Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

shawn antoski

$70.3 million Salary Cap (tsnbobmckenzie)

42 posts in this topic

They really need to fix the floor. I hated seeing Florida throwing all that cash at players last year just don't hey could reach it. Sure it payed off for them, but they overpaid on every contract.

They should also incorporate a soft cap and luxury tax. You can exceed the cap, but your taxed for how much i go over. Taxed dollars get added to revenue sharing

Ex: Cap is 70 - if you spend 0-5 million more you're taxed 5% on the dollar. 6-10 = 15%, 10+ = 25%.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You missed the important part of his statement... if the CBA wasn't expiring that is what the cap would be.

Has to be expected when you replaced one of the lowest revenue teams in Atlanta with Winnipeg which is much higher revenue.

As a matter of fact, if you do that a couple more times (other bottom teams like Phoenix)... the cap ceiling (and floor) would rise to the point where it would bankrupt a dozen teams in the league to try to match it.

That is one of the main reasons why Bettman has been resistant to letting those teams move and why he certainly didn't want another REALLY high revenue team coming into southern Ontario. Imagine adding another team with Toronto-like revenues into that mix and it would upset the entire delicate balance of the league's finances.

Of course it is all silly of Bettman and his cronies to purposefully try to keep the league revenues down. They have to just bite the bullet and know we are going to go through a short transition period where 2-5 more teams relocate to better cities in which to do business.... the whole league comes out of that looking like roses.

Bettman personally has too much at stake in the weak southern markets so that would never happen until he is gone. It does however, give the players a lot of good arguments in collective bargaining. They can argue all day long that the revenues are going up and if the league wants to prop up bad franchises they can do it by revenue sharing and not by having the players do it for the owners by accepting smaller salaries.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not a bad thought, kind of like the NBA model where you can designate a franchise player and basically pay them ridiculous amounts of money.

I would say that it couldn't be 3 players though or that makes it really tough to compete for teams that can't afford the franchise guy. One franchise player who can make like $20 million per year that is above and beyond the cap.

It means the big market teams get to have the superstars and the small market ones can't keep them, but that only knocks the best 15-20 players in the league out of the level of affordability and you can still build a good team without one of them.

It stops the cap from going up so fast because the extra bucks would just go to a few guys rathere than being spread all around and making everyone less affordable.

Interesting thought, the math works... not sure if I like the idea though from a philosophical perspective, smells too snooty and elitist for the hockey culture.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i heard a rough number that it could drop to 64-65m after the new cba negotiations but who knows....so thats not too bad

quick fix for salary cap: have a 20m gap every year between the ceiling and the floor so that teams wouldnt haft to give these ridiculous offers to players who have no business making that kinda money...lets say the ceiling is 70.3m then the floor would be 50.3m, its only roughly 2m more then the floor right now

p.s i dont know if this "quick fix" is possible with how they determine the salary cap and whatnot...

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just give us a lockout. The Canucks clearly need a year to figure out what's going wrong with the team and fix it. Stanley cup in 2014!

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

sign parise already, mike gillis

i dont give a sh*t <_<

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If this happens it'd all be about desirability of cities to play in... and some teams, believe it or not, can't afford that, teams like Columbus, Carolina, Phoenix etc. wouldn't have a chance, players would start getting 15 million dollar contracts!

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For folks thinking it will help us sign free agents, quite the opposite would be true if the cap was actually set at this amount.

There are a lot of teams in a cap crunch that can now go and add pieces, as well as a bunch of teams that needs to spend like drunken sailors to hit the cap floor.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think all free agents should sign for free, else they are lying when they say they are free agents.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I suppose because he thinks that an illusion of stability is more important than actually being stable. Just listen to his "state of the league address" from yesterday. Everything is roses everywhere according to him and the CBA negotations are going to go fine... and Phoenix is in good shape.... and all the team that are reported to be for sale aren't "really" for sale... blah blah.

No question that ego is playing a big role in this.

One answer to why he hasn't been fired... those small revenue teams are heavily supporting him, and until the big market teams decide to throw their weight around and make demands it will stay that way because they are outvoted. Bettman got it into the rules that the teams need way more than a simple majority to over-ride his decisions.

Someone sporstcaster made comments about it not being entirely out of the realm of possibility for the big market teams to decide to make their own league if they keep getting outvoted. You then end up with the Canadian teams plus some of the traditional American ones getting a "super-league" and being able to afford all the top end talent.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

this is just asking for problems..

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I suppose because he thinks that an illusion of stability is more important than actually being stable. Just listen to his "state of the league address" from yesterday. Everything is roses everywhere according to him and the CBA negotations are going to go fine... and Phoenix is in good shape.... and all the team that are reported to be for sale aren't "really" for sale... blah blah.

No question that ego is playing a big role in this.

One answer to why he hasn't been fired... those small revenue teams are heavily supporting him, and until the big market teams decide to throw their weight around and make demands it will stay that way because they are outvoted. Bettman got it into the rules that the teams need way more than a simple majority to over-ride his decisions.

Someone sporstcaster made comments about it not being entirely out of the realm of possibility for the big market teams to decide to make their own league if they keep getting outvoted. You then end up with the Canadian teams plus some of the traditional American ones getting a "super-league" and being able to afford all the top end talent.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You missed the important part of his statement... if the CBA wasn't expiring that is what the cap would be.

Has to be expected when you replaced one of the lowest revenue teams in Atlanta with Winnipeg which is much higher revenue.

As a matter of fact, if you do that a couple more times (other bottom teams like Phoenix)... the cap ceiling (and floor) would rise to the point where it would bankrupt a dozen teams in the league to try to match it.

That is one of the main reasons why Bettman has been resistant to letting those teams move and why he certainly didn't want another REALLY high revenue team coming into southern Ontario. Imagine adding another team with Toronto-like revenues into that mix and it would upset the entire delicate balance of the league's finances.

Of course it is all silly of Bettman and his cronies to purposefully try to keep the league revenues down. They have to just bite the bullet and know we are going to go through a short transition period where 2-5 more teams relocate to better cities in which to do business.... the whole league comes out of that looking like roses.

Bettman personally has too much at stake in the weak southern markets so that would never happen until he is gone. It does however, give the players a lot of good arguments in collective bargaining. They can argue all day long that the revenues are going up and if the league wants to prop up bad franchises they can do it by revenue sharing and not by having the players do it for the owners by accepting smaller salaries.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I suspect you are not giving Bettman enough credit for the job he has done and you are questioning his support by owners.

When the last CBA was signed the league revenue was +/- $1.8 billion. I believe it is now over $3 billion. The NHL has stayed in the southern markets and in weaker northern markets because they are major TV markets. The persistance has paid off with the recent TV contract for over $300 million per year. If in fact the NHL can solidify these broadcast revenues and come anywhere near what the NBA, MLB and NFL get then the NHL franchises double or triple in value.

Dropping the players share from 57% to 52% is bringing the player compensation more into line with other major leagues. The take by players is not being reduced as the pie is getting bigger. When you look at the NHL franchises balance sheets they are not raking in big returns. Yes a argument can be made about the validity of all the revenue streams but the CBA does have a process in play for the NHLPA to vet the numbers.

Suggesting that the CAP spread between the minimum and maximum be increased as a solution defeats the purpose of the CAP system. Canadian clubs were paying in $US 0.70 cent dollars not that many years ago. The Oilers, Flamers and Sens were all being threatened with bankruptcy. Allowing richer markets to outspend their competitors could kill CUP aspirations for over half the league. Personally rather than increasing the CAP spread the NHLPA should target a larger contribution to the Players Retirement fund.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The NHL is a business just like any other sports league and a business' no.1 goal is to maximize revenue and profit. If this is bettman's reason for not moving teams from struggling markets to more profitable markets then that's just stupid. Why hasn't this guy been fired yet?

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That is most certainly the problem. It would make the cap floor $54 million... a lot of team can in no way afford that.

If you don't change the revenue percentage, then you either have to let the difference between the cap floor and ceiling be wider... which means the cap goes UP EVEN MORE (if some teams are allowed to spend less, then some have to be able to pay more or the revenue percentage calculation stops working.

So we have very few solutions:

1. Let the cap floor and ceiling become wider... say $80 million ceiling and $45 million floor

2. Dramatically lower the player % of revenue

3. The league has to institute revenue sharing to prop up the cash-strapped teams

4. Let the cash-strapped teams move to places they can make money.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.