gizmo2337 Posted November 5, 2012 Share Posted November 5, 2012 Yep, not a coincidence that it's been tops ever since the Aquilini's took over. It's a good testament to the stable committed ownership we have here now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
D-Money Posted November 5, 2012 Share Posted November 5, 2012 Canucks' overwhelming financial gains are due to many things, but probably #1 is the value of the Canadian dollar. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
poetica Posted November 5, 2012 Share Posted November 5, 2012 I like the luxury tax idea going to stabilization and your idea of being able to trade CAP space. It might cause a competitve disparity however. Fine for those teams trying to rebuild with youth but uncompetitve at the upper end. For example. A Buffalo team who has rebuilt with youth over time facing a NYR team which has spent 125% of CAP to acquire an all-star squad. Buffalo might not be able to match NYR spending levels or even worse feel they have to overspend when they cannot afford to. Even so it might be worth a try. Also agree that shorter contracts are necessary to avoid CAP avoidance. NHLPA probably won't go for it as it has meant larger contracts over time. Tagging the signing club with long term CAP liability might temper that however. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gizmo2337 Posted November 5, 2012 Share Posted November 5, 2012 I understand the desire for competitive parity but I just don't know if it's even possible, cap or not. As you rightly alluded to, even with the cap there was a disparity in what teams were spending thanks to cap avoidance tactics like long, front loaded contracts and claiming bonuses that were never paid out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
poetica Posted November 5, 2012 Share Posted November 5, 2012 One of the problems with allowing for cap trading, is it inflates (artificial) spending pool. Normally, that space would go unused. With a larger cap and more room total, this could effectively dilute the player share because of the greedy owners at the top spending more. It's still a 50/50 projected share, so wouldn't this actually hurt the smaller player at the expense of the higher paid players? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gizmo2337 Posted November 5, 2012 Share Posted November 5, 2012 The NHL wants to close the loopholes. If you look at the player spending chart, it was very erratic up to the last lockout, and then parity kicked in. Years 3-5 into the last CBA, loopholes began to be abused and we are back where we were (erratic spending and disparity between teams). I view cap trading as a new loophole that is almost certain to be exploited (NYR). How about they introduce a new level to the cap: (hard floor, soft floor, middle target, ceiling). Teams like NYI could be granted more revenue sharing for spending between soft floor and middle, but reduce that sharing if they really don't want to spend (a penalty of reduced revenue share pool for not keeping in parity with league). Teams spending between middle and ceiling pay more into the revenue share pool. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
poetica Posted November 5, 2012 Share Posted November 5, 2012 The NHL wants to close the loopholes. If you look at the player spending chart, it was very erratic up to the last lockout, and then parity kicked in. Years 3-5 into the last CBA, loopholes began to be abused and we are back where we were (erratic spending and disparity between teams). I view cap trading as a new loophole that is almost certain to be exploited (NYR). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Canada Hockey Place Posted November 5, 2012 Share Posted November 5, 2012 The player that writes as Cheapthroat just came back from Europe. He jokes he's going to single handedly stop the lockout. Considering he's going to the extra trouble of getting to NY, while the airports were closed, through MTL and driving from there. I think there may be some information the PA is optimistic about. Just a theory. http://thebarnstormer.com/category/cheap-throat/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Bookie Posted November 5, 2012 Share Posted November 5, 2012 CHP, I can't tell if that's tongue in cheek or if you're taking the Cheap Throat stuff seriously. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gizmo2337 Posted November 5, 2012 Share Posted November 5, 2012 I was meaning the soft cap, mid and ceiling would be where they are at now, and adding a new lower cap hard floor. Maybe we should just drop the floor altogether. But, the only way NYI could hope to ice a cup contending team would be to have longer contracts that are "back loaded". All of their prospects would have to line-up in the same time frame, and they would have to trade them before the back end of the deal kicked in. I would like to see them actually make the playoffs. I suppose the only real option is the increased revenue sharing that's already on the table. They need to change the formula for the cap ceiling. Probably remove the PA elected 5% growth option for starters. The revenue sharing needs to be tied to growth and not a fixed number, or we will be back here again in seven years. I'll be looking at the revenue sharing clause very carefully once the details become available. I fear it will have a fixed number. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ossi Vaananen Posted November 5, 2012 Share Posted November 5, 2012 Cheapthroat is Vanek, Austrian league is on a break, he announced he's coming back to New York - Buffalo. I don't think Vanek has that much sway to be honest. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Bookie Posted November 5, 2012 Share Posted November 5, 2012 If it’s November, it means serious negotiations are finally under way It has just seemed too scripted. Since like, May. There was always going to be a NHL lockout and there was never going to be hockey in October and November. Neither side in the NHL labour battled “wanted” it that way, but only if the solution was that they got a slam-dunk victory dropped in their laps in August or September. Both said repeatedly they wanted the season to start on time, but neither the owners nor the players did anything much to make that happen. The owners offered up a shocking initial proposal that would have pushed the NHL Players’ Association back 20 years. The union just basically declined to participate in the process by a peculiar form of passive aggressiveness. Why did both sides do it the way they did it? Well, the NHL had two major factors motivating its approach. First, they had their backs up with Don Fehr. After dealing with years of union dysfunction and chaos — there were times when they literally had no idea who to contact in the NHLPA offices — they were frustrated to have to deal with Fehr, who they saw from the beginning as a person who wouldn’t be able to close. Second, labour resolutions in other sports all approximated more of a 50-50 split in revenues that the NHL had. No self-respecting NHL owner was going to leave things anywhere near the 57-43 split that was in place in the final year of the old deal. And the players? Fehr made this about 2004. This was never about getting a deal in time not to miss any paycheques. It was about recovering the collective integrity and backbone that was “lost” in the last lockout. That simply couldn’t be done by getting a deal done in the summer. The union came to believe that negotiating and compromising and getting to work in September would be interpreted only as a sign of weakness. Fehr, who was at the mutineers’ beck and call when Paul Kelly was executed in the middle of the night, had convinced the union that compromise and practicality would send a message that the union was soft. The combination of these two positions, plus years of mistrust and mutual enmity and propaganda, meant that hockey fans were always going to be shortchanged. And as if a bell went off, the moment the calender switched over to November, the serious talks began. Both sides have already achieved a twisted version of what they wanted, which should clear the way for a deal now. The NHL will, in some form or another, get their 50-50 split, and they’ll be able to crow that they handled Fehr in a way that baseball never could. The union, meanwhile, will have its manhood back, and they’ll have used a dislike for Gary Bettman as a rallying cry, and they’ll know, as they always know, that agents will make sure that loopholes and cracks are found in the new deal that will ensure they end up ahead down the road, just as they experienced enormous salary increases after “losing” the last lockout. Hey, it could still get screwed up, and in its bloodless calculations, the NHL quite likely never anticipated losing the lucrative Winter Classic. Talks will resume tomorrow after some fruitful weekend discussions produced some intriguing new approaches, and while the nature of labour negotiations probably mandates there will be at least one more occasion when one side or the other stalks away from the talks and panic of another cancelled season erupts, playing by early December looks about right now. The incredibly frustrating thing for hockey fans and anybody who cares about this industry is that it looked this way last spring, and nobody did much to make sure it didn’t happen. The script went as logic dictated it would. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Canada Hockey Place Posted November 5, 2012 Share Posted November 5, 2012 CHP, I can't tell if that's tongue in cheek or if you're taking the Cheap Throat stuff seriously. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gizmo2337 Posted November 5, 2012 Share Posted November 5, 2012 Cheapthroat is Vanek, Austrian league is on a break, he announced he's coming back to New York - Buffalo. I don't think Vanek has that much sway to be honest. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
poetica Posted November 5, 2012 Share Posted November 5, 2012 I was meaning the soft cap, mid and ceiling would be where they are at now, and adding a new lower cap hard floor. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zissou Posted November 5, 2012 Share Posted November 5, 2012 Interesting if true. How did you figure that out, or is educated guess? I haven't been following that blog, but I just read a few days on there. Day 44 is a doozey! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fozzy Posted November 5, 2012 Share Posted November 5, 2012 Lp Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
elvis15 Posted November 5, 2012 Share Posted November 5, 2012 I was meaning the soft cap, mid and ceiling would be where they are at now, and adding a new lower cap hard floor. Maybe we should just drop the floor altogether. ... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
poetica Posted November 5, 2012 Share Posted November 5, 2012 I think there does have to be an element of tying it in towards actual increase in revenues rather than a fixed percentage, but your point about what happens to how players' contracts are protected if revenue doesn't increase is a good one. The only solution I see for that is a two-tiered approach, with a minimum of something like 3% being a fixed amount the cap must move each year, and for any revenue gains above that then the cap will move an equal amount (or a percentage of or something similar). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smashian Kassian Posted November 6, 2012 Share Posted November 6, 2012 The trouble with your hypo is that the NHL wouldn't walk away from former NHLers they would simply not recognize the NHLPA. If the NHL were to take replacement players a high % would likely be existing NHLers. I don't see this happening unless a whole season is lost. Since they are talking now it appears there might still be hockey this season. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.