Cadian Posted June 9, 2005 Share Posted June 9, 2005 Report: NHL, NHLPA agree on cap formula well, what do you think? Will we have hockey next year? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doktor Kosmos Posted June 9, 2005 Share Posted June 9, 2005 I'mkeeping my fingers crossed. Seems they're making some sort of progress. About freakin' time. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alexstream Posted June 9, 2005 Share Posted June 9, 2005 The question is not whether we'll have hockey... Both sides know that they can put RIP besides NHL if they don't get a deal done by october... The question is what kind of deal it will be ? We now know for sure that Goodenow will lose his job... I mean, he went from a last owner offer of 42M(?) to this actual system which seems to be overly complicated and which not only have a ridiculously low cap, but is ALSO tied to revenue... If someone could explain it so that it makes more sense, I'd appreciate... cause the way I see it, each teamswill have different cap (% of revenue) , with a tax starting at 29M... What is that?!!! Even the habs will be overbudget... Theo will have to call his agent to make other tv ads... This is freaky... cause if it really goes this way, some of the anti cap fans will be right, Euro players will stay in europe... With a 29M payroll for the habs, how much is Saku worth? 2M? Markov? 800k? We're going back to 80's figures... Bravo Goodenow!!! you ######ed it up for your players... 42M seemed to be a reasonable cap... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alexstream Posted June 9, 2005 Share Posted June 9, 2005 Well, Bob explained me and it makes a bit more sense... but it's still illogical... Latest cap story is confusing TSN.ca Staff 6/8/2005 6:49:30 PM Wednesday's story on the Globe and Mail's website is both interesting and confusing. Interesting because it re-affirms the rumours that the NHL and NHL Players' Association have basically agreed on a macro-economic linked salary cap payroll system and also interesting because it's chock full of specific numbers, though these numbers are not too much different than what were reported in the New York Post 10 days ago. But it's an extremely confusing story for the following reason: The story says each team will have its own individual salary floor and ceiling and that this team-by-team payroll range will be determined as a percentage of each club's individual revenue, not as a percentage of league-wide revenue. If this were indeed the case, it would be a huge victory for the NHL Players' Association, which would love nothing more than to allow larger revenue teams like the Toronto Maple Leafs and New York Rangers to spend much more than small revenue teams like the Nashville Predators and Phoenix Coyotes. Think about it. Say for argument's sake, one NHL team has revenues of $100 million and another team has revenues of $50 million. If, as an example, the teams are permitted to spend 54 per cent of revenues on salaries, one team would have a cap of $54 million, while the other team would have a cap of $27 million. That is a $27 million spread between the two teams' caps and you can rest assured it will be a frosty Friday in hell before NHL teams sign off on that type of discrepancy. And, in fact, the Globe and Mail alludes to the incongruity of that type of formula, but passes it off as saying it will be a "complicated" system. Oh, it will be complicated alright, but using the Globe and Mail's own numbers, a $22 to $24 million floor and a $34 to $36 million ceiling, those numbers aren't so very different from what the two sides have been batting back and forth for the last month or two on a deal that is linked at 54 per cent of league-wide revenues. To put it bluntly, if the NHL teams with the highest revenues can't spend any more than $36 million on player costs, you can be sure the new economic system is not based on individual club revenues, which is the premise of the Globe and Mail story. Now, if all the Globe is actually saying is that big revenue teams will get to spend at the top of end of the $36 million range and small revenue teams will have to spend near the bottom end, well, that's a different story because one suspects those salary range numbers were determined by a percentage of league-wide revenues, such as the 54 per cent figure the league has wanted for a long time. And, make no mistake, there's a big difference between the two premises. A very big difference. For Habsworld.net, I'm alexstream (actually this is McKenzie's article) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Leafs Suck Posted June 10, 2005 Share Posted June 10, 2005 So let me get this straight The PA sit for a year because they don't want a cap. They refused to except a $45mil cap in February. Now they're not only excepting a cap, they're excepting a cap 10mil less then what they fought so hard against. Goodenow is an idiot. I do not side with either party but Bettman totally wins. I mean it's embarrassing for Goodenow. He has to be fired. No way the PA can keep him on. I mean what reason does Goodenow have for keeping his job? "Yay we threw away billions fighting something that we just excepted, now we're all gonna learn less money". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
simonus Posted June 10, 2005 Share Posted June 10, 2005 the saddest thing is that because of the expected loss of revenues in the coming years, the PA had to switch to a strong linkage system to allow the new CBA to allow for potential cap increases. I still think Bettman is a loser for screwing the core revenues and franchise values, but goodenow never realized when his hand was forced, even if i still think that the hard cap is an essentially wrong system Apparently Esche and some other reps are already calling for goodenows head. Look for Chelios, yzerman, roenick, hasek and other older high prestige players who sat the year to call for his resignation. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alexstream Posted June 10, 2005 Share Posted June 10, 2005 Well from the Bob article I posted, Goodenow seems to be less of an idiot, although he might still be a total idiot if Bettman hid a trick in the rules... Cause the Cap seems to be tied each franchise's revenue... so that the frikkin rags could spend 54% of their frikkin 200M revenues (hypothetical)... Put in this way, Goodenow has the upper hand. But I'm pretty sure (and Bob too is pretty sure) that this particular situation wouldn't be accepted by the owners and there might really well be a hidden rule prohibiting that. That said, I'm totally on the owner's side... They invest millions of dollars on this, they take risks to make a business work, they're rich, yeah, but it took them all their lives (or no-life lives) working 80 hours per week piling up that money. I respect more the fact that Gillet earns couple of millions than Koivu or theo pilling up the bills... But that said, I don't intend to do slavery... The players deserve to be paid good wages... but not frikking 5 years 5M per year guaranteed contracts no matter how they suck !!! (the owners have way less financial security than that, they can go bankrupt at any time... e.g. Bryden) The agents, the Union and the Players have stretched the band too far away and I'm really happy to see it coming slapping in their faces! IT is not as if The owners weren't trying for the last 5 years to implement a new system... The owners wanted to restrain the rags, the caps, the wings etc... but the players wouldn't allow them to do so....well congrats players, you deserved your faith of sitting in the losing corner (and I hope this will be the final result) [Edited on 2005/6/10 by alexstream] Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cadian Posted June 12, 2005 Author Share Posted June 12, 2005 wow alexstream... I sense some not so hidden fustration at this whole process! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Prime Minister Koivu Posted June 18, 2005 Share Posted June 18, 2005 Alright, this has me a little ######ed up here. If that is the new system, what really changes from where we were? Big market teams will still be good and small market teams will still suck. Revenues are usually tied with performance......so small market teams will still be going broke. Is there a hard line luxury tax? Say at 35 million a dollar for dollar tax kicks in? Anyway the bottom line seems to be that the PA really, really, really ######ed up by not taking the 42 million dollar deal when they could have OR the owners have caved and are now taking it in the arse. I am confused! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
simonus Posted June 18, 2005 Share Posted June 18, 2005 there is a dollar for dollar luxury tax halfway through the cap limits. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dalhabs Posted June 18, 2005 Share Posted June 18, 2005 I read in a NHL-book from 95-96 that the highest paid player were Wayne Gretzky with a salary of 45.100.000 swedish crowns which at that time would be about 4.4 million us dollars... to compare with todays 10M$ salaries. Thats not the 80s... its the late 90s. The even cooler thing is that the 10th most paid player was Alexander Mogilny with 2.5M$ to compare with what we pay average players today. He was a BIG STAR at that time. [Edited on 2005/6/18 by Dalhabs] Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fanpuck33_ Posted June 18, 2005 Share Posted June 18, 2005 I haven't read much about it, but a team by team salary cap is totallly pointless and won't do anything to help teams. Poor teams aren't out there spending money anyway. It just makes no sense. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.