HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > NHL Western Conference > Pacific Division > Edmonton Oilers
Mobile Hockey's Future Become a Sponsor Site Rules Support Forum vBookie Page 2
Notices

Isbister salary now up on NHLPA.COM

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
07-16-2004, 02:09 AM
  #27
hockeyaddict101
Registered User
 
hockeyaddict101's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 19,906
vCash: 500
I haven't really seen the "loose in the purse strings". I thought Conklins contract was right on and if Isbister was a overpay it is still cheaper then what he made last year, so his contract is not adversely affecting the budget.

The tough ones will be Smith and Brewer. If Nedved signs here we already know it will be around the 3 million mark.

hockeyaddict101 is offline  
Old
07-16-2004, 02:11 AM
  #28
hockeyaddict101
Registered User
 
hockeyaddict101's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 19,906
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr_Gonz0
Do you think the extra revenue from the Heritage Classic will go towards increasing player payroll over the current 32 million, or jsut be applied to keeping the org. afloat until the lockout is over?
I don't think it will go towards the budget, but the owners were able to put some money in their pockets for once and that is deserved IMO. The team is in better financial shape now and that has only good ramifications.

hockeyaddict101 is offline  
Old
07-16-2004, 02:43 AM
  #29
The Rage
Registered User
 
The Rage's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Stamford Bridge
Country: Canada
Posts: 8,792
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by LoudmouthHemskyfan#1
Why are we assuming a 32 mil budget? If it's not at least 36-38 there's somethin wrong.
There's something wrong with owners not wanting to lose money? I guess that's true, in some anti-capitalist bizarro world.

The Rage is offline  
Old
07-16-2004, 03:07 AM
  #30
Ice Cream Man
$1 Oysters
 
Ice Cream Man's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Country: New Zealand
Posts: 5,055
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by guymez
Wow...thats deep. Although, sometimes opinions can be formed based on facts.



I think revenue generation plays a small role, don't you? If your implying that the Flames ownership group has deeper pockets, that may well be true. However your thoughts and beliefs don't convince me that they are willing to keep topping up the kitty.
Wow, someone's touchy.

However you spin it, Guymez, the Flames will always be a little bit deeper in the coffers. This is why we're able to maintain a higher payroll than the Oilers (but not by much, granted). The ownership group is wealthier. For example, when Iginla was signed to his contract for $13 million, Kevin Lowe went on record saying that the Oilers could never afford that type of contract.

There's no need to get your panties in a knot and get all defensive; MY OPINION (since this obviously concerns you to the utmost degree) is that the Oilers' payroll will remain around $32-34 million - no more.

Prove to me that it will be higher if you don't agree with my estimate.

Ice Cream Man is offline  
Old
07-16-2004, 03:11 AM
  #31
elphy101
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: City of Champions
Posts: 1,568
vCash: 500
32 Million US at what used to be 0.65 cents US (equals 49.23 Million Canadian)

is actually worse than

36 Million US at it's current rate 0.758 cents US (equals 47.45 Million Canadian)

elphy101 is offline  
Old
07-16-2004, 02:28 PM
  #32
Wolfpack
Registered User
 
Wolfpack's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 1,036
vCash: 500
Payroll

I think there is a bit of a misconception about how much money the Oilers made off the Heritage Classic. I heard a radio interview with Patrick Laforge a few months ago where he admitted that their expenses for the event were very high, and they actually made much less than $1 million from the event. The big winners where the Edmonton and area charities, who auctioned-off all their comp. tickets for big money. And they were given all the jerseys and memorability for auction.

By far the biggest reason the Oilers were able to keep their heads above water last season was the strong Canadian dollar.

Wolfpack is offline  
Old
07-16-2004, 02:38 PM
  #33
Mizral
Registered User
 
Mizral's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Earth, MW
Country: Canada
Posts: 18,181
vCash: 500
Didn't the dollar drop back down to the .70 rate? It may have come back up and I didn't hear about it though.

Mizral is offline  
Old
07-16-2004, 02:42 PM
  #34
MrMackey
Registered User
 
MrMackey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: cgy
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,061
vCash: 500
The dollar today is at .764

MrMackey is offline  
Old
07-16-2004, 02:52 PM
  #35
MrMackey
Registered User
 
MrMackey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: cgy
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,061
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ice Cream Man
There's no need to get your panties in a knot and get all defensive; MY OPINION (since this obviously concerns you to the utmost degree) is that the Oilers' payroll will remain around $32-34 million - no more.

Prove to me that it will be higher if you don't agree with my estimate.
Last year they did have a payroll of around $32M before adding Oates, but that money was already set aside for Comrie. Lowe was also on record saying that there was still some money in their budget if they needed to add an extra player.

Here's the last four years of Oiler payroll. Even in the new CBA environment I seriously doubt that the payroll will have no increases next year, especially since the CDN dollar should take them much further.

Year------------Median salary----Total Payroll
2003-04--------$ 1,075,000------$ 33,375,000
2002-03--------$ 1,000,000------$ 27,932,500
2001-02--------$ 903,750--------$ 24,317,250 (Weight's departure)
2000-01--------$ 925,000--------$ 25,050,000

MrMackey is offline  
Old
07-16-2004, 03:18 PM
  #36
copperandblue
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 10,724
vCash: 500
Regarding team payroll, I thought the Oilers have been budgeting over the last few years to allow for a payroll increase of 10% each season.

As I recall, the wording was "until the new cba" or something to that effect. Take it for what you want but I am assuming that the payroll creep a little more for next season.

As for the Edmonton / Calgary thing, I am not convinced that there is much difference in revenue between the two but I have to agree with the Calgary poster who said that Ownership is a factor for Calgary to spend more.

The Calgary group has already demonstrated that they are will to lose money on the season and the Oiler Ownership simply will not operate that way. I don't think it's a question of wether the Oiler ownership can afford to lose it (I think read somewhere that collectively they are worth over 800 million), it's simply that their phylosophy for the business dictates otherwise.

Frankly I don't have a problem with it and I don't think Oiler fans should get defensive about. In fact, just to take an offside dig at Calgary, some may even think it is stupid to keep spending hand over fist with no return.

copperandblue is offline  
Old
07-16-2004, 03:49 PM
  #37
guymez
The Seldom Seen Kid
 
guymez's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Alberta
Country: Canada
Posts: 14,593
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ice Cream Man
Wow, someone's touchy.

However you spin it, Guymez, the Flames will always be a little bit deeper in the coffers. This is why we're able to maintain a higher payroll than the Oilers (but not by much, granted). The ownership group is wealthier. For example, when Iginla was signed to his contract for $13 million, Kevin Lowe went on record saying that the Oilers could never afford that type of contract.

There's no need to get your panties in a knot and get all defensive; MY OPINION (since this obviously concerns you to the utmost degree) is that the Oilers' payroll will remain around $32-34 million - no more.

Prove to me that it will be higher if you don't agree with my estimate.
If you recall my first post (in response to your proclamation of what the Oilers payroll ceiling is), I was simply asking for some background info on what your opinion was based on. Instead I got your definition of what you think an opinion is. ( Thanks for the education BTW) I had no idea asking for some background info would get you so worked up. It is not that outrageous, to inquire as to why someone has made a certain statement is it?
I never said that I did not agree with your opinion. I do, however, think that your "set in stone" 34 million max is a little short sighted because you are not taking revenue generation into consideration. Also you have not convinced me that the Flames ownership group is going to continue to keep propping up shortfalls.

guymez is offline  
Old
07-16-2004, 05:53 PM
  #38
sorgs20
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 136
vCash: 500
1 thing to keep in mind is that the Owners are looking for a $31 million cap, so I think that is what all teams are shooting for to be in and around $31 mil. Some teams are already way, over and they seem to not really care.

Another thing to consider when comparing the Flames and the Oilers is that the Flames have claimed to have lost Millions every yr for the past 7 or 8 yrs, yet there payroll remains higher then 1 would expect. This shows that the Flames owners don't mind losing a $1 or 2. The Oilers also have the $8 mil or so to draw on from last yrs playoff drive.

sorgs20 is offline  
Old
07-16-2004, 10:13 PM
  #39
looooob
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 1,886
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by copperandblue
Frankly I don't have a problem with it and I don't think Oiler fans should get defensive about. In fact, just to take an offside dig at Calgary, some may even think it is stupid to keep spending hand over fist with no return.
I agreed with your entire post until this last part

the Flames, while spending more than the Oilers, hardly spend 'hand over fist'

as for 'no return'....surely you'll agree the Flames just finished a pretty succesful season?

In my opinion, the Flames ownerships problem for too long was cheaping out on the management side of things....small markets teams can't afford to spend less on a GM if it means getting a guy like Craig Button who thinks he is still spending the Dallas Stars' money...they seem to have figured that out now

looooob is offline  
Old
07-16-2004, 10:35 PM
  #40
Matts
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 2,911
vCash: 500
I guess this is the price of depth

yes Izzy did take a paycut but to pay him this and give him a two year deal tells me that the Oilers aren't comfortable with letting Salmo and Rita fight it out for the last spot on the left wing. Yes I know Salmo is a RW and all but would it be such a drastic change in a 4th line role where you're not expected to provide a heckuva lot of offense?

Probably not

So for all the perceived depth on the Oilers there's really no one close outside of Rita and/or Salmo and the Isbister signing shows me this is exactly the way Lowe and the org feels as well. Izzy is lazy and injury prone and they were still afraid to cut him lose

Let's hope he gets is together

Matts is offline  
Old
07-16-2004, 10:41 PM
  #41
Ice Cream Man
$1 Oysters
 
Ice Cream Man's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Country: New Zealand
Posts: 5,055
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by guymez
If you recall my first post (in response to your proclamation of what the Oilers payroll ceiling is), I was simply asking for some background info on what your opinion was based on. Instead I got your definition of what you think an opinion is. ( Thanks for the education BTW) I had no idea asking for some background info would get you so worked up. It is not that outrageous, to inquire as to why someone has made a certain statement is it?
I never said that I did not agree with your opinion. I do, however, think that your "set in stone" 34 million max is a little short sighted because you are not taking revenue generation into consideration. Also you have not convinced me that the Flames ownership group is going to continue to keep propping up shortfalls.
lol

If you want proof for what the Flames payroll is currently at, just look at various hockey sites which display salary statistics and I'm sure you'll find your answer. There's probably a handful of sites with this information out there. I've never seen someone get so worked up over an estimate of payroll before. Maybe you're just defensive that I'm estimating that the Flames' payroll will be more? Perhaps, I don't know, and frankly I really don't care.

As for the 34 mill, that's my estimate, and nowhere did I say it was 'set im stone'. You came to that conclusion yourself. And at that point, it isn't my problem.

As for revenue generation, sure that has to be taken into consideration, but black-inking doesn't necessarily translate into payroll increases. Other factors play a part in where that money goes, and I'm sure you agree with me. I'm talking STRICTLY payroll.

And as for convincing you that 'the Flames ownership group is going to continue to keep propping up shortfalls', I've never discussed that in this argument, and don't desire to 'convince' you, since that's not what my argument was about at all. Perhaps you got me confused with another poster, I'm really not too sure.

Ice Cream Man is offline  
Old
07-16-2004, 10:43 PM
  #42
misfit
5-14-6-1
 
misfit's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: just north of...ever
Posts: 16,068
vCash: 50
So does anyone know how much the second year of Isbister's contract is for? I can't seem to find it anywhere...of course, I'm not even sure where to look.

misfit is offline  
Old
07-17-2004, 01:35 AM
  #43
guymez
The Seldom Seen Kid
 
guymez's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Alberta
Country: Canada
Posts: 14,593
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ice Cream Man
lol

If you want proof for what the Flames payroll is currently at, just look at various hockey sites which display salary statistics and I'm sure you'll find your answer. There's probably a handful of sites with this information out there. I've never seen someone get so worked up over an estimate of payroll before. Maybe you're just defensive that I'm estimating that the Flames' payroll will be more? Perhaps, I don't know, and frankly I really don't care.
Too funny... defensive much...if my panties are in a knot, yours are clearly pulled over your head.
What exactly are you going on about.
First off, I dont require proof that the Flames payroll is more than the Oilers, and maybe you should reread this thread because at no time did I dispute that.
This is a creation of your own mind.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Ice Cream Man
As for the 34 mill, that's my estimate, and nowhere did I say it was 'set im stone'. You came to that conclusion yourself. And at that point, it isn't my problem.
Does "34 million - no more" ring a bell. ( once again maybe you should reread this thread) That dosent exactly imply flexability, so "set in stone" ( yes indeed - my words ) was an appropriate description of what you said.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ice Cream Man
As for revenue generation, sure that has to be taken into consideration, but black-inking doesn't necessarily translate into payroll increases. Other factors play a part in where that money goes, and I'm sure you agree with me. I'm talking STRICTLY payroll.
Pretty hard to increase payroll without being in the black. Unless you just don't care about losing money.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ice Cream Man
And as for convincing you that 'the Flames ownership group is going to continue to keep propping up shortfalls', I've never discussed that in this argument, and don't desire to 'convince' you, since that's not what my argument was about at all. Perhaps you got me confused with another poster, I'm really not too sure.
You made a claim that the Flames payroll is higher ( once again I have never disputed this ) and it is commonly known that the revenue generation is almost the same between the 2 teams. ( Untill this year the Flames were generating less revenue) This implies that the Flames owners have to deal with the reality of losing money. So, yes that does mean the ownership group has to keep propping the team up. So in reality you were making this claim by saying the Flames owners had deeper pockets. So it actually was a valid question I put to you. I am apparently out of line for asking it however, because I made a mistake of thinking you were mature enough to engage in some discourse.
Anyway I'm done with this, and I very much regret asking you to elaborate on your initial post.

guymez is offline  
Old
07-17-2004, 02:31 AM
  #44
Ice Cream Man
$1 Oysters
 
Ice Cream Man's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Country: New Zealand
Posts: 5,055
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by guymez
Too funny... defensive much...if my panties are in a knot, yours are clearly pulled over your head.
What exactly are you going on about.
First off, I dont require proof that the Flames payroll is more than the Oilers, and maybe you should reread this thread because at no time did I dispute that.
This is a creation of your own mind.
And the point of this was what exactly? You're simply spinning your wheels here by adding (again) no value to your argument. You wanted me to tell you what I'm basing my info and I told you. Baby gets his bottle.


Quote:
Originally Posted by guymez
Does "34 million - no more" ring a bell. ( once again maybe you should reread this thread) That dosent exactly imply flexability, so "set in stone" ( yes indeed - my words ) was an appropriate description of what you said.
Actually, 34 DOES imply flexibility. Flexibility under $34 million, which is the limit I'm hypothesizing as the max salary Edmonton will pay out. So, 'set in stone' doesn't hold any value here, and is not an appropriate description. You're through.

Quote:
Originally Posted by guymez
Pretty hard to increase payroll without being in the black. Unless you just don't care about losing money.
Yikes. Go back and re-read what I wrote - 'As for revenue generation, sure that has to be taken into consideration, but black-inking doesn't necessarily translate into payroll increases.' We aren't talking about revenue generation - we're discussing as to what I think the Oilers' max payroll will be. Apparently this is complexing to you.

Quote:
Originally Posted by guymez
You made a claim that the Flames payroll is higher ( once again I have never disputed this ) and it is commonly known that the revenue generation is almost the same between the 2 teams. ( Untill this year the Flames were generating less revenue) This implies that the Flames owners have to deal with the reality of losing money. So, yes that does mean the ownership group has to keep propping the team up. So in reality you were making this claim by saying the Flames owners had deeper pockets. So it actually was a valid question I put to you. I am apparently out of line for asking it however, because I made a mistake of thinking you were mature enough to engage in some discourse.
'Commonly known'? Sounds like an opinion to me.... what's your source? HA, what goes around comes around.

And I'm not quite sure why you're relating the Flames' deep pockets to being able to 'propping up the team' again. Why do you keep bringing this up? I'm talking about the Oilers' payroll, and somehow you've twisted this argument into the Flames ownership groups' revenue generation. Keep to the original discussion - it looks like you're just getting upset that the Flames payroll is higher than Edmonton's... and again, this isn't the issue. But apparently you want it to be.

Not mature enough, eh? Well whatever helps you sleep at night, I guess. Next time, let's TRY to have a discussion on the original topic, instead of attempting to twist it around to something else. THAT would be mature. Take what you've learned from this discussion, and try to formulate more focused arguments in the future.

Quote:
Originally Posted by guymez
Anyway I'm done with this, and I very much regret asking you to elaborate on your initial post.
So you're finished? Excellent. Best news of the day.

Ice Cream Man is offline  
Old
07-17-2004, 04:33 AM
  #45
guymez
The Seldom Seen Kid
 
guymez's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Alberta
Country: Canada
Posts: 14,593
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ice Cream Man

'Commonly known'? Sounds like an opinion to me.... what's your source? HA, what goes around comes around.
I couldn't resist. Here is some info concerning 2001/2002 ( you will like this source)

http://www.calgarypuck.com/Charlton_050902.htm

and 2002/2003. ( graphics came out a little small )



Knock yourself out.
The rest of your post is to laughable to comment on.


Last edited by guymez: 09-25-2013 at 11:21 AM.
guymez is offline  
Old
07-17-2004, 07:20 AM
  #46
jumptheshark
McDavid Headquarters
 
jumptheshark's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Grumpier OLD MAN inn
Country: United Nations
Posts: 60,931
vCash: 50
izzy should hvae only gotten 1mill a yer

jumptheshark is offline  
Old
07-17-2004, 10:09 AM
  #47
Ice Cream Man
$1 Oysters
 
Ice Cream Man's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Country: New Zealand
Posts: 5,055
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by guymez
I couldn't resist. Here is some info concerning 2001/2002 ( you will like this source)

http://www.calgarypuck.com/Charlton_050902.htm

and 2002/2003. ( graphics came out a little small )



Knock yourself out.
The rest of your post is to laughable to comment on.
lol, I thought you were done, but I guess you just keep wanting to come back.

Oh, terrific. Let's use stats from 3 seasons ago. How updated. You may think you've posted a great link (and Calgarypuck has many great articles, I've been a member there for 4 years), but instead of pathetically trying to persist in getting the last word in, you should have used that energy to find more updated statistics.

In 2001 / 02, Calgary hadn't made the playoffs for 6 years.... and using your outdated link, apparently they still almost equalled Edmonton in revenue generation.

But, once again, I must tell you that this debate is NOT ABOUT REVENUE GENERATION. As much as you'd like to think it is, it was about payroll, and nothing more. You, on the other hand, still cannot grasp this concept, as you continue to twist the original argument - and not doing a very good job of it at that.

The rest of your post is just too laughable to comment on. Operating expenses? You're brigning up ANOTHER different topic? Stick to the original argument, Sparky. Now do us a favour and go away until you've learned to be a little more focused.


Last edited by Ice Cream Man: 07-17-2004 at 10:28 AM.
Ice Cream Man is offline  
Old
07-17-2004, 11:25 AM
  #48
hockeyaddict101
Registered User
 
hockeyaddict101's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 19,906
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by MrMackey
Last year they did have a payroll of around $32M before adding Oates, but that money was already set aside for Comrie. Lowe was also on record saying that there was still some money in their budget if they needed to add an extra player.

Here's the last four years of Oiler payroll. Even in the new CBA environment I seriously doubt that the payroll will have no increases next year, especially since the CDN dollar should take them much further.

Year------------Median salary----Total Payroll
2003-04--------$ 1,075,000------$ 33,375,000
2002-03--------$ 1,000,000------$ 27,932,500
2001-02--------$ 903,750--------$ 24,317,250 (Weight's departure)
2000-01--------$ 925,000--------$ 25,050,000
So their payroll was around 33 million and they had payroll room to go higher. So I think 34 million to 36 million is about right.

hockeyaddict101 is offline  
Old
07-17-2004, 11:45 AM
  #49
guymez
The Seldom Seen Kid
 
guymez's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Alberta
Country: Canada
Posts: 14,593
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ice Cream Man
lol, I thought you were done, but I guess you just keep wanting to come back.

Oh, terrific. Let's use stats from 3 seasons ago. How updated. You may think you've posted a great link (and Calgarypuck has many great articles, I've been a member there for 4 years), but instead of pathetically trying to persist in getting the last word in, you should have used that energy to find more updated statistics.

In 2001 / 02, Calgary hadn't made the playoffs for 6 years.... and using your outdated link, apparently they still almost equalled Edmonton in revenue generation.

But, once again, I must tell you that this debate is NOT ABOUT REVENUE GENERATION. As much as you'd like to think it is, it was about payroll, and nothing more. You, on the other hand, still cannot grasp this concept, as you continue to twist the original argument - and not doing a very good job of it at that.

The rest of your post is just too laughable to comment on. Operating expenses? You're brigning up ANOTHER different topic? Stick to the original argument, Sparky. Now do us a favour and go away until you've learned to be a little more focused.
A CP'er, that figures.
Its clearly a waste of energy continuing this. Its getting repetitive reminding you of things I have stated earlier ( as well as things you have stated earlier). I am not going to continue to try and compensate for your short attention span.
I gave you a couple of links to back up an ealier statment I made about the Flames losing moneythe last few years, prior to the cinderella run this year. Oh, thats right, you don't want to talk about the Flames losing money. Meh - whatever.
Now run along and play with your little CP friends.

guymez is offline  
Old
07-17-2004, 11:54 AM
  #50
oh_canuck
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Country: Canada
Posts: 868
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ice Cream Man
Wow, someone's touchy.

However you spin it, Guymez, the Flames will always be a little bit deeper in the coffers. This is why we're able to maintain a higher payroll than the Oilers (but not by much, granted). The ownership group is wealthier. For example, when Iginla was signed to his contract for $13 million, Kevin Lowe went on record saying that the Oilers could never afford that type of contract.

There's no need to get your panties in a knot and get all defensive; MY OPINION (since this obviously concerns you to the utmost degree) is that the Oilers' payroll will remain around $32-34 million - no more.

Prove to me that it will be higher if you don't agree with my estimate.

Im not sure the flames could afford iginlas contract either after losing what 30 million over the last 5 years due to a lack of fan support.

oh_canuck 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 01:12 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.