in the economic capital of the world. right now there are a lot of empty seats {though they are paid for by business'} and certainly 1 cup in over 60 years wouldn't exactly make us a flag ship.

I dont think a salary cap is the wonder pill for the NHL, but this league will die without one. mark my words, there is always going to be a Rangers or Red Wings or other $$$ team who will throw the salary structure out of whack.

does a salary cap turn the league's future to gold? of course not, but it's still something that needs to be done.

We are fans here, but you go on the street and the average person couldn't tell you much about hockey. i think as "fans" are a niche sport we forget that a lot. compare hockey's average salary to the other sports and it is right there with them, now take a look at revenue {Which says nothing of profit} and you see a VERY large gap.

you don't have to hold an MBA to take a look at the numbers and realize that hockey is a bad investment in its current state.

Edge is offline  
Old
01-07-2004, 04:25 AM
  #15
JR#9*
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 7,733
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brooklyn Ranger
Boo Hoo, poor owners just can't make enough money off of hockey fans, so they need a cap. I'll be for a cap, the day they tie it into LOWERING ticket prices. After all, if the kind of cap Bettman envisions is enacted, it will lower the cost of doing business significantly for owners. Think the fans (who already kick in 3/4 of the revenue for the NHL) will see a reduction in ticket prices, much less beer?
Exactly Brook!!!!!

Aside from the great and very vaild point BR makes, all these people calling for a hard cap are out of their minds as it could never work properly with the structure of revenue coming in.

No CENTRAL revenue source that can be whacked up evenly b/w all 30 teams that can only be provided by a huge national TV deal means that it becomes a rob from the rich to give to the "poor" or at least the owners who whine the most about paying out to the help.

The very best all these people can hope for is a luxury tax, and it will be a weak one at that similar to Baseball where it's a similar situation that teams are resonsible for generating their own incoming revenue and alot comes from local cable deals.Same situation will bring a very similar result IMO.

JR#9* is offline  
Old
01-07-2004, 04:49 AM
  #16
True Blue
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 15,006
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by JR#9
The very best all these people can hope for is a luxury tax, and it will be a weak one at that similar to Baseball where it's a similar situation that teams are resonsible for generating their own incoming revenue and alot comes from local cable deals.Same situation will bring a very similar result IMO.
Right on, JR. There will be no hard cap in hockey. There simply cannot be. It's different from the other sports. What will happen will model what baseball has done or what basketball is doing. Not football. You simply cannot have equal footing with Canadian teams. The difference from the US $ to the Canadian $ will not allow for that.
For all those who are dreaming of a hard cap, y'all can forget it.

True Blue is offline  
Old
01-07-2004, 05:21 AM
  #17
kazo
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Plymouth, MA
Posts: 959
vCash: 500
Before Bettman, the NHL had it's problems but was still relatively healthy. I think since he took over as commish the game, both on and off the ice, has deteriorated to the point where we see it now. There is nobody that's happy about anything. How he is still commissioner I"ll never know. He continues to try and fit that square peg into a round hole in order to make the NHL into the NBA. Hockey is a niche sport but he refuses to accept that fact to the detriment of the game.

As you can see, I have a thing for Mr. Bettman. His demise woudn't necessarily erase a lot of the league's financial problems but it would solve many others. As for the salary cap, it's such a complicated issue I just don't see how it can be resolved by next September especially seeing as how it appears Bettman is going to be a real hardass with the players.

Ah, do I long for the days of John Zeigler.

kazo is offline  
Old
01-07-2004, 05:23 AM
  #18
NYR469
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 5,785
vCash: 500
i doubt there will a hard cap too mainly because one of the biggests keys would be the $$ provided by a luxury tax and revenue sharing...

some of the teams with the lowest payrolls are losing $$, and the biggest spenders make the most so you can't say that lowering payroll will help those teams losing $$...if the penguins are losing $$ with a $25 mil payroll they will be losing $$ whether the rangers spend $40 mil or $80 mil unless the amount of revenue coming into the pens (ie thru revenue sharing/luxury tax) increases...

not to mention the fact that in a system like the nfl, there would be a floor cap as well as a ceiling so a team like the pens would be forced to spend even more cause the point of the cap isn't to simply pull the good teams down to a level of mediocrity, part of closing the gap includes pulling the bottom teams UP

the idea that i like the most is a hard cap on non-home grown talent...instead of setting a limit on the entire roster, just limit the amount that can be spent on free agents and players acquired thru trades...that would encourage and reward teams that build properly, it would lessen the ability big $$ teams from 'stealing' players for poor teams (which is the point of the cap), it would still give the rich teams whose fans pay the highest ticket prices a financial advantage, to a lesser degree but they would still have an edge, and lastly it would encourage players to stay with the same team instead of changing every other year which could help get it back to the old days when fans felt a connection with the team cause it was the same guys year after year...

NYR469 is offline  
Old
01-07-2004, 06:00 AM
  #19
NYIsles1*
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Posts: 9,539
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Edge
Sure teams like NY, Detroit and some others are milking it and doing fine, i'd say over 50% of the league is losing money or right on the brink. if there is a work stoppage for a significant amount of time i am guessing that at least 4 teams are going away and maybe, in all honesty as many as ten.
Madison Square Garden claimed to have lost nine million dollars last year from it's sports operations so there is no reveune to share. The Wings owner always maintain they must make the semi-finals to break even and they play in a very old building.

The game needs a hard cap so every team can survive and the stars are distrubuted evenly to all markets, that's how the game grows in popularity.

The teams making money are Minnesota, Columbus, small payrolls in new buildings with packed houses and a few other teams with new buildings or recently new buildings like Colorado and Philadelphia.

The Kings play in a building that looks like an apartment house for luxury boxes and somehow the Kings lose money. A fan who was an accountant was allowed access to the books because he was skeptical and confirmed the ownership is telling the truth.

The game is just invisible in most of the large markets and several teams have no television coveage when they play on the road. New York papers did not even cover the WJC and the United States won.


Last edited by NYIsles1*: 01-07-2004 at 06:19 AM.
NYIsles1* is offline  
Old
01-07-2004, 06:42 AM
  #20
JR#9*
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 7,733
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by NYIsles1
Madison Square Garden claimed to have lost nine million dollars last year from it's sports operations so there is no reveune to share. The Wings owner always maintain they must make the semi-finals to break even and they play in a very old building.

The game needs a hard cap so every team can survive and the stars are distrubuted evenly to all markets, that's how the game grows in popularity.

The teams making money are Minnesota, Columbus, small payrolls in new buildings with packed houses and a few other teams with new buildings or recently new buildings like Colorado and Philadelphia.

The Kings play in a building that looks like an apartment house for luxury boxes and somehow the Kings lose money. A fan who was an accountant was allowed access to the books because he was skeptical and confirmed the ownership is telling the truth.

The game is just invisible in most of the large markets and several teams have no television coveage when they play on the road. New York papers did not even cover the WJC and the United States won.
Even with the NYR's and Knicks missing the playoffs I don't buy that they lost money and I certainly don't buy that if the Wings don't make the semis that they won't break even.

If the last 2-3 yrs has shown us anything it's that books can be made to show pretty much whatever you want them to and with claims like these I think it applies here.

As for a Cap, just how do you see one being implemented without the vital CENTRAL revenue source you need to support one???

Where would the level be set???30-35 million b/c Cnadian teams and small markets can't afford more than that???So Owners get to line their pockets with all the rest because you can bet your life money saved through instituting a ccap certainly won't funnel back to Joe Fan.

JR#9* is offline  
Old
01-07-2004, 06:54 AM
  #21
Cyclops II*
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 7,109
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by NYR469



not to mention the fact that in a system like the nfl, there would be a floor cap as well as a ceiling so a team like the pens would be forced to spend even more cause the point of the cap isn't to simply pull the good teams down to a level of mediocrity, part of closing the gap includes pulling the bottom teams UP

...

Iwas just thinking about ceiling and floor caps today. How long has the NFL had a floor cap? If it has been over 5 years the floor wasn't high enough because until this year Cincinnati's payroll was something around ten cents.
You need a ceiling to help keep players on the teams that develop them and a floor to prevent owners screwing their fans by providing an ECHL level product. I don't how bonuses would be factored into the caps though.
The day that the skill of the GM's and scouting staffs is the only factor in developing a championship team will be a great day for hockey.

Cyclops II* is offline  
Old
01-07-2004, 06:55 AM
  #22
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 JR#9
Even with the NYR's and Knicks missing the playoffs I don't buy that they lost money and I certainly don't buy that if the Wings don't make the semis that they won't break even.

I don't know enough about MSG to comment on the Rangers, but I would tend to believe the Red Wings. They play in an older building with less luxury boxes than other teams, and also have a high payroll.

The Flyers generall set their payroll so that if they lose in round one they break even. Miss the playoffs and they lose money, and if they win playoff series they make money.

Now this year and last year they are over their propsed budget by about $5 million, so they need to get deeper into the playoffs to actually make money.

John Flyers Fan is offline  
Old
01-07-2004, 07:37 AM
  #23
Flyers26
 
Flyers26's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: We must accept disap
Country: United States
Posts: 7,663
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by John Flyers Fan
I don't know enough about MSG to comment on the Rangers, but I would tend to believe the Red Wings. They play in an older building with less luxury boxes than other teams, and also have a high payroll.

The Flyers generall set their payroll so that if they lose in round one they break even. Miss the playoffs and they lose money, and if they win playoff series they make money.

Now this year and last year they are over their propsed budget by about $5 million, so they need to get deeper into the playoffs to actually make money.
I do believe that MSG is losing major revenue in the spring, being dark for both pro sports. How can they not lose money? They can say that the reg. season games are sold out, but the seats are empty, and that has to hurt at the concessions.
I believe I read,in the Philly Daily News last year, the FLYERS make about a mil a playoff game. Like John has stated, this is when they get out of the red, and make some money. Obviously, the futher in the playoffs you go, the more home games & more money you make.

Flyers26 is offline  
Old
01-07-2004, 07:52 AM
  #24
Fletch
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Brooklyn
Posts: 21,123
vCash: 500
MSG generates cash flow...

that's not necessarily because they make money on the Knicks and Rangers. To answer Flyers26, the Garden's never dark, between the Circus, Virginia Slims, College Basketball, Arena Football, Lady Liberty, and, of course, Tool concerts, it does pretty well.

Nine month cash flow for MSG was $32.6 million (lost $6.9 million) compared to 2002 $81 million in cash flow and $36.7 million in operating income (all exclusive of financing costs). Problem with these numbers is that it includes the Knicks, Rangers, etc., concerts, Radio City and MSG network. It's very difficult to pin-down what numbers are allocated to the Knicks and the Rangers though, since they are lumped. But personally, I believe both are losing money without playoffs, and the crappy teams produce lower advertising revenues because viewership is down. But it's both not that material to the MSG division of Cablevision, and certainly is not material to Cablevision as a whole.

Fletch is offline  
Old
01-07-2004, 08:00 AM
  #25
Flyers26
 
Flyers26's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: We must accept disap
Country: United States
Posts: 7,663
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fletch
that's not necessarily because they make money on the Knicks and Rangers. To answer Flyers26, the Garden's never dark, between the Circus, Virginia Slims, College Basketball, Arena Football, Lady Liberty, and, of course, Tool concerts, it does pretty well.
Yea, I was just saying it was dark for those teams. That's a huge loss of income, not only for MSG, but for the city, when you factor in everything, ie: hotels, restaurants, transportation, ect....
Pro teams pump a lot of money into the local economy, which is why the local goverment's partially funds these new stadiums being built.

Flyers26 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 10:10 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.