canuckelhead70 Posted November 4, 2012 Share Posted November 4, 2012 Does anyone know if December is the absolute earliest the season can start? Like if they reached a deal mid next week, could we get playing around November 20th ish? Prior to the start of the season, most people were speculating that December was the most likely start. Based on recent events, it would appear that it is indeed leaning towards december. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boudrias Posted November 4, 2012 Share Posted November 4, 2012 You know they have to pay relocation fees to the NHL, right? The fees just to relocate to Winnipeg were $60 M. Of course, neither matters to players as the NHL does not share its revenue. In either case, new teams generate revenue and relocated teams hopefully start earning instead of losing, and that matters to everyone. EDIT: I think the major problem the NHL has with expanding into Canadian markets is that there's little to be gained. Hockey fans here will seek out a team even if one isn't near them. When teams relocate, fans just move their loyalty but not many new fans come. In the States, though, they have more hope of actually drawing new people to being fans. Basically Canadian teams are seen as merely splitting certain revenue but American teams are seen as having the potential to grow league revenue. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boudrias Posted November 4, 2012 Share Posted November 4, 2012 Pretty sure, they've both either been drugged and locked in a room by Bettman and Donald Fehr, watching every star wars movie, or there's a secret afehr, we don't know about Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gizmo2337 Posted November 4, 2012 Share Posted November 4, 2012 Gizmo, $200M team revenue sharing could make most teams at least break even. The problem is we don't know how it will be shared if they create the proposed revenue sharing committee that will decide which teams get what. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
poetica Posted November 4, 2012 Share Posted November 4, 2012 There already is revenue sharing in place, proposed $200 million for next year. google simple info before engaging ppl in discussion. waste of my time replying to you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boxiebrown Posted November 4, 2012 Share Posted November 4, 2012 Cleary a qualified and informed statement... you're drooling. Anyways, this should be taken as the NHL making a major concession in the 'make whole' provision and the escrow definition. This is the kind of movement necessary towards a deal being made, and I'm fully of the belief that the players should make the next concession. We're close. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
poetica Posted November 4, 2012 Share Posted November 4, 2012 Canadian clubs are like a safety net for the NHL right now. Gate receipts are solid along with the other HRR they generate. The NHL is not going to move an existing club into TO. If they auctioned off an expansion team there it could generate $500 million. I highly doubt they could get the same money in Quebec or Seattle. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
poetica Posted November 4, 2012 Share Posted November 4, 2012 Yes indeed, player costs have been rising over the course of the last CBA forcing more and more teams into the red. Bottom line: the cap has been raised too high, too quickly. The owners need a new CBA to protect them from themselves. Too bad they have no self restraint. I really wish I had access to a complete chart: HRR, profit, loss, player costs etc for the past ten years. Anyone have one? I almost feel foolish for asking, because the players and owners probably don't have one either. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
-Vintage Canuck- Posted November 4, 2012 Author Share Posted November 4, 2012 @aaronward_nhl NHLPA negotiating committee conference call, Sunday at 3:30 PM (Eastern). #TSN Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John.Tallhouse Posted November 4, 2012 Share Posted November 4, 2012 If we can get a deal done soon, how many games can we get this season? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sergei Shirokov Posted November 4, 2012 Share Posted November 4, 2012 If we can get a deal done soon, how many games can we get this season? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DarthMelvin Posted November 4, 2012 Share Posted November 4, 2012 Statement is just as accurate if you replace Fehr with Bettman and players with owners. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boudrias Posted November 4, 2012 Share Posted November 4, 2012 I think a lot of people agree with you about the cap raising too quickly, especially the floor. But, as you also hinted at, how many teams pled poverty and then willingly overspent to ceiling? And, the cap only rose as did revenues, so it may actually be these other less clearly defined costs that are the major problem for many teams. Like you I'd really love to see the breakdown of the numbers. Unfortunately the HRR reporting as it stood under the last CBA didn't require anything that detailed and even if it did, the NHL would almost certainly not release that information anyway. (And I guess who can blame them? What privately held company does give out that kind of detailed financial information?) Players have been saying that they think there are some cost saving measures that need to be done besides simply reducing their share so there's probably at least a little fire with that smoke. Likely, combining both approaches with a slightly lowered share for players (especially by lowering the floor) and requiring teams to demonstrate financial responsibility in their spending would be the most successful for the most teams. Unfortunately, so far owners have only seemed to be willing to do the first part. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Standing_Tall#37 Posted November 4, 2012 Share Posted November 4, 2012 Can you show me where this is true and please back this up...lol bet you can't Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
poetica Posted November 4, 2012 Share Posted November 4, 2012 What am I missing? If all 30 teams paid to the CAP max of $70 mil = $2.1 billion. 57% of HRR $3.3 billion = $1.88 Billion or roughly $63 mil per team. How is the NHLPA getting what they feel is their share of revenue? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gizmo2337 Posted November 4, 2012 Share Posted November 4, 2012 I've put together a list for historical player salary per team from 2000-2012. It's an excel 2003 format spreadsheet that I've attached (forum won't allow excel, so I had to zip it to attach). I did a lot of cutting and pasting, so there could be errors. Also, note that USA TODAY puts its numbers together based on year end roster, so the actual amount spent isn't exactly right due to trading, injury etc. For the years 2009-2012 I had to sum the data with spreadsheet from the original USA TODAY source. Source(s): http://en.wikipedia....olls_in_the_NHL http://www.usatoday.com/sports/nhl/ There is definitely some interesting things going on. NYI sure does a good job of finding a way to barely make the CAP floor without spending any money. LAK look like they will need to dump some salary in the next year or two. Also, it looks like it took three years for players to recover from that roll back in the last lockout. If I had HRR numbers, this data would be even more useful. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
elvis15 Posted November 4, 2012 Share Posted November 4, 2012 Would you support a NHL Luxury cap? (Randomly throwing it out there) Well ofcourse Canucks fans would, we could actually afford to over spend. Unfair but ehh... Mixed thoughts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
canuckelhead70 Posted November 4, 2012 Share Posted November 4, 2012 From June 2011 In two days, NHL free agency begins. Usually, this is a time when deep-pocketed teams try to outspend one another for the biggest fish in the pond. And with Brad Richards as the only star worth bidding on, there is little doubt that will once again happen. But something else is happening. Something that threatens the financial stability of small-market teams and could become a point of contention in the next round of collective-bargaining negotiations. It started last week with what would seem like positive news: an increase in the salary cap for 2011-12 to US$64.3-million. Financially flush teams like the Philadelphia Flyers were suddenly blessed with US$4.9-million more to spend. But that rising tide also raises the salary cap floor, the minimum amount teams are mandated to spend per the collective bargaining contract. Every team was now obliged to spend at least US$48.3-million. The salary cap was supposed to level the field, making it so the poor could compete with the rich. Instead, the minimum teams must spend has become so high — the amount is actually US$9.3-million more than the maximum in 2005-06 — that some teams are wondering where they will find the money. “We’re at the point where it’s tough to make our business work,” Carolina Hurricanes general manager Jim Rutherford said. “So from our point of view, I’m concerned about it.” There are currently 17 teams that have yet to spend to the minimum. Most, like the Toronto Maple Leafs and Tampa Bay Lightning, are one or two players away from getting there. But for the Florida Panthers, it is starting to look like the plot to the 1985 film Brewster’s Millions, where Richard Pryor’s character is challenged to spend US$30-million in 30 days. The trade that Florida made for Brian Campbell at last weekend’s draft had folks laughing. Florida sent Rotislav Olesz to the Chicago Blackhawks for Campbell, not because the Panthers particularly needed a defenceman, but rather because Campbell has a cap hit of US$7-million compared to Olesz’s US$3.125-million. With about US$24-milion more to spend on 11 or so players, the Panthers are looking to soak up even more cap space when free agency opens on Friday. “We’re excited about this,” Panthers general manager Dale Tallon told reporters. “It took a lot of pain to get ourselves in this position. We’ve earned the right to do what we need to do to get this franchise turned around.” This would be a nice situation to be in if there were actual players to spend money on. But aside from Richards, there is a dearth of top-level free agents. So what could end up happening is that mid-level forwards such as Tomas Fleischmann, Ville Leino and Tomas Kopecky could be signed for more than they might otherwise deserve. “There will be teams spending money that don’t normally do it, so it’s going to change the market,” one general manager said. “You may have teams that don’t have the money to spend that will have to be spending to get up to the floor.” If a team does not have the money to spend, how does it meet its contractual requirements without risking a rising tide of red ink? There are two ways. A team can sign players to performance bonuses that count against the cap whether or not they are achieved. Or, teams can look for players with expiring contracts where the cap hit — calculated by the average yearly salary — is higher than the actual salary payout for the season. It is sort of like the Ilya Kolvachuk contract calculations in reverse. The absurd length of Kovalchuk’s original 17-year , US$102-million contract brought the average salary, and the cap hit, down to US$6-million per season. Either scheme outlined above brings the cap hit up without actually spending the money. “In order to get to the floor, you don’t have to spend US$48.3-million,” Rutherford said. “The number you have to get to the floor with is your cap. So the fact of the matter is there could be teams that get to US$48.3-million, but they’re really only spending US$40-million in cash.” Entry-level contracts have a maximum limit of US$925,000. But players can earn up to US$2.85-million in performance bonuses that, again, need not be met to take up cap space. “The other way of doing it is by picking up a player from another team whose contract was front-loaded and has a higher cap hit than what the cash is at the time,” Rutherford said. “There are contracts out there that you can find that are front end-loaded.” Montreal’s Scott Gomez is suddenly an attractive trade option. His contract might have an average cap hit of US$7-million, but he is owed only US$17.5-million over the final three years of the deal, a budget-friendlier cash outlay of US$5.8-million per year. Suddenly, he no longer seems immovable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RyanKeslord17 Posted November 4, 2012 Share Posted November 4, 2012 I've gotten just a little bit optimistic after that long meeting Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smashian Kassian Posted November 4, 2012 Share Posted November 4, 2012 Welcome back. Where is Sharpshooter? Your post makes little sense. The players are continually replaced. The NHL can and will draft new players . If you think fans are going to POUT and go get a subscription to the KHL then you are mistaken. They will watch with distain at first , but will get used to it and the players will be replaced by the draft . The NHLPA has no leverage here. Lets face it. The NHL owns the league and the stanley cup. The players own nothing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.