It says here Players talking of $60 million luxury tax threshold

Foxsports (msn.foxsports.com/story/2870704) Some people might find this of interest. I don't think alot check up on this source so here it is. Stan Fischler's column on Fox Sports says that through a high team official he was told players are talking in the area of a $60 million luxury tax threshold. Another item I found of interest is Bryant Marchment has started a business coating the back of pick-up trucks. The piece says he uses his parents as labor and does not pay them. NOTE: I see the link doesn't work, but it's there as of now. If you can't find through the link you can go to FoxSports Hockey Page, and look at Fischler's column found under the picture of Mathieu Schneider.

45 million and you have a deal... 60 wouldn't make a difference.

I assume this is the PA's proposal after going over all the team finances last week. At least they'll finally start talking luxury tax. IMO, it's been obvious for a year that, when the 2 sides finally come to terms, it will be based primarily on a luxury tax scheme. The league would probably be fine with a 100% tax over 35 million, the players with a 25% tax over 60 million. But at least they can argue over numbers now instead of discussing proposals the other side would never accept.

I am always leary of anything coming from NY media, because there is so much competition to get something new and exclusive. I think a luxury tax is very unlikely unless the tax is a. prohibitive and b. at a reasonably low threshold.

I don't think the players will allow that. I also don't think the nhlpa would be stupid enough to put the threshold at $60m were only 4 or 5 teams can afford to go.
That would be a PR disaster.

$60 million is way too high...only a few teams are at that amount. I like Vishinator05's number of $45 million better.

Earlier rumour was 1$ for 1$ penalty over 40 mill & 2$ for each 1$ over 50 million. I think that would have a whole lot more bight and garner a whole lot more attention & consideration. I think their stat at these rates said 17 of 30 teams would still be penalized even after the 5% rollback!!

Maybe 60 mill is for this year and then it gets lowered over the next few so as not to penalize teams who've already set themselves up in accordance with the current agreement?? :dunno:

I say they should make a 40 million dollar luxury tax limit, but graduate into that amount over 3 years(make it something like you have to pay 50% on the first 15 million over, and 100% on anything over that). If you go at 45 million, you would have to make it 100%

I say they should make a 40 million dollar luxury tax limit, but graduate into that amount over 3 years(make it something like you have to pay 50% on the first 15 million over, and 100% on anything over that). If you go at 45 million, you would have to make it 100%

i say they keep the CBA exactly how it is and make smarter decisions with the contracts they offer.

dr

i say they keep the CBA exactly how it is and make smarter decisions with the contracts they offer.

dr

the problem is, that for the New York Rangers and Some other teams, they are making "smart moves" because they can afford giving huge salaries, it makes it unfair to lower teams that have to overspend to survive.

I would argue that although it screws mostly ever other team, what Dolan is doing is best for his business and makes him the most money. As long as he can sell out MSG and have good ratings for local TV, it's smart for him to go out and create a sense of excitement(trade for high priced players).

The Luxury tax would even it out for lower level teams, while still allowing Dolan to go out and overpay players.

The salary cut they proprosed and a luxury tax would be great. Make it above 40-45 millions though, not 60.

i say they keep the CBA exactly how it is and make smarter decisions with the contracts they offer.

dr
And then the NHL will crumble into ruins!

Sorry but the CBA has to change or nothing will stop some teams to give ridiculous contracts, just look at Toronto this summer.

IMO the NBA system with a combination of a luxury tax, salary cap and Larry Bird type clause would be the best solution. Say a NBA style cap of approximately 60% of revenue (signing your own free agents don't count against cap per Bird clause), a luxury tax threshold of 50% if revenue and the money raised via the tax would be used to prop up lower revenue teams.

A Luxury tax doesn't help the owners in any way. The only thing that a luxury tax will accomplish is having the owners of the rich teams be forced to pay more money for their players.

This doesn't lower the player salaries, it doesn't regulate them either, as any owner who wants to sign a player isn't going to stop because of a luxury tax. The reason why a salary cap was suggested by the owners was that it would create a solid wall for free spending GMs and thus all 30 GMs would have to give out smart contract to players.

A luxury tax won't make the GMs any wiser than they are right now, and they will continue to spend the same amount on players on top of losing more money because of that luxury tax.

For the players to suggest a luxury tax really decreases my respect for their union, a luxury tax would do nothing more than make the owners shell out more money, and those are the kind of changes that the players will be looking to get with the new CBA.

It seems like it should be more simpler. IMO a salery cap is the only way to achieve ulitmate competitiveness and both the owners and players want that, but neither are willing to give up anything to get that. Whenever this is all said and done we better have the best way to manage contracts in all of sports because this took so damn long to make up.

This [luxury tax] doesn't lower the player salaries, it doesn't regulate them either, as any owner who wants to sign a player isn't going to stop because of a luxury tax.


Hard evidence to the contrary: it's working in Major League Baseball. Look it up. Salaries overall have decreased 3% since the luxury tax was implemented in the 2002 CBA. With one notable exception - the team in NY that hasn't won anything since 2000 - not one team has ventured over the luxury tax threshold.

Of course, that may not impress those wishing draconian steps, with the fantasy of turning back salaries to yesteryear.

a salery cap is the only way to achieve ulitmate competitiveness...

The NHL is lacking competiveness? Wonder if they are saying that in Anaheim, Carolina, Calgary, TB, etc. Let me guess: fan of a non-contender?

There are valid reasons for clamoring for changes to the CBA (though a hardcap is the worse thing that could happen to the NHL and its fans). But the idea that the league needs more competitivness (parity :shakehead ) is without merit. All one needs to do is check the tightness of regular season standings, check the closeness of individual games on a nightly basis. Then, check the varied results of recent playoff seasons. The NHL is as competitive as any sports league can be without being watered down with medicority, er, parity.

the problem is, that for the New York Rangers and Some other teams, they are making "smart moves" because they can afford giving huge salaries, it makes it unfair to lower teams that have to overspend to survive.

I would argue that although it screws mostly ever other team, what Dolan is doing is best for his business and makes him the most money. As long as he can sell out MSG and have good ratings for local TV, it's smart for him to go out and create a sense of excitement(trade for high priced players).


Really? Having a high priced team that consistently misses the playoffs is best for business in New York?

Wouldn't they be in a better place in terms of business if they had a cheaper younger team like Tampa or Calgary or San Jose or Ottawa?

Hard evidence to the contrary: it's working in Major League Baseball. Look it up. Salaries overall have decreased 3% since the luxury tax was implemented in the 2002 CBA. With one notable exception - the team in NY that hasn't won anything since 2000 - not one team has ventured over the luxury tax threshold.

Of course, that may not impress those wishing draconian steps, with the fantasy of turning back salaries to yesteryear.

I've seen an economist talk about the CBA and the NHL, and he used some examples from the MLB, and that league is in big trouble. During the 90s, both revenues and salaries were rising at about the same rate, but in the 21st century there has been a huge increase in salary while revenues have barely increased. The luxury tax won't fix their problems.

I wouldn't mind an NBA like system where you can only give a max amount to each level.

for instance the cap on per year rookie contracts could be 1.5-2 million for the years, from years 3-6 or 7 there is a maximum number of 4-5-6 million and after 7 you may not go higher than 9. I don't think the NHL will be having anymore 10 million a year players other than the ones that are there now, everything will have to be 8 million and below.

A Luxury tax doesn't help the owners in any way. The only thing that a luxury tax will accomplish is having the owners of the rich teams be forced to pay more money for their players.



I still think even the dumbest of owners would realize paying a Bobby Holik 8 mill per when it puts them 5 or 6 mill over a cap and thus turning the contract into 13 or 14 mill per is a poor decision. I think a luxury tax would certainly do the trick. IMO the teams would shy away from signing the stars, but still look long and hard at signing the superstar marquee guys ... Calgary knows what a J.Iginla brings to their team. If they need to go a mill or two over the cap to retain him, they can and pay the penalty. IMO, a player who can put fans in the stands shouldn't be limited to playing for a team who otherwise has a pile of plumbers. And that's what'll happen if a team possessing a Peter Forsberg, J.Iginla, J.Thornton, etc has to do so within a Solid Cap scenario......

Really? Having a high priced team that consistently misses the playoffs is best for business in New York?

Wouldn't they be in a better place in terms of business if they had a cheaper younger team like Tampa or Calgary or San Jose or Ottawa?

in theorory yes, but Dolan owns MSG and the TV station that shows most ranger games. As long as that stadium is full, and people are watching TV, he is raking in the bucks(you can say he triple dips into the profits owning the team, sadium and tv station). In order to make sure he keeps people interested, he has to make them excited for some reason or another. That's why he goes out and signs a big named player or trades for players who have large contracts. Neil Smith has said on many occasions that he was basically forced from management to sign players.

If the Rangers went on a 6-7 year rebuilding progam, ticket sales would decrease as the impatient NY fanbase would find other way to entertain themself(ie tv revenues would decrease). People would complain the owners are not interested in putting on a winning team and inturn not show up to games. Going about it the way they do now, sure the team will never win the stanley cup, but they will always give the people something to be interested in(as bad as it is)

45 million and you have a deal... 60 wouldn't make a difference.

Maybe in 20-30 years it would (inflation). Then the players would have to strike again to re-negotiate. :joker:

the problem is, that for the New York Rangers and Some other teams, they are making "smart moves" because they can afford giving huge salaries, it makes it unfair to lower teams that have to overspend to survive.

I would argue that although it screws mostly every other team, what Dolan is doing is best for his business and makes him the most money. As long as he can sell out MSG and have good ratings for local TV, it's smart for him to go out and create a sense of excitement(trade for high priced players).

The Luxury tax would even it out for lower level teams, while still allowing Dolan to go out and overpay players.

Yep, it's true. What's smart for a small market team is different than what is smart for a large market team. That's the problem. The league cannot survive with the system the way it is currently, due to the gap between rich and poor.

the problem is, that for the New York Rangers and Some other teams, they are making "smart moves" because they can afford giving huge salaries, it makes it unfair to lower teams that have to overspend to survive.

I would argue that although it screws mostly ever other team, what Dolan is doing is best for his business and makes him the most money. As long as he can sell out MSG and have good ratings for local TV, it's smart for him to go out and create a sense of excitement(trade for high priced players).

The Luxury tax would even it out for lower level teams, while still allowing Dolan to go out and overpay players.

But under a hard salary cap, a player developing into a superstar on any team is not going to be able to stay. Lets say Calgary was $2 million under a cap right now. How could they resign Iginla, unless he was willing to take $5 million (and I know salries would go down in theory, but this is hypothetical) less to stay there? He would have to go to another team that had the available cap room.

But under a hard salary cap, a player developing into a superstar on any team is not going to be able to stay. Lets say Calgary was $2 million under a cap right now. How could they resign Iginla, unless he was willing to take $5 million (and I know salries would go down in theory, but this is hypothetical) less to stay there? He would have to go to another team that had the available cap room.

that's why i prefer the luxury tax(it's sort of liek robin hood, taking from the rich and giving to the poor). I personally think the Owners are playing hardball right now because they know the players won't settle for a hard cap, they want to drive the luxury tax numbers low(35-40ish) when they settle

But under a hard salary cap, a player developing into a superstar on any team is not going to be able to stay. Lets say Calgary was $2 million under a cap right now. How could they resign Iginla, unless he was willing to take $5 million (and I know salries would go down in theory, but this is hypothetical) less to stay there? He would have to go to another team that had the available cap room.

They would have to make room on their roster or let him go. Or, if there is no other team that has room for him, then he would have to accept less pay. Or they could go over the cap at a steep penalty. Trust me, if there is a cap, the average salary will no longer be 1.8 million or whatever it is. More players will be making 6 digit salaries.

They would have to make room on their roster or let him go. Or, if there is no other team that has room for him, then he would have to accept less pay. Or they could go over the cap at a steep penalty. Trust me, if there is a cap, the average salary will no longer be 1.8 million or whatever it is. More players will be making 6 digit salaries.

so your idea of fair is a team like OTT would have to let someone else go in order to keep Spezza ? they built up a good young team THE RIGHT way and you want them to be penalized so teams like NYR and CHI and BOS and FLA or whoever else runs their team like crap can pick off these guys ?

under todays system, a team like OTT can keep their team together for as long as they choose too. under a system with a hard cap, it would be impossible.

the reason the owners want a cap is because it will help the teams like TOR, NYR and PHI who have had ZERO success catch up to the teams that keep popping up out of no where (CRL, ANA, CGY, TBY, BUF, MIN etc ..) and killing any chance of making an imprint in the USA market.

you guys are sheep.

dr

under todays system, a team like OTT can keep their team together for as long as they choose too. under a system with a hard cap, it would be impossible.


they can keep there team together till it starts getting way to expensive to keep it together, then they will have to trade some players off or let then be free agents.


the reason the owners want a cap is because it will help the teams like TOR, NYR and PHI who have had ZERO success catch up to the teams that keep popping up out of no where (CRL, ANA, CGY, TBY, BUF, MIN etc ..) and killing any chance of making an imprint in the USA market.

the teams you mention seem to have a great year one year, then dissapear the next, teams like Tor and Phil(i will avoid the Rangers) always seem to finish somewhat high in the standings

Hard evidence to the contrary: it's working in Major League Baseball. Look it up. Salaries overall have decreased 3% since the luxury tax was implemented in the 2002 CBA. With one notable exception - the team in NY that hasn't won anything since 2000 - not one team has ventured over the luxury tax threshold.

Of course, that may not impress those wishing draconian steps, with the fantasy of turning back salaries to yesteryear.



The NHL is lacking competiveness? Wonder if they are saying that in Anaheim, Carolina, Calgary, TB, etc. Let me guess: fan of a non-contender?

There are valid reasons for clamoring for changes to the CBA (though a hardcap is the worse thing that could happen to the NHL and its fans). But the idea that the league needs more competitivness (parity :shakehead ) is without merit. All one needs to do is check the tightness of regular season standings, check the closeness of individual games on a nightly basis. Then, check the varied results of recent playoff seasons. The NHL is as competitive as any sports league can be without being watered down with medicority, er, parity.

Reading this post made me re-think mine. I'm talking more about teams like the Blackhawks and Penguins but they could make a run like the Ducks and Flames did maybe not as easily but there is a possibility. There is a competitiveness in the league right now, but if you can get every team to commit to 45 millon to spend the league will be more competitive. Sure the Hurricanes and Ducks made those runs but they didn't continue that into the next season. And I'm a fan of the Flyers, would of wanted a cap so we didn't over pay for LeClair, Burke, and Amonte.

Really? Having a high priced team that consistently misses the playoffs is best for business in New York?

Wouldn't they be in a better place in terms of business if they had a cheaper younger team like Tampa or Calgary or San Jose or Ottawa?


Under the current CBA, the teams that Ottawa, Tampa, San Jose, and Calgary have put together won't remain cheap forever. The different between a New York and Tampa having the same team (lets use the 04 Tampa cup team as an example), is quite huge.

Tampa wins cup. Cory Stillman's contract is up. Tampa loses Stillman and replaces him with Prospal. New York keeps Stillman. New York also can afford to sign Khabi, St. Louis, Lecavaliar, Richards, Sydor, etc when they reach UFA age to long term deals. Therefore creating a dynasty or very competetive team for years.

Lets face it, Ottawa isn't going to have Havlat, Hossa, Chara, Redden, Spezza, etc forever. New York could afford that.

Still I think the CBA is very fair. Competition is much more close than any other sports league.

I disagree with that one posters thoughts that a team like Ottawa could be kept together under the current system. I could be wrong, but I think you could look at a team like New Jersey to see what it's like trying to keep a high end team together. Their payroll has gone up considerably since they started contending for and winning cups. To boot, they've been forced to trade guys like Sykora, Arnott, Guerin, and others along the way ... not to mention losing others like Holik, Tverdovsky (I know a stretch!!! :D), Niewendyk, etc. to free agency.......

The days of a dynasty like say what the Oilers had are gone under any system........

so your idea of fair is a team like OTT would have to let someone else go in order to keep Spezza ? they built up a good young team THE RIGHT way and you want them to be penalized so teams like NYR and CHI and BOS and FLA or whoever else runs their team like crap can pick off these guys ?

under todays system, a team like OTT can keep their team together for as long as they choose too. under a system with a hard cap, it would be impossible.

the reason the owners want a cap is because it will help the teams like TOR, NYR and PHI who have had ZERO success catch up to the teams that keep popping up out of no where (CRL, ANA, CGY, TBY, BUF, MIN etc ..) and killing any chance of making an imprint in the USA market.

you guys are sheep.

dr

Ottawa can keep the team together as long as they have an owner who is willing to continue to take losses for the team, not as long as they want.

Ottawa still may be able to keep their team together. The salary cap wouldn't have to take full effect next season. It could be a gradual process.

Even if Ottawa did have to let a player or two go, they'd just be doing what small market teams are doing now. At least all teams would have an equal chance.

Saving Ottawa's team isn't the priority. It's saving all 30 teams.

Ottawa can keep the team together as long as they have an owner who is willing to continue to take losses for the team, not as long as they want.



my exact words were "as long as they choose to"

under a cap, whether they want to or not, they will not be allowed to. big difference.

dr

Duck the Players' Association...60 mil luxury tax?...they are out of their ******* mind!!!

my exact words were "as long as they choose to"

under a cap, whether they want to or not, they will not be allowed to. big difference.

dr

cap or luxury tax no matter what either way would kill any team w/ a group of talented youth, no matter if they're the sens, wings, ducks, preds, don't matter, any team would be in trouble with a tax, a cap would at least help put salaries in check and there wouldn't be outrageous spending on one player like there has been for the past decade

a tax would just deter gm's from outrageous contracts, but the few who could afford to pay would still pay and would still throw the league for a loop like the present day

a cap meanwhile, would make gm's think twice about handing out the outrageous contracts, and while some, such as you, would argue that it limits what a player can make, the player would still make quite a large sum when it all comes down to it, if one team couldn't pay, another team would have more room to pay IMO, the wiggle room would be there, a cap would show all players what they're truly worth, certainly if a gm thought so and so is worth 8 mil, that's fine and dandy, however he'd be stretched to the limit to ice a competitive club after that IMO, depending on where the cap is set at, im guessing right now that it'd be somewhere between 40 and 55 mil... just a rough estimate, 31 is way too low, but 60 seems a little too high, granted if 60 is a starting point it wouldn't be too bad of a springboard, the top spenders would have a little leeway before the full impact would hit

What some people don't seem to realize is that the current system makes some teams make hockey decisions because of money and others make hockey decisions because they make sense from a hockey perspective. What a cap would do would make each team balance hockey and money decisions rather than just a few teams. The current system has a number of factors which make salaries escalate which cannot be controled by gm's.

1) Qualifying offers- regardless of if you had a good year, congrats you get a 10% raise.

2) Arbitration- you had a good year, you made 1.5 million dollars last year, but your stats are about the same as player x, (who just happens to be over-payed by the "insert high spending team here") so you now get 3.5 million dollars congratulations. Both of these factors are uncontrolable. Sure a GM can walk away from an arbitration award but how often does that happen, why doesn't it happen, because some team will pay that award and now you just lost a member of your hockey team for nothing. The same for qualifying offers, don't give them one and now you have to replace him with another player who a) isn't as good, b) is more expensive, c) both.

3) Guarenteed contracts- NFL teams can get rid of a player at any time just by ripping up his contract, NHL teams can't. If they release a player, they still have to pay him. All three of the things have helped to drive up players salaries beyond where team can just make hockey decisions. If it was strictly hockey decisions, I don't think that Hasek would have won a Cup with Detroit. Buffalo would have kept Peca and added a couple of pieces to help get them over the top and he would have stayed in Buffalo. Does he win one in Buffalo? I don't know, but I would have liked to see that happen. But because of the above factors, Buffalo was not able to keep all of their pieces and add to them because the team had success and each piece got more expensive and they were forced to make decisions based on money not on what was best for the hockey team.

I don't think that a luxury tax will work unless the threshold is low( no more than 40-45 million) and the penalty is high (100% for the first 5-10 million over and 200% for the rest). The problem is that starts to sound alot like a cap in the players ears.

Either way, what ever happens, I hope that it will force each team to consider not only what is best for the on-ice product but also what is best for the financial ledger as those low budget teams have to do now.

I disagree with that one posters thoughts that a team like Ottawa could be kept together under the current system. I could be wrong, but I think you could look at a team like New Jersey to see what it's like trying to keep a high end team together. Their payroll has gone up considerably since they started contending for and winning cups. To boot, they've been forced to trade guys like Sykora, Arnott, Guerin, and others along the way ... not to mention losing others like Holik, Tverdovsky (I know a stretch!!! :D), Niewendyk, etc. to free agency.......

The days of a dynasty like say what the Oilers had are gone under any system........

The Red Wings have been able to keep their team together. That is the reason for their high payroll, not free agent signings.

They would have to make room on their roster or let him go. Or, if there is no other team that has room for him, then he would have to accept less pay. Or they could go over the cap at a steep penalty. Trust me, if there is a cap, the average salary will no longer be 1.8 million or whatever it is. More players will be making 6 digit salaries.

Like I said, I realize salaries will be lower, I was just giving an example in today's terms.

And I think you see my point. Iginla would have to take a huge paycut, or go somewhere else. If he left, it would hurt the Flames, but isn't the point of a cap to help teams like the Flames? So what if the Flames traded a bunch of other players to open up cap room? Then Calgary is back where they started, with a bunch of minor leaguers and one superstar, and no chance to compete.

What some people don't seem to realize is that the current system makes some teams make hockey decisions because of money and others make hockey decisions because they make sense from a hockey perspective. What a cap would do would make each team balance hockey and money decisions rather than just a few teams. The current system has a number of factors which make salaries escalate which cannot be controled by gm's.

.

A cap would still make teams make decisons for monetary reasons, but in a backwards way. See my point about Iginla earlier in the thread.

Duck the Players' Association...60 mil luxury tax?...they are out of their ******* mind!!!

It is just a starting point. The owners probably proposed 32 million, the PA proposd 60 million, and they'll meet somewhere in between.

At least they are now discussing a luxery tax. Looks like the PA will cave in to a soft cap.

Sorry but the CBA has to change or nothing will stop some teams to give ridiculous contracts, just look at Toronto this summer.

Uhh, everybody will start giving their FAs pay cuts? ;)

A cap would still make teams make decisons for monetary reasons, but in a backwards way. See my point about Iginla earlier in the thread.
Right now a number of team have to make decisions for monetary reasons anyway.
What a cap would do is force ALL teams to have to make these decisions.

Like I said, I realize salaries will be lower, I was just giving an example in today's terms.

And I think you see my point. Iginla would have to take a huge paycut, or go somewhere else. If he left, it would hurt the Flames, but isn't the point of a cap to help teams like the Flames? So what if the Flames traded a bunch of other players to open up cap room? Then Calgary is back where they started, with a bunch of minor leaguers and one superstar, and no chance to compete.

??? Why would they have no chance to compete?? Every team would have the same salary limit as Calgary, and every team would be just as squeezed as Calgary. Look at the overall, not just one team.

I have to agree with DR, Trottier and a few others. The plunge towards a hard cap is short sighted and not the cure-all it's been portrayed as. The idea of building a team for the long haul would be out the window, roster turnover would increase and the league would stand a good chance of becoming a revolving door of contenders. All are just the sort of things that have turned me off the NFL in a big way.

They wasted 20 hours going over each team book by book, when they could of sat together researched all of the other leagues, and see how they work which all some sort of salary structure.

NFL uses a hard cap, NBA uses a soft cap, and the MLB goes by a luxury tax. Take out things that work and don't, and put the pecies together that would fit the NHL.

NFL uses a hard cap, NBA uses a soft cap, and the MLB goes by a luxury tax. Take out things that work and don't, and put the pecies together that would fit the NHL.

The NFL system won't work for the NHL because NFL gets most of it's money from the national TV contract. In all other sports, each team has local TV contracts that make up a large sum of the teams earnings. A Team like the NYR would in no way shape or form want to share local revenue with other smaller market teams(since dolans owns both the rangers and MSG network, he could always just sell the rights to himself for a buck to really screw the agreement).

??? Why would they have no chance to compete?? Every team would have the same salary limit as Calgary, and every team would be just as squeezed as Calgary. Look at the overall, not just one team.

So its fair that they wouldn't be able to resign superstars they developed, even if they had the money? The bigges beef of the small payroll teams is they can't keep their players. How is this any different?

At the end of the day a hard cap does not address the critical problem facing NHL teams, and that is the disparity between revenue streams. With no appreciable revenue coming from a national TV contract (in contrast to the NBA and NFL), teams are essentially on their own to develop revenue streams.

Some teams have been particularly adept at the development of revenue, either due to sheer market size or in some cases astute business decisions (e.g. Colorado). But other teams simply do not have the rabid hockey population base to compete at that same level. The New York Rangers for instance have nearly $25 million a year coming in from television contracts, whereas Nashville has a little over $2 million.

How is a hard cap going to increase revenues for the small market teams? Will it increase competitiveness and level the playing field? Well, it may increase parity, but for anyone that has watched the NFL recently knows, parity doesn't offer much in the way of financial security. A team may make the playoffs one year and not the next, that is the reality of a parity based system. There is little hope under a hard cap system of sustained excellence. It won't help the small market teams if their revenue is going to fluctuate widly under a parity-based hard cap system. How do you have any ability to plan financially for your organization whe you cannot predict your playoff appearances from one year to the next? That is the reality of what a hard cap will bring, a competitive balance that likely will breed greater financial insecurity.

When you are looking at the situation honestly, how will a hard cap increase the revenues for small market teams that have essentially operated under a self-imposed hard cap for years? Where will their much needed additional revenue come from?

Peter Karmanos, owner of the Hurricanes, alluded to the non-solution that a hard cap offers when he noted in a Carolina paper earlier this year that a hard cap doesn't solve his teams revenue stream problems.

This basic reality is why the NHLPA has seemingly taken an intractable stance with respect to the issue of a hard cap. The NHLPA knows that this is a desparate attempt for the NHL owners to solve a problem that they don't want to deal with directly. That problem is the revenue-stream financial disparity between NHL organizations. That is why the comparisons between the NBA and NFL are so ill-founded, both the NBA and NFL have an egalitarian system of revenue sharing, and both leagues have large pools of revenue to share. The NHLPA is banking on the internal unwillingness of the so-called large revenue cities to ultimately cause a rift in the owner's apparent solidarity. The NHL owner's have spun a brilliant media picture of this labor situation as being impoversihed NHL owners vs. the greedy NHLPA. But the NHLPA knows that the revenue sharing issue is simmering under the surface of this situation, and it knows that ultimately this isn't the NHL owners vs. NHLPA as it is large market owners vs. small market owners.

If you start looking at the financial realities of the situation, a luxury tax system may provide a means to revenue share that a hard cap system simply does not offer.

That is why you will see the resolution of this situation being a luxury tax that is phased in over a period of 2-3 years to allow the large market teams to adjust their salary structures.

So its fair that they wouldn't be able to resign superstars they developed, even if they had the money? The bigges beef of the small payroll teams is they can't keep their players. How is this any different?

If every other team had the same payroll limits, they wouldn't be able to offer that much more than the original team. There would be more incentive for the player to stay with his original team.

Contrast that to now, where teams like Toronto, New York and Detroit could offer a superstar $10 million, which is really a slam-dunk incentive for players like Holik, Hasek, etc... to leave their original teams.

If every other team had the same payroll limits, they wouldn't be able to offer that much more than the original team. There would be more incentive for the player to stay with his original team.

Contrast that to now, where teams like Toronto, New York and Detroit could offer a superstar $10 million, which is really a slam-dunk incentive for players like Holik, Hasek, etc... to leave their original teams.

no, a team could be total crap and have no good players and alot of cap room.

Let me turn the question around a little bit. The biggest beef I see against teams like Detroit is that they can force the smaller payrollteams to give away their talented young players, because those smaller teams can't afford to compete, therefore the current system is unfair. Well, lets say under a cap, Detroit doesnt have the ability to keep their developing players. In both situations one team is not able to keep players they developed into stars. Why is it unfair now when Detroit does it, but fair under a cap? What's the difference?

Let me turn the question around a little bit. The biggest beef I see against teams like Detroit is that they can force the smaller payrollteams to give away their talented young players, because those smaller teams can't afford to compete, therefore the current system is unfair. Well, lets say under a cap, Detroit doesnt have the ability to keep their developing players. In both situations one team is not able to keep players they developed into stars. Why is it unfair now when Detroit does it, but fair under a cap? What's the difference?

Ummm, would the answer to that be that under a cap, every team would have the same ability to keep and retain their stars? That is considerably different from the current system where some teams can keep their stars and other teams can't.

Under a cap, every team would have to operate under the same budget. At that point, it comes down to how well teams draft, how well teams develop players, and how well teams trade. In other words, a GM has to know what he is doing and make good hockey decisions, not just sign the best free agents available, or run up player salaries so other teams have to trade good players before they reach free agency.

If every other team had the same payroll limits, they wouldn't be able to offer that much more than the original team. There would be more incentive for the player to stay with his original team.

Contrast that to now, where teams like Toronto, New York and Detroit could offer a superstar $10 million, which is really a slam-dunk incentive for players like Holik, Hasek, etc... to leave their original teams.

You're right, the main reason for a salary cap isn't to enable each team to make a profit. It's to enable each team to hold on to its players--if they want to stay.

Under a cap, every team would have to operate under the same budget. At that point, it comes down to how well teams draft, how well teams develop players, and how well teams trade..

so a team that drafts and trades and develops players well will build up a stable of good players who have earned good contracts. some of them will have to be let go under a cap.

a team that has drafted, traded and developed players poorly, therefore doesnt have much in the way of salary commitments, will be able to sign those players away from the well run teams because they have more cap room because they did not draft and trade well enough to have anyone to pay.

how is that fair ? how is it fair to break up OTT so that CHI can sign the castoffs ?

dr

so a team that drafts and trades and develops players well will build up a stable of good players who have earned good contracts. some of them will have to be let go under a cap.


This is already happening now, but only for some teams. Not all... How is this fair? I mean really, how is all teams having to work under the same salary restrictions not fair? They all do play in the same league right?

how is that fair ? how is it fair to break up OTT so that CHI can sign the castoffs ?

I think its fair to let the players play where they want after a certain point.

This is already happening now, but only for some teams. Not all... How is this fair? I mean really, how is all teams having to work under the same salary restrictions not fair? They all do play in the same league right?

answer the question ... you have avoided it over the course of about 4 threads ...

dr

I think its fair to let the players play where they want after a certain point.

then argue for lower UFA. the fact is, if you want to really drive salaries down, just make every player UFA after each season.

the fans would whine though.

dr

answer the question ... you have avoided it over the course of about 4 threads ...

dr

And you still have not answered my question about how rising player salaries are good for the fans...

And you still have not answered my question about how rising player salaries are good for the fans...

its a question that has no answer. i dont care how much each guy gets paid, its none of my business. i already answered that a week ago.

however, it is my business if my team has to start giving up good players just so crappy managment teams can pick them off.

so answer my question.

dr

its a question that has no answer. i dont care how much each guy gets paid, its none of my business. i already answered that a week ago.

however, it is my business if my team has to start giving up good players just so crappy managment teams can pick them off.

so answer my question.

dr

And like I said. It is already happening now, just not with every team. You just refuse to see that it's happening.

And like I said. It is already happening now, just not with every team. You just refuse to see that it's happening.

forget it ... you wont even debate the issue. i dont see teams like OTT breaking themselves up for any artificial reasons.

dr

forget it ... you wont even debate the issue. i dont see teams like OTT breaking themselves up for any artificial reasons.

dr


Exactly. We will never agree on anything if you can't even see that this is happening right now.

Exactly. We will never agree on anything if you can't even see that this is happening right now.

ok, i give in ... if you can show me where its happened.

dr

so a team that drafts and trades and develops players well will build up a stable of good players who have earned good contracts. some of them will have to be let go under a cap.

with a salary cap, what a player makes would be kept more in line than it is now, thus making it easier for teams to keep their players

a team that has drafted, traded and developed players poorly, therefore doesnt have much in the way of salary commitments, will be able to sign those players away from the well run teams because they have more cap room because they did not draft and trade well enough to have anyone to pay.

a team such as that would have picked through and offered contracts to two or three UFA's that they could afford, while having to watch their finances to keep themselves from being in trouble when another of their players' salaries comes up for a raise, while it's possible the team may offer a little more than what the player would be worth anywhere else, it would be more controlled and in line with the rest of the salaries around the league

how is that fair ? how is it fair to break up OTT so that CHI can sign the castoffs ?

would you really call them castoff's if the players were so good that they asked for too much from their current teams? IMO a player that was 'castoff' would be on the lower end of the payscale, thus more likely than not, not as talented as a star player coming off a pretty damn good year

dr

re: castoffs .... no they wouldnt be crappy players, but lets use OTT for example. they may not be able to resign Havlat or Spezza and CHI who has done nothing in 10 years of drafting will pick them off because they have no major salary commitments due to their poor player development.

dr

so a team that drafts and trades and develops players well will build up a stable of good players who have earned good contracts. some of them will have to be let go under a cap.

a team that has drafted, traded and developed players poorly, therefore doesnt have much in the way of salary commitments, will be able to sign those players away from the well run teams because they have more cap room because they did not draft and trade well enough to have anyone to pay.

how is that fair ? how is it fair to break up OTT so that CHI can sign the castoffs ?

dr

This argument fails - because a poorly managed team does not equal more cap room. If anything, it would more likely have less cap room - since a poorly managed team would be more likely to overpay players or sign players that aren't worth the money.

All other things being equal, in a cap situation, emerging stars will get raises (but not crazy contracts) with their current teams, because other teams are busy giving raises to their own stars. So you won't see a lot of movement to other teams. With a cap, rich teams can't offer enough of an incentive for a player to uproot from his established home/friends/teammates for crazy money. Just look at the soccer world and Real Madrid paying millions to buy stars for a stacked team. That's the future of hockey if things aren't fixed.

Ummm, would the answer to that be that under a cap, every team would have the same ability to keep and retain their stars? That is considerably different from the current system where some teams can keep their stars and other teams can't.

Under a cap, every team would have to operate under the same budget. At that point, it comes down to how well teams draft, how well teams develop players, and how well teams trade. In other words, a GM has to know what he is doing and make good hockey decisions, not just sign the best free agents available, or run up player salaries so other teams have to trade good players before they reach free agency.

It does not come down to how well a team drafts. The argument that its fair because every team is under the same restraints is not valid, because they're not. Teams that draft well are invariably going to be punished, while teams that don't draft well are going to have their choice of superstars.

Maybe the current system is unfair, maybe its not, that's not the argument I'm having. I'm showing you why a hard cap is not fair.

HYPOTHETICALLY: Under a $30 million cap, lets say the average salary for a superstar is $4 million. Calgary has two superstars on their team, both of whom they drafted and developed. They both become free agents the same year. Because Calgary has been well run, they also have lots of other good players signed. But because they have alot of good players, they only have $5 million in cap room, even though they have the revenue to sign both. They only have enough room to sign one of the superstars, unless they both agree to take alot less than the league average. So they sign superstar "A" for $3 million, who takes less becuase he wants to stay. But, now they only have $2 million to sign supestar "B". At the same time, Detroit has been terribly run for some time, is devoid of superstars and only has a few marginally good players. They've drafted terribly, but they have $4 million in cap room, and offer Calgary's superstar "B" the $4 million he deserves, based on league average. Superstar "B" now has to decide between loyalty and a $2 million difference. I think its safe to assume most professional atheletes would take the extra $2 million, so lets assume superstar "B" does in this case. Now I ask you, if you were a Calgary fan would you be upset over this? Would you feel this is fair? Your team did the drafting and developing, had the revenue to sign both, but were unable to while, a poorly run team his been rewarded.

Now lets say there's a luxury tax at around $40 million. Salaries will come down under this system as well. Lets take the two superstars from my example above, and say a luxury tax has lowered the average superstar salary to $5 million. Calgary has the revenue to pay each $4 million, but they both want $5. Calgary then takes the extra money they received from the teams paying a luxury tax and is able to give both what they want. Calgary has not been punished for drafing well, and they're not paying any more of their money for those players than they would have under a cap.

So, if you were a Calgary fan, which situation would you prefer? The cap, which took one of your superstars away? Or the luxury tax which allowed you to keep both without spending anything more than you would have under a cap?

ok, i give in ... if you can show me where its happened.

dr


Peca - Traded for prospects because Buffalo could not afford his salary demands

Barnes - Traded for prospect, draft pick to reduce salary

Peca - Traded for prospects because Buffalo could not afford his salary demands

Barnes - Traded for prospect, draft pick to reduce salary

so this is about BUF ?

anyhow, even the rich teams like COL make player personell decisions based on money. its called managing. in fact, just this last season, COL traded a dman fine young dman in Derek Morris because they didnt want to QO him at 3.5m.

if BUF cant afford to pay its #1 C 4m, then the problem is with their team, not the system. and trading Barnes, a pending UFA, just makes sense. they didnt want to pay him because they felt his value was dropping. so what ?

it happens for every team in the league and is not a sign of "unfairness". for instance, the Canucks let go Lachance, Cassels, Baron, & Klatt in recent off seasons AND didnt even trade them for a draft pick.

dr

so this is about BUF ?

anyhow, even the rich teams like COL make player personell decisions based on money. its called managing. in fact, just this last season, COL traded a dman fine young dman in Derek Morris because they didnt want to QO him at 3.5m.

if BUF cant afford to pay its #1 C 4m, then the problem is with their team, not the system. and trading Barnes, a pending UFA, just makes sense. they didnt want to pay him because they felt his value was dropping. so what ?

it happens for every team in the league and is not a sign of "unfairness". for instance, the Canucks let go Lachance, Cassels, Baron, & Klatt in recent off seasons AND didnt even trade them for a draft pick.

dr

It's about Buffalo becase that's the team I'm most familiar with. Go on any small market team board and propose a trade. On of the biggest concerns is whether the team can afford picking up the salaries...

But you asked for an example, I gave you two. But of course, this isn't good enough. You always have another excuse, er, I mean justification...

It's about Buffalo becase that's the team I'm most familiar with. Go on any small market team board and propose a trade. On of the biggest concerns is whether the team can afford picking up the salaries...

But you asked for an example, I gave you two. But of course, this isn't good enough. You always have another excuse, er, I mean justification...

It's not that it's good enough more than you put your GM management aside to blame the CBA.

I can talk to you about 1 team I'm familiar with : The Montreal Canadiens.

Andre Savard the EX-GM of the team , was very poor when it comes to give contract to players. He gave 4,25M$/2 years to Randy McKay (2M$, 2,25M$). Will you honestly tell me that it's because of the CBA that Andre Savard gave him this deal ? Or it's maybe because of poor management ?

Andre Savard offer the same 20M$/4 years to Martin Lapointe not because other follow him but they truly think that his leadership & intangibles would be an asset to the team. It's not about the CBA , it's about management decision that are GOOD & BAD.

Now you have Bob Gainey, he didn't offer 6M$ to Kovalev & it's not because of the END of the CBA , it's because he got a ''BUDGET'' to respect ? Is it not COST CERTAINTY when a GM respect what the OWNER can afford to pay for his players ?

It's about Buffalo becase that's the team I'm most familiar with. Go on any small market team board and propose a trade. On of the biggest concerns is whether the team can afford picking up the salaries...

But you asked for an example, I gave you two. But of course, this isn't good enough. You always have another excuse, er, I mean justification...

well of course a concern is about whether you can afford a salary or not. thats part of managing a business.

you gave me two examples and i showed you why your examples were flawed. you mean to tell me that CGY can afford to pay IGinla 7,5m but BUF cant afford to pay Peca 4m ? they made a decision they didnt want to pay him, not that they couldnt pay him.

dr

Here are some ideas I've been kicking around for the new CBA

I'm all for a 50 mil soft cap. Increase the cap by 2.5% each year to cover raises. (1.25 mil the first year, 1.28 the 2nd, and so on) A team over the cap pays 55% on the dollar until they reach the 61 mil limit, then they pay 110% on the dollar. (this will keep some teams from splurging.)

With a 50 mil maximum before there's a luxury tax, there should be a very minimum of a 30 mil USD. 60% I don't want to see other teams in the league hovering around 40-45 mil, trying to ice a competative team while others like Chicago and Boston constantly jetison any talent that's making over 2.5 mil. To prevent this, put something in there to make sure the team increases it's payroll per year so they don't do what the LA clippers do; Trade any talent for cash/picks and maintain the lowest league salary so they can collect big TV checks. Not that the NHL has any big TV contracts, but you get my point.

Also, the league-wide maximum a player can make should be around 7 mil, which increases 1.5% each year. It's what the current Norris winner is making, and it's about what Iginla and Thornton are making. Why should there be guys making 8+ mil when those 3 are in my opinion at least, the best at their respective positions right now? I don't like the fact that even Lidstrom makes over 7 mil a year.

Also, a team may defer no more than 15% of a player's salary in any one contract year, and the defered money is added onto the following year's salary.
Example: Player A who makes 7 mil a year defers 1.05 mil this season so that the team may use that money to offer it to a free agent, Player B.
That teams's payroll with player A's defered money is 35 mil. The following year 1.05 mil gets added to team's total salary in the books is not counted as being added to Player A's .
Also, a team may defer salary from no more than 3 players in any one season and pay a 2% interest on each player after the first.

And...there was more I was going to post but I lost my train of thought when I got pulled away from the computer halfway through this. :banghead:

the problem is, that for the New York Rangers and Some other teams, they are making "smart moves" because they can afford giving huge salaries, it makes it unfair to lower teams that have to overspend to survive.

I would argue that although it screws mostly ever other team, what Dolan is doing is best for his business and makes him the most money. As long as he can sell out MSG and have good ratings for local TV, it's smart for him to go out and create a sense of excitement(trade for high priced players).

The Luxury tax would even it out for lower level teams, while still allowing Dolan to go out and overpay players.
It's amazing how many fans around hockey follow this so closely and just do not know how many big markets teams lose revenue and how bad things really are.

Outside of Toronto no big market makes revenue. If Colorado does they have not taked about it.

The selfish actions of some owners willing to just bleed money to win created this player market watered down things for everyone and put the game where it is today which is at a point where it's smarter for them not to play. People hate Bill Wirtz and the Bruins owner but this is where big market teams should be operating in a sport that really is hardly a major sport any longer.

One of the biggest misconceptions around hockey today is that the Rangers are this big market team that make money and has revenue to share and sellout games, it's just not true. Writers in other markets do not follow what happens, meanwhile the Rangers play in obscurity in the New York sports market today, their high priced team of name players are invisible in the media here because baseball drives the market and the other teams take the rest of the attention span year round. There is only one fan demographic that goes to hockey games here. Hockey is not a major sport in this area.

The Rangers were mentioned this week as a team losing revenue at these league meetings and have been for a few seasons. The garden does not play to sellouts many games and their network lost a ton of revenue, cut programming and laid off employees. Dolan also has to cut his fans back ten percent of ticket prices.

The Islanders at 13 million a year for Msg to own their broadcasts rights may be doing better than the Rangers. The entire NHL got only 60 million for their new deal.

Same goes for Philadelphia, Detroit, Dallas, St.Louis, San Jose, Los Angeles and even Tampa Bay, all of who claim to have lost money this year. Detroit's owner claims he must go to a final to break even. Ed Snyder claims his team will ice a 35 million dollar product because they lost too much, this is a team that always plays to capacity.

It's not working.

Problem is these owners want/need an advantage to make up for their weak management and cannot contain themselves when they see a name. Which has driven up the market and put the game where it is today.

I'm not in favor of any luxury tax because a few of these owners will attempt to exploit it one way or another. If it comes down to one it has to be strict to a point
where it's like signing restricted free agents, no one will bother with a contract because it's too high. Dollar for dollar match for every dollar over 35 million. First round draft pick compensation for every five million a team is over the cap.

No cash exchanged in deals.

But Bettman wants no hard cap at all and I respect his motives. He knows some of these owners are all for themselves, not the business and cannot be trusted to act for the good of the league and put things where they are today. He's right.

And a lot of these owners come and go.

One problem is the misconceptions around hockey about the Rangers being a team that makes money and has revenue to share and sellout games, it's just not true.

It's already been reported they are losing money this week as are Detroit, Philadelphia. What they do is simply lose even more and spend more with no thought as to the league.

Problem is these owners want/need an advantage to make up for their weak management and cannot contain themselves. Which has driven up the market and put the game where it is today.

Meanwhile the Rangers play in obscurity in the New York sports market, their high priced team of name players are invisible in the media here because baseball drives the market and the other teams take the rest of the attention span.

I'm not in favor of any luxury tax unless it begins at 35 million with a dollar for dollar match and first round draft pick compensation for every five million over. In other words a system where if you spend you pay an absurd amount in prospects and revenue where teams have to comply.

But Bettman wants no hard cap at all. He knows some of these owners are all for themselves, not the business and cannot be trusted to act for the good of the league. He's right.

sorry for my skepticism but I sincerely doubt the Rangers are losing money ! If they Leafs are making a ton of money $$$$ & being in a Canadian Market paying mostly in USD$$$$, I would be very , very, surprise if they lose money.

well of course a concern is about whether you can afford a salary or not. thats part of managing a business.

you gave me two examples and i showed you why your examples were flawed. you mean to tell me that CGY can afford to pay IGinla 7,5m but BUF cant afford to pay Peca 4m ? they made a decision they didnt want to pay him, not that they couldnt pay him.

dr


Like I said, you will refuse to see anything that does not support your position...

You always have some excuse or reason, anything but see things as they are. Buffalo was already losing money at the time. Hell, the owner was stealing money from his cable company to pay for some of his toys (such as golf courses and hockey teams). Was it bad management? Maybe. Is it bad management that 2/3's of the league is losing money? Probably in some cases. In others, owners are doing what they can to keep their team viable until a solution is made.

Your entire argument is that owners and gm's need to make smarter decisions. Then you look back with hindsight and say "That wasn't a smart decision..." How is it that the best minds is the business (the gm's) and the heads of multi-billion dollar corporations (the owners) with all of their advisors, can only make "bad" decisions when it comes to hockey? You must know, or must be sitting in on their meetings to come up with such a simple solution to this problem...

The only way to solve the NHL's problems right now, which I see as escalating player salaries driven by teams having vastly different spending constraints is to put some kind of limit on what individual teams can spend. I don't care if it's a hard cap, a soft cap, a luxury tax or any other idea people can come up with. I'm not going to put blinders on and pretend that there are things that are outside of individual teams ability to control.

Believe me when I say I want to see hockey this season, because I do. But I also want to see NHL hockey in all 30 cities 10 years from now as well. If the players have to sacrifice some salary for this to happen, I'm not going to cry for them. They want more money each year, mainly to assuage their egos, then get lazy when they do get it (some of them anyway).

A salary cap, even with it's problems is still better than sticking your head in the sand hoping the problems will go away. Personnally, I would like to see a luxury tax starting at $35M (50% or 100%) that increases by 50% or 100% every $5M, with cost of living increases using the gov'ts infaltion rate each year.

sorry for my skepticism but I sincerely doubt the Rangers are losing money ! If they Leafs are making a ton of money $$$$ & being in a Canadian Market paying mostly in USD$$$$, I would be very , very, surprise if they lose money.Here it is from the New York Rangers own beatwriter, Larry Brooks.

http://www.nypost.com/sports/27797.htm (http://www.nypost.com/sports/27797.htm)</FONT></FONT></FONT>

They aren't about aiding small markets, either, not when one of the pieces of the league's now-obsolete proposal to the PA for centralized negotiation of contracts included a stipulation in which free agents due the largest contracts would be assigned to teams with the largest revenues and thus, the ability to absorb them; not when in the Newark meeting a few weeks ago, the league cited the Rangers, Chicago and St. Louis as primary examples of clubs that lose money under the current system.

Here is Cablevisions own statement, which is not the easier to understand Newsday version breakdown that basically said the Rangers were losing money but this explains Msg's profits and where they came from, nothing came from the hockey operation.
******************************************
http://www.cablevision.com/index.jhtml?id=2004_08_09 (http://www.cablevision.com/index.jhtml?id=2004_08_09)</FONT>

Madison Square Garden

Operating income for the second quarter totaled $107.7 million compared to an operating loss of $9.3 million in the prior year period.

The second quarter operating income and AOCF include the recognition of a $54.0 million payment received from the New York Mets (related to the exercise of a termination option under their rights agreement, effective for the 2006 season) and the related reversal of a $41.8 million purchase accounting liability. Additionally, the quarter includes a one-time expansion payment from the NBA of $10.3 million, which is recorded in net revenue. Excluding these
one-time items, second quarter net revenues would have grown 17% and AOCF would have grown $4.7 million or 49%, driven by playoff revenue from the Knicks and more event bookings.

So in short Msg's sports revenue increase from an operating loss of 9.3 million a year ago to 107.7 million:

Where did it come from:
Mets buyout 54 million
purchase accounting liability 41.8 million
Charloette Bobcats expansion fee 10.3 million

Without the one time accountings Msg would have produced 4.7 million in revenue from the Knicks and event bookings.

It's fair to say if those bookings are significant the Rangers lost a lot of revenue and it confirms two years of losses from the same quarter.

One of the biggest misconceptions around hockey today is that the Rangers are this big market team that make money and has revenue to share and sellout games, it's just not true. Writers in other markets do not follow what happens, meanwhile the Rangers play in obscurity in the New York sports market today, their high priced team of name players are invisible in the media here because baseball drives the market and the other teams take the rest of the attention span year round. There is only one fan demographic that goes to hockey games here. Hockey is not a major sport in this area.

i don't have quotes or anything but here is how the Rangers make money. Dolan owns %100 of MSG, Dolan owns 100% of the MSG network and Dolan owns the Rangers. He is triple dipping into the team. While some teams might be lucky to get 50% of the gates at any hockey game, dolan gets 100% of the gates as well as food revenue(because he owns the arena and the team). If Dolan only owned the Rangers, sure it would be a losing proposition, but you figure he cleans in roughly 2 million+ a game when all is said in done with him owning both the team and arena(80 million over a season).

When he is doing his financial records, he probably only claims a small amount(let's say way less then the average team) of the gates at MSG and can write the team as a loss.

The same can be said about his local TV coverage. Dolan gets 100% of that money as well(every cent that advertisers pay go into dolan's pocket as well as every penny that cable companies pay him to have his service which show the Rangers), while most other teams can only claim a percentage.

Doing very rough estiments, Dolan makes roughly $80 in ticket revnues, 40 million for showing Ranegr games on MSG network and 10 million from the league contracts. That's a total of 130 million in revenue. The price he pays for his team is 70 million in contracts, 30 million in operating expenses. So when all is said and done the Rangers make him a decent profit(when you look at the 3 businesses he owns). If Dolan didn't own MSG or the MSG network, the Rangers would be big money losers.

i don't have quotes or anything but here is how the Rangers make money. Dolan owns %100 of MSG, Dolan owns 100% of the MSG network and Dolan owns the Rangers. He is triple dipping into the team. While some teams might be lucky to get 50% of the gates at any hockey game, dolan gets 100% of the gates as well as food revenue(because he owns the arena and the team). If Dolan only owned the Rangers, sure it would be a losing proposition, but you figure he cleans in roughly 2 million+ a game when all is said in done with him owning both the team and arena(80 million over a season).
I can only objectively work with numbers I know, I can take some fair guesses but that's what they are. But I will try here.

I'm guessing you mean the Knicks when you speak of triple dipping. Heck they can dip into Cablevision also and a half dozen other things and so can a bunch of owners. Like all teams they contract out for the things like concessions so they take a percentage or a flat fee, by contrast we have no idea if the managing company of the building takes anything like Smg takes from the Islanders.

You have to think some company takes something for services.


When he is doing his financial records, he probably only claims a small amount(let's say way less then the average team) of the gates at MSG and can write the team as a loss.
As Charles Wang has done with his 23 million dollar loss in 2003 as he reported to the Times when Forbes looked at the books.


The same can be said about his local TV coverage. Dolan gets 100% of that money as well(every cent that advertisers pay go into dolan's pocket as well as every penny that cable companies pay him to have his service which show the Rangers), while most other teams can only claim a percentage.

Doing very rough estiments, Dolan makes roughly $80 in ticket revnues, 40 million for showing Ranegr games on MSG network and 10 million from the league contracts.

Were also really not sure what deals have been agreed to regarding the Fox/Msg merger that turned them into one sports entity several years ago. Rupert Murdoch get's a large percentage of revenue in this, this is not a James Dolan's 100 percent profit as you indicate.

Here are the television figures going into last season, what each team get's from the outside contracts.

http://www.andrewsstarspage.com/8-10cba.htm

Annual total revenue per team from national TV rights: about $6 million, not including local TV money.

The New York Rangers are estimated to pull in $25 million per year from local rights. So do the Boston Bruins. Toronto gets $23 million. Montreal gets $16 million. The Dallas Stars get big bucks in local TV revenue thanks to owner Tom Hicks' 15-year, $550 million deal with Fox Sports to broadcast both the Stars and Texas Rangers baseball games on a local and regional level. But not every NHL team pulls in big dollars from local TV. Some of the smaller market teams in the U.S. pull in less a $1 million per year from local broadcast rights.

Let's put the Rangers at 31 million, the Islanders at 20 million, Msg has to pay the Islanders 13 million for their television rights until 2030, and they have to pay the Devils.

I think the two million figure per game is very generous on your part because that is the estimated figure for Knicks playoff games and they seat more than hockey.

Charles Wang charges more than Dolan for tickets and during the blizzard game it was estimated he would lose a half a million dollars for playing a game in front of 3,000 fans in a blizzard as opposed to a regular Saturday attendance which was usually near capacity.

I guess your talking about 10 mil per team for merchandising from the NHL. No idea.


That's a total of 130 million in revenue. The price he pays for his team is 70 million in contracts, 30 million in operating expenses. So when all is said and done the Rangers make him a decent profit(when you look at the 3 businesses he owns). If Dolan didn't own MSG or the MSG network, the Rangers would be big money losers.
I came up with 60 million for tickets, 31 for television, 10 million from the NHL and I will go all out and ignore the reports in the previous posting and add another 20 million for anything else. Let's not even talk rent or propery taxes on the building.

121 million.

Rangers reported payroll with buyouts, insurance for percentages of contracts for injured players approached a high payroll of 94 million dollars. The Islanders get at least 13 million from Msg, they have to pay the Devils for local broadcasts rights. You can bet Murdoch get's 10-15 million for the merger fees. And let's throw in ten million for other costs.

Industry reports are Msg Network is taking big losses. I cannot put a figure on that plus other basic costs to running a team, travel, staff, team facilities but I'm not including that here at all.

Hard to see a tangible profit in this. If they borrow from other places to sustain their payroll advantage it is not in the best interest of the league but they have the right to do so.

i don't have quotes or anything but here is how the Rangers make money. Dolan owns %100 of MSG, Dolan owns 100% of the MSG network and Dolan owns the Rangers. He is triple dipping into the team. While some teams might be lucky to get 50% of the gates at any hockey game, dolan gets 100% of the gates as well as food revenue(because he owns the arena and the team). If Dolan only owned the Rangers, sure it would be a losing proposition, but you figure he cleans in roughly 2 million+ a game when all is said in done with him owning both the team and arena(80 million over a season).

When he is doing his financial records, he probably only claims a small amount(let's say way less then the average team) of the gates at MSG and can write the team as a loss.

The same can be said about his local TV coverage. Dolan gets 100% of that money as well(every cent that advertisers pay go into dolan's pocket as well as every penny that cable companies pay him to have his service which show the Rangers), while most other teams can only claim a percentage.



The profits from the ownership of the TV coverage and the rink should not count towards the Rangers profits. He is entitled to make money on both as seperate entities from the Rangers. Without knowing the exact amounts the TV coverage pays the Rangers or what equivalent rent the Rangers should pay its impossible to get an accurate read on the true standing of the Rangers.

The Rangers probably play 50 games a year at the MSG. 18,000 fans * avg ticket of $66 * 50 games gives us a potential income of about $60 million. Take away from that, equivalent rink rent, running costs, labour costs.

I could see them losing quite a bit of money if they don't make the playoff (which they aren't). They wouldn't be a worse team under a $45m cap and they would make every bit as much revenue. Hard to say no to saving $30m.

HYPOTHETICALLY: Under a $30 million cap, lets say the average salary for a superstar is $4 million. Calgary has two superstars on their team, both of whom they drafted and developed. They both become free agents the same year. Because Calgary has been well run, they also have lots of other good players signed. But because they have alot of good players, they only have $5 million in cap room, even though they have the revenue to sign both. They only have enough room to sign one of the superstars, unless they both agree to take alot less than the league average. So they sign superstar "A" for $3 million, who takes less becuase he wants to stay. But, now they only have $2 million to sign supestar "B". At the same time, Detroit has been terribly run for some time, is devoid of superstars and only has a few marginally good players. They've drafted terribly, but they have $4 million in cap room, and offer Calgary's superstar "B" the $4 million he deserves, based on league average. Superstar "B" now has to decide between loyalty and a $2 million difference. I think its safe to assume most professional atheletes would take the extra $2 million, so lets assume superstar "B" does in this case. Now I ask you, if you were a Calgary fan would you be upset over this? Would you feel this is fair? Your team did the drafting and developing, had the revenue to sign both, but were unable to while, a poorly run team his been rewarded.

Now lets say there's a luxury tax at around $40 million. Salaries will come down under this system as well. Lets take the two superstars from my example above, and say a luxury tax has lowered the average superstar salary to $5 million. Calgary has the revenue to pay each $4 million, but they both want $5. Calgary then takes the extra money they received from the teams paying a luxury tax and is able to give both what they want. Calgary has not been punished for drafing well, and they're not paying any more of their money for those players than they would have under a cap.

So, if you were a Calgary fan, which situation would you prefer? The cap, which took one of your superstars away? Or the luxury tax which allowed you to keep both without spending anything more than you would have under a cap?

Again, this analogy doesn't work because you're assuming a terribly run team will have a lot of cap space. Badly run teams are more likely to have less cap space because they're likely to overpay players who aren't worth it.

This is essentially a strawman argument, because you're saying a cap would prevent Calgary from keeping both superstars. But in today's system, those two superstars would be worth $8-10 mil each in the current system with no cap! Calgary couldn't afford to keep both because they are a small market team! I think this is really what the whole discussion boils down to. With no cap, you have teams out there like Detroit, New York, etc. capable of throwing $8-10 mil for one of these superstars, and this prices them out of reach for the small market team.

Given the above example, it's certainly not as bad as the way things are now. I'm sure Calgary would prefer to find a way to get rid of a couple million dollars of salary to make room to keep both stars under the new system instead of trying to shed $16-20 mil of salary (impossible really) to keep both superstars under the current system.

I think the problem with the luxury tax is that the big market teams will still have an advantage. With a cap, there is no market advantage.

in today's system, those two superstars would be worth $8-10 mil each in the current system .

thats not entirely true. as RFA, they are worth what you are willing to pay them, since in the NHL no other team makes RFA offers.

secondly, Todd Bertuzzi, by all accounts one of the top players in the league, just signed a deal for less than 7m per season. Alfredsson signed for less than 6m. Keith Primeau, another franchise type player, signed for less than 5m per season.

for a team like CGY, if they actually had 2 players worth 8m each (and they dont even have one at this time), there decision making process comes down to this:

1) are they in a position to be a contender ? if so, then sign them both.
2) if they are not, then why would you even want to pay16m for 2 players, even if you could afford it ?

even in todays system, "rich" teams trade players because they dont want to make the investment in them.

dr

A lot of this talk just reminds me back to the homegrown cap idea I had before. I won't go into it again, but I think it's best to give the advantage to the teams who develop their players the best, not penalize them. As the above examples with OTT and CHI, a homegrown cap would allow OTT to keep those players, and it would make a team like CHI struggle to ice a team that is competitive if they rely too much on signing players. At the same time, it limits CHI from altering the market and inflating the salaries of the players they might have to overspend for.

It's my belief that the teams who develop their players and are able to make wise moves should be rewarded, and the teams who have to sign players to remain competitive should not be rewarded. Simple as that. And if you think about the teams that would rather sign players like the Rangers of the past, they have enough money they could invest in a state of the art scouting and minor league system, but do they? They are getting better I would suggest, but it's lazy team management overall in the past that makes these mistakes.

The Coyotes are a good current example of this, they had neglected the farm for so long and when the new management came in they saw it as a weakness. They have slowly started to acquire younger players, although the quality is not there, that is why they are still signing free agents to supply the NHL team. In the future they will be a better team than before if they continue to develop players and work through the draft.

Again, this analogy doesn't work because you're assuming a terribly run team will have a lot of cap space. Badly run teams are more likely to have less cap space because they're likely to overpay players who aren't worth it.

This is essentially a strawman argument, because you're saying a cap would prevent Calgary from keeping both superstars. But in today's system, those two superstars would be worth $8-10 mil each in the current system with no cap! Calgary couldn't afford to keep both because they are a small market team! I think this is really what the whole discussion boils down to. With no cap, you have teams out there like Detroit, New York, etc. capable of throwing $8-10 mil for one of these superstars, and this prices them out of reach for the small market team.

Given the above example, it's certainly not as bad as the way things are now. I'm sure Calgary would prefer to find a way to get rid of a couple million dollars of salary to make room to keep both stars under the new system instead of trying to shed $16-20 mil of salary (impossible really) to keep both superstars under the current system.

I think the problem with the luxury tax is that the big market teams will still have an advantage. With a cap, there is no market advantage.


Fine, not a terribly run team. Since salaries will be less under a cap, there's going to be alot more teams in the hunt for big name free agents. Any team with $4 million in cap room in that situation. And just for the record, there are plenty of badly run teams with low payrolls.

Again, my point is not that the current system is OK, for argumetns sake, I'll concede its not.. All I want is someone to tell me how my example above is fair to Calgary. If anybody does, I'll shut up. And arguments that its more unfair now, or its fair because its unfair for everyone don't hold water.

A lot of this talk just reminds me back to the homegrown cap idea I had before. I won't go into it again, but I think it's best to give the advantage to the teams who develop their players the best, not penalize them. As the above examples with OTT and CHI, a homegrown cap would allow OTT to keep those players, and it would make a team like CHI struggle to ice a team that is competitive if they rely too much on signing players. At the same time, it limits CHI from altering the market and inflating the salaries of the players they might have to overspend for.

It's my belief that the teams who develop their players and are able to make wise moves should be rewarded, and the teams who have to sign players to remain competitive should not be rewarded. Simple as that. And if you think about the teams that would rather sign players like the Rangers of the past, they have enough money they could invest in a state of the art scouting and minor league system, but do they? They are getting better I would suggest, but it's lazy team management overall in the past that makes these mistakes.

I agree to a certain extent but I dont see how signing free agents is considered to be so wrong by people. And no it's not just because Im a Leaf's fan. You have lots of avenues to improve your team available to you, and in my opinion any team that focuses too much on only one aspect is not doing a good job. I dont care if you're the best drafting team in the league, if you dont make good trades or good free agent signings you aren't going anywhere. Likewise if you focus too much on free agents.

And I dont care what anybody says, if you think having a hard salary cap will allow a team to keep all it's drafted players then you are living in a dream world. Just look at all the player movement in the NFL, that's what happens when you bring in a hard cap.

Given the above example, it's certainly not as bad as the way things are now. I'm sure Calgary would prefer to find a way to get rid of a couple million dollars of salary to make room to keep both stars under the new system instead of trying to shed $16-20 mil of salary (impossible really) to keep both superstars under the current system.
But the problem is that all it takes is one team, with more salary cap space than Calgary has, to say "I want that player" and then it's too bad so sad for Calgary. Even if Calgary offers the guy $8 million, if one team in the league has space to add $8 million + $1 and they are focused on getting that guy, then the Flames lose him.

And I dont care what anybody says, if you think having a hard salary cap will allow a team to keep all it's drafted players then you are living in a dream world. Just look at all the player movement in the NFL, that's what happens when you bring in a hard cap.


But the problem is that all it takes is one team, with more salary cap space than Calgary has, to say "I want that player" and then it's too bad so sad for Calgary. Even if Calgary offers the guy $8 million, if one team in the league has space to add $8 million + $1 and they are focused on getting that guy, then the Flames lose him.

Which is why the argument that a cap is equally unfair for everyone is crap. You can't equalize the abilty to scout or develop players.

Which is why the argument that a cap is equally unfair for everyone is crap. You can't equalize the abilty to scout or develop players.

Yes, that's the point - you can't equalize that ability, and how would that be possible anyway? You want team quality to be based more on scouting/development/management than the ability to shell out more money for players than other teams. It isn't perfect, but it makes it much more fair than the current system. And it would definitely reduce player salaries, which is the other goal we want.

Let me simplify this a bit so you'll understand. Imagine each team's budget represented as a glass. The way it is now, some glasses (New York, Detroit, Colorado, Toronto) are way bigger than others, so they're able to hold more liquid (salary). That isn't fair.

In a cap system, every team's "glass" would be exactly the same size, which is fair (or I should say more fair than it is now). Because even if the team offered the $8 mil + 1 to the player, they'd be filling their own cap and would be most likely out of the running for other expensive players. Not like now where you can have teams like New York and Colarado go on basically "shopping sprees" and pick up multiple FAs for $6 mil here, $8 mil there, etc...

Yes, that's the point - you can't equalize that ability, and how would that be possible anyway? You want team quality to be based more on scouting/development/management than the ability to shell out more money for players than other teams. It isn't perfect, but it makes it much more fair than the current system. And it would definitely reduce player salaries, which is the other goal we want.

I have to agree with this.

No system is going to be perfectly fair, it simply can't happen. Too many variables go into the mix, no agreement can account for them all. Much less to see the future of the economic market (not just in terms of the NHL either). Some team or teams along the line will be put in a bad spot because of the agreement, whatever that eventually will be. The best that can be hoped for is an agreement that makes it as fair as possible for all teams. Incorporate a fair trade-off for as many variables as you have the ability to control and with the rest, just hope it doesn't go too far astray. That sounds kinda weak, I know. But unless there's a crystal ball out there, we are a bit constrained as to knowing what will and what won't work in the future.

The concept of it being perfectly fair or perfectly equal is an illusion, but the goal should be to try and get as close to that as possible. That's part of the problem we have on these types of threads, the concept of "fair" varies pretty widely. Personally, I don't see the logic for some of those concepts and I've said as much many times before. But everyone has an opinion, and most stick to it no matter what. Nature of the beast on here.


In a cap system, every team's "glass" would be exactly the same size, which is fair (or I should say more fair than it is now). Because even if the team offered the $8 mil + 1 to the player, they'd be filling their own cap and would be most likely out of the running for other expensive players. Not like now where you can have teams like New York and Colarado go on basically "shopping sprees" and pick up multiple FAs for $6 mil here, $8 mil there, etc...

I'm not actually for or against a cap. All I'm for is what I stated above, an agreement that is as fair to all teams as much as that is possible. If that means a cap, so be it. If that means no cap but an alternate solution to what we have now, so be it. Without enough info to give an accurate assessment of what's really going on, I can't really speculate on what would work best. In a world where the best answer you can give is "It depends.", there's almost always another way around a problem such as this. The people working on this are quite intelligent, even though they aren't protrayed that way at times. With the info at their fingertips, they could create a solution close to or at that level of fairness I mentioned. Of that I have little doubt. The only question is do they even want to try.

The last week before the deadline is when 90% of the work is done in labor battles. Let's just hope this one doesn't break form.

You want team quality to be based more on scouting/development/management than the ability to shell out more money for players than other teams. .

ahh ... you mean like todays system where the small market teams consistently out perform the big spending teams ?

good point.

dr

Colarado go on basically "shopping sprees" and pick up multiple FAs for $6 mil here, $8 mil there, etc...

when has COL ever gone on a shopping spree ? the only significant free agents they every signed were Kariya and Sellane and those two combined made less than 7m.

your point ?

dr

The concept of it being perfectly fair or perfectly equal is an illusion, but the goal should be to try and get as close to that as possible. That's part of the problem we have on these types of threads, the concept of "fair" varies pretty widely. Personally, I don't see the logic for some of those concepts and I've said as much many times before. But everyone has an opinion, and most stick to it no matter what. Nature of the beast on here.



Except the only argument people are giving me is that a cap is equally fair(or unfair) for everyone.

Yes, that's the point - you can't equalize that ability, and how would that be possible anyway? You want team quality to be based more on scouting/development/management than the ability to shell out more money for players than other teams. It isn't perfect, but it makes it much more fair than the current system. And it would definitely reduce player salaries, which is the other goal we want.

Let me simplify this a bit so you'll understand. Imagine each team's budget represented as a glass. The way it is now, some glasses (New York, Detroit, Colorado, Toronto) are way bigger than others, so they're able to hold more liquid (salary). That isn't fair.

In a cap system, every team's "glass" would be exactly the same size, which is fair (or I should say more fair than it is now). Because even if the team offered the $8 mil + 1 to the player, they'd be filling their own cap and would be most likely out of the running for other expensive players. Not like now where you can have teams like New York and Colarado go on basically "shopping sprees" and pick up multiple FAs for $6 mil here, $8 mil there, etc...


Thanks for letting a simpleton like me understand.

So lets say everyone has the same size glass. One of your tream's best players is very thirsty, so he asks you for a drink. You have a faucet right next to you, but alas, your glass is full and you have promised the water in it to other players on your team first. Now your superstar has to go next door to Mr. I's house, who has plenty of room in his glass to give your player a drink.

your owner had a facuet with lots of water in it, and really wanted to give your player a drink, but couldn't. Would you be upset if this happened to your team?

It's my belief that the teams who develop their players and are able to make wise moves should be rewarded



Like OTtawa and Tampa. They are rewarded they win, regardless of how much other teams spent on free agents.



The Coyotes are a good current example of this, they had neglected the farm for so long and when the new management came in they saw it as a weakness. They have slowly started to acquire younger players, although the quality is not there, that is why they are still signing free agents to supply the NHL team. In the future they will be a better team than before if they continue to develop players and work through the draft.


Exactly. Which means developing their young players, not buying old expensive players. They arent disadvantaged because they are spending less than other teams, they havent developed enough to have success yet. They need to continue. THey should be allowed to develop cheaply.

Thanks for letting a simpleton like me understand.

So lets say everyone has the same size glass. One of your tream's best players is very thirsty, so he asks you for a drink. You have a faucet right next to you, but alas, your glass is full and you have promised the water in it to other players on your team first. Now your superstar has to go next door to Mr. I's house, who has plenty of room in his glass to give your player a drink.

your owner had a facuet with lots of water in it, and really wanted to give your player a drink, but couldn't. Would you be upset if this happened to your team?

you would have to look at the glass and see how much water you could feasably pour out or how much water would be poured out after the season (players retiring, players you don't intend on signing anyway etc)

if there was only so much water per team to be held, you'd see alot more players being offered less than they would if they had an entire lake, which is what the nhlpa would love to see, but would you rather see a glass full of water or see a drought happen, which is essentially what it's coming down to

you would have to look at the glass and see how much water you could feasably pour out or how much water would be poured out after the season (players retiring, players you don't intend on signing anyway etc)

if there was only so much water per team to be held, you'd see alot more players being offered less than they would if they had an entire lake, which is what the nhlpa would love to see, but would you rather see a glass full of water or see a drought happen, which is essentially what it's coming down to

It wouldn't matter how much cap room you'd have in a year or two. A player is not going to sit for a year and wait. If another team has the cap room to sign him, he's gone.

your owner had a facuet with lots of water in it, and really wanted to give your player a drink, but couldn't. Would you be upset if this happened to your team?

AND ... dont forget the kicker. the water in the faucet was supplied by the fans of that water faucet. aint it grand that money from those fans either go into the pockets of the faucet owner or to another faucet owner who can use the money to steal YOUR water away from you.

ahhh ... a salary cap utopia ! be careful what you wish for.

dr

Except the only argument people are giving me is that a cap is equally fair(or unfair) for everyone.

Then they are misguided. For whatever reasons and by whatever logic. There are simply too many variables to account for; ranging from broad economical markers to very specific team operations. No agreement can eliminate each variable and make the playing field perfectly level. Too many that cross over and contradict one another, others that happen outside the range of the agreement but still affect it, and still others that even the best economic models can't predict for the future.

Even if the two sides were negotiating in good faith, they very likely couldn't come up with an agreement that is equally fair to every team. The best they could hope for is something close. The media blows the animosity between the two out of proportion (which unfortunately is their job). But still, there is at least some animosity between the two sides. And that makes it even more difficult for a "fair" agreement (or anything close to that) to be reached.

Too many people are looking at this in absolute terms, which is a terrible viewpoint to try and make your points from in this case. Simply put, it isn't that easy and those that believe it is are quite mistaken. But some are so set in their views and convinced that they're right, even proof won't change it.

Take my reply for what it's worth.

At the end of the day a hard cap does not address the critical problem facing NHL teams, and that is the disparity between revenue streams. With no appreciable revenue coming from a national TV contract (in contrast to the NBA and NFL), teams are essentially on their own to develop revenue streams.

Some teams have been particularly adept at the development of revenue, either due to sheer market size or in some cases astute business decisions (e.g. Colorado). But other teams simply do not have the rabid hockey population base to compete at that same level. The New York Rangers for instance have nearly $25 million a year coming in from television contracts, whereas Nashville has a little over $2 million.

How is a hard cap going to increase revenues for the small market teams? Will it increase competitiveness and level the playing field? Well, it may increase parity, but for anyone that has watched the NFL recently knows, parity doesn't offer much in the way of financial security. A team may make the playoffs one year and not the next, that is the reality of a parity based system. There is little hope under a hard cap system of sustained excellence. It won't help the small market teams if their revenue is going to fluctuate widly under a parity-based hard cap system. How do you have any ability to plan financially for your organization whe you cannot predict your playoff appearances from one year to the next? That is the reality of what a hard cap will bring, a competitive balance that likely will breed greater financial insecurity.

When you are looking at the situation honestly, how will a hard cap increase the revenues for small market teams that have essentially operated under a self-imposed hard cap for years? Where will their much needed additional revenue come from?

Peter Karmanos, owner of the Hurricanes, alluded to the non-solution that a hard cap offers when he noted in a Carolina paper earlier this year that a hard cap doesn't solve his teams revenue stream problems.

This basic reality is why the NHLPA has seemingly taken an intractable stance with respect to the issue of a hard cap. The NHLPA knows that this is a desparate attempt for the NHL owners to solve a problem that they don't want to deal with directly. That problem is the revenue-stream financial disparity between NHL organizations. That is why the comparisons between the NBA and NFL are so ill-founded, both the NBA and NFL have an egalitarian system of revenue sharing, and both leagues have large pools of revenue to share. The NHLPA is banking on the internal unwillingness of the so-called large revenue cities to ultimately cause a rift in the owner's apparent solidarity. The NHL owner's have spun a brilliant media picture of this labor situation as being impoversihed NHL owners vs. the greedy NHLPA. But the NHLPA knows that the revenue sharing issue is simmering under the surface of this situation, and it knows that ultimately this isn't the NHL owners vs. NHLPA as it is large market owners vs. small market owners.

If you start looking at the financial realities of the situation, a luxury tax system may provide a means to revenue share that a hard cap system simply does not offer.

That is why you will see the resolution of this situation being a luxury tax that is phased in over a period of 2-3 years to allow the large market teams to adjust their salary structures.


That was a very thoughtful post, and I think you really did a good job to pinpoint the real problem: the NHL is not part of the so-called "big 4" because it doesn't gather revenues as much as the NFL, NBA or MLB. How come their salaries are almost the same? That doesn't make sense.

To solve that, I think that organized hockey at the pro-level should be completely changed, although it is clear this idea won't be popular. But what the heck, how can owners go on and lose that much money, when you witness some teams losing less money when they are not operating?

The solution in my mind is the creation of an entire new system based on european leagues (premier, second division, etc.), with big markets playing in the 1st, middle-ones in the 2nd and small ones in the 3rd, or something to that effect. Obviously, in the second tier, players would have smaller contracts and the level wouldn't be as good as in the premier league. It's a kind of contraction, but with all cities keeping their teams. However,we could witness even more expansion under this system.

That should fix the business of pro hockey in North America for good.

ahh ... you mean like todays system where the small market teams consistently out perform the big spending teams ?

good point.

dr

Are you serious? I'm starting to think your name really suits you.

Let's look at the Cup champions for the past 10 years:
2004 Tampa Bay Lightning
2003 New Jersey Devils
2002 Detroit Red Wings
2001 Colorado Avalanche
2000 New Jersey Devils
1999 Dallas Stars
1998 Detroit Red Wings
1997 Detroit Red Wings
1996 Colorado Avalanche
1995 New Jersey Devils
1994 New York Rangers

Besides Tampa, which of these are small market teams?

What's really unhealthy is for the last 10 years it's basically been the same 4 teams out of 30 which have won the cup or were finalists. These are all big budget, American dollar teams.

I think the point here is that everyone knows that a big budget doesn't equal success - just look at Toronto and New York. But everyone also knows that all other things being equal, a big budget gives you a big advantage.

when has COL ever gone on a shopping spree ? the only significant free agents they every signed were Kariya and Sellane and those two combined made less than 7m.

your point ?

dr

Yeah, but Kariya and Selanne are worth more than 7 mil combined. That's an unhealthy side effect of our flawed system we have now. Teams with huge budgets can afford stacked teams, essentially created a system of "have" and "have not" teams. Players will obviously want to flock to the "have" teams for a better chance of winning a Cup, even to the point of reducing their value for these teams. Kariya didn't want to sign with Anaheim for millions but he offered to sign with a stacked team for peanuts. That's not right.

Thanks for letting a simpleton like me understand.

So lets say everyone has the same size glass. One of your tream's best players is very thirsty, so he asks you for a drink. You have a faucet right next to you, but alas, your glass is full and you have promised the water in it to other players on your team first. Now your superstar has to go next door to Mr. I's house, who has plenty of room in his glass to give your player a drink.

your owner had a facuet with lots of water in it, and really wanted to give your player a drink, but couldn't. Would you be upset if this happened to your team?

That's exactly it though - it shouldn't matter how rich your owner is, or how rich your city is. None of that should matter. Look at Real Madrid in the soccer world. Imagine if the world's richest man owned an NHL team, and bought every all-star and put them on one team. Would you be upset if this happened to your league? One team dominating the other 29? Winning cup after cup for 10 straight years?

It wouldn't matter how much cap room you'd have in a year or two. A player is not going to sit for a year and wait. If another team has the cap room to sign him, he's gone.

if your player really wanted to stick around, then he'd stick around, if he was only out for money, then why should you worry about him, let him bleed another franchise dry... hell, for all anyone knows said player could go into a slump (ie lapointe), then you'd be happy you didn't sign him to such a lucrative deal, bottom line, if a player wants to remain with your team he'll work around the glass so as not to spill any water, if he is all about the water then toss him in the pacific ocean and let him drown when he goes into a slump, if said player was 100 % worth the amount he wants then an owner wouldn't mind letting the glas overflow a little to retain said player

Except the only argument people are giving me is that a cap is equally fair(or unfair) for everyone.

a world with no cap:
Niklas Lidstrom asks for 10 mil as he has been arguably the best dman in the last 5 - 10 years

only only a handful of teams could afford him right? does that make it unfair to the rest of the league?, i'd say so, wouldn't you?

a world with a cap:
Niklas Lidstrom asks for 10 mil, but has a counter offer of 6 - 7 mil as there's a whole team to be concerned about because cap space is limited

now, at least 15 teams could feasably afford that contract, the only things that could change would be bonuses and length of contract, either way that would keep 15 or more teams in the running for him. he still gets paid like a star, but salaries would be brought back to earth

another good dman who would ask for 7 mil would be told 'you're no lidstrom we'll give you x million, so on and so forth, a cap would still allow stars to be paid like stars, it would just stop some of the stupid offers made by GM's, while yes it does put a small limit to what each player can make, so what, if these players are playing for strictly mo