Jump to content

Welcome to canucks.com Vancouver Canucks homepage

Photo
* * - - - 3 votes

*Official* CBA Negotiations and Lockout Thread


  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
6226 replies to this topic

#2281 Wolfman Jack

Wolfman Jack

    Canucks Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,541 posts
  • Joined: 27-April 07

Posted 04 November 2012 - 06:50 AM

Donald Fehr has a war to win for himself and will not give in. He has brainwashed the players here and the whole season may go down the drain. What's really sad is that the players are greedy and foolish enough to believe him.
They need a reality check and need to smarten up they are making a big mistake.

Statement is just as accurate if you replace Fehr with Bettman and players with owners.
  • 2
Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from religious conviction.
Blaise Pascal

#2282 canuckelhead70

canuckelhead70

    Comets Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 609 posts
  • Joined: 07-April 12

Posted 04 November 2012 - 08:11 AM

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.


2004 season was cancelled on Feb 16th

1994-95 season began Jan 20th......48 games
  • 0

#2283 Boudrias

Boudrias

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,232 posts
  • Joined: 14-January 04

Posted 04 November 2012 - 08:47 AM

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.

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.

While Canadian franchises might be solid gate earners they do not attract big interest to the NHL business plan of selling content to USA TV broadcast media. Gate driven revenue does not have the growth potential that media has. I think I mentioned before that the NFL has $45 billion in TV contracts whereas the NHL has $2 billion (USA only). Sad to say but if the NHL is successfull in selling to USA media the Canadian influence will fall off drastically.
  • 0

#2284 Boudrias

Boudrias

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,232 posts
  • Joined: 14-January 04

Posted 04 November 2012 - 08:57 AM

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

Not drugged. Locked in the room to watch HNIC replay of the 12/31/75 Canadians VS Red Army game. One of the best games ever played. SHocked me at how poor the TV angles were in those days. It didn't seem bad at the time. Good ol' Danny what a broadcaster!
  • 0

#2285 gizmo2337

gizmo2337

    Canucks Prospect

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,056 posts
  • Joined: 30-September 05

Posted 04 November 2012 - 09:14 AM

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.


The best two charts I could find showing the numbers are here:
http://tinyurl.com/cdx9wxb (profit - source: forbes.com)
http://tinyurl.com/axwarjb (revenue - source: milehighhockey.com)

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.
  • 0

#2286 poetica

poetica

    Canucks Third-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,635 posts
  • Joined: 09-June 11

Posted 04 November 2012 - 09:54 AM

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.


Dial back the attitude and maybe catch up on reading this thread. I'm well aware of the revenue sharing that's already in place. Had you bothered to actually read my previous message you would have noticed I mentioned the existing revenue share program and how they used it to help prop up Phoenix at the expense of other teams by allowing that team to get the revenue share money despite not meeting the requirements other teams had to meet.

And if you took your own advice to Google it you'd know that I said "proposed" was operative word because 1) last season the revenue sharing was closer to $160 M than the $200 M that you quoted and 2) that the last CBA so severely limited which teams were eligible for revenue sharing by market size and % of tickets sold that most teams losing money weren't even eligible from the get go, making it all but useless for overall league sustainability.

Edited by poetica, 04 November 2012 - 10:07 AM.

  • 0
Go, Canucks, Go!
Every single one of them.

Thanks for the memories, Luo! :'(

#2287 boxiebrown

boxiebrown

    Comets Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 646 posts
  • Joined: 06-May 08

Posted 04 November 2012 - 09:58 AM

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.

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.


I don't necessarily disagree with you that this is how it will play out, but the idea that the owners agreeing to pay the contracts they signed a few months ago represents a "concession" is hilarious and depressing.
  • 0

#2288 poetica

poetica

    Canucks Third-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,635 posts
  • Joined: 09-June 11

Posted 04 November 2012 - 10:07 AM

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.


Just noticed an article in an October issue of The Hockey News about expansion. In it they say that the NHL is in fact expected to expand to 32 teams by awarding franchises to Quebec City and a second to Toronto. So, it would seem that there's definitely some validity to that theory. Guess we'll see.

Edited by poetica, 04 November 2012 - 10:09 AM.

  • 0
Go, Canucks, Go!
Every single one of them.

Thanks for the memories, Luo! :'(

#2289 poetica

poetica

    Canucks Third-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,635 posts
  • Joined: 09-June 11

Posted 04 November 2012 - 10:58 AM

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.


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.
  • 0
Go, Canucks, Go!
Every single one of them.

Thanks for the memories, Luo! :'(

#2290 -Vintage Canuck-

-Vintage Canuck-

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 72,100 posts
  • Joined: 24-May 10

Posted 04 November 2012 - 11:21 AM

@aaronward_nhl
NHLPA negotiating committee conference call, Sunday at 3:30 PM (Eastern). #TSN
  • 0

307mg00.jpg


#2291 John.Tallhouse

John.Tallhouse

    Canucks Rookie

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,576 posts
  • Joined: 24-May 12

Posted 04 November 2012 - 11:32 AM

If we can get a deal done soon, how many games can we get this season?
  • 0
Posted Image

#2292 Sergei Shirokov

Sergei Shirokov

    Canucks Rookie

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,551 posts
  • Joined: 29-March 08

Posted 04 November 2012 - 11:35 AM

If we can get a deal done soon, how many games can we get this season?


Looks like it would be around 66-68.... similar to what the NBA had last year.
  • 0

#2293 fwybwed

fwybwed

    Canucks Rookie

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,992 posts
  • Joined: 13-January 03

Posted 04 November 2012 - 11:42 AM

Statement is just as accurate if you replace Fehr with Bettman and players with owners.


Can you show me where this is true and please back this up...lol bet you can't
  • 0

#2294 Boudrias

Boudrias

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,232 posts
  • Joined: 14-January 04

Posted 04 November 2012 - 11:54 AM

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.

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?
  • 0

#2295 Standing_Tall#37

Standing_Tall#37

    Canucks Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,963 posts
  • Joined: 07-October 09

Posted 04 November 2012 - 11:56 AM

Can you show me where this is true and please back this up...lol bet you can't

3 proposals, 10 minutes. That is all.

Edited by Standing_Tall#37, 04 November 2012 - 12:08 PM.

  • 1

#2296 poetica

poetica

    Canucks Third-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,635 posts
  • Joined: 09-June 11

Posted 04 November 2012 - 01:03 PM

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?


I'm not sure I understand what you're asking but there's definitely some misinformation there.

The cap for the 2011/12 season was set at "a lower limit of $48.3 million, an adjusted midpoint of $56.3 million and an upper limit of $64.3 million." (Source: http://www.nhl.com/i...s.htm?id=566916) So no team spent to $70 M, much less all of them.

According to Cap Geek's archive (Source: http://www.capgeek.c...e/?year_id=2011) teams spent between $66.9M and $49.1M. It's important to note, however, that the site notes those numbers include all performance bonuses listed at the maximum amount that could have been earned (as opposed to what was actually paid out), so those numbers are probably higher than what teams actually spent. We can probably assume that teams stayed within the cap limit (even though their list shows 4 teams, including Vancouver, spending over it).

Even if we assume the numbers Cap Geek has are correct, teams spent $1.77B on salary. Also counted against players' share are other "preliminary benefits" that aren't included in the salary. The NHL's 82-game proposal (Source: http://www.nhl.com/i...s.htm?id=643570) assumed a constant revenue from last season to the next, so we can assume the amount they gave for preliminary benefits, $95M, is accurate for what was spent last season. If you add that amount to the salary that was spent (according to Cap Geek) then teams spent $1.86B last season which is actually below the players' 57% share. (I'm unclear if players were given addition money to make up for being underpaid their percentage. Anyone else know what procedure there was for that event, if any?)

Also, as stories like from the National Post (Source: http://sports.nation...e-salary-floor/) point out, some teams were using creative accounting to appear to spend more than they actually were. For example, by signing contracts with performance bonuses which counted against the cap even if they were not actually paid out or by picking up players from other teams with front loaded contracts later in their contracts so their cap hit remained higher than their actual paid salary for that season.
  • 2
Go, Canucks, Go!
Every single one of them.

Thanks for the memories, Luo! :'(

#2297 gizmo2337

gizmo2337

    Canucks Prospect

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,056 posts
  • Joined: 30-September 05

Posted 04 November 2012 - 02:27 PM

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.

Attached Files


  • 0

#2298 elvis15

elvis15

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 21,506 posts
  • Joined: 27-February 07

Posted 04 November 2012 - 02:44 PM

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.

Well, there has been that suggested by the NHLPA as a potential option (since they were against a hard cap to begin with). So long as the money generated from that luxury tax goes to into revenue sharing, it's a reasonable option.

Some teams obviously want to spend more money than others. Some are making money even when spending to the current cap, let alone if the cap structure were decreased as a part of a new CBA. That allows teams to spend if they want to and help the teams that can't afford it in the process.

As mentioned, if the cap does drop, teams will have to have a way to exceed it since there are some spending to the current cap already. This could be a way to do it until everything could balance out. a gradual reduction still seems to make the most sense to me though.

Just noticed an article in an October issue of The Hockey News about expansion. In it they say that the NHL is in fact expected to expand to 32 teams by awarding franchises to Quebec City and a second to Toronto. So, it would seem that there's definitely some validity to that theory. Guess we'll see.

It's been rumoured a number of times, and the NHLPA has asked the NHL as a part of the negotiations about it and were told there are no plans for expansion. That may change, and things you hear aren't always true (for both the rumours and what the NHL told the NHLPA) but I'd think the NHL would at least evaluate a couple of seasons under the new CBA before assessing the possibilities for expansion.
  • 0

c3c9e9.pnganimalhousesig.jpg

Tanev is going to EDM. I can put my life savings down on it

 


#2299 canuckelhead70

canuckelhead70

    Comets Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 609 posts
  • Joined: 07-April 12

Posted 04 November 2012 - 02:57 PM

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.
  • 0

#2300 RyanKeslord17

RyanKeslord17

    Canucks First-Line

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,895 posts
  • Joined: 22-January 11

Posted 04 November 2012 - 02:58 PM

I've gotten just a little bit optimistic after that long meeting :P
  • 0
Posted Image

#2301 Smashian Kassian

Smashian Kassian

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 14,349 posts
  • Joined: 10-June 10

Posted 04 November 2012 - 03:08 PM

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.


You missed the point of his post, he was refering to a new North American league.

Lets say the NHL did hired replacement players and cut ties with those locked out, the then former NHLer's formed a new (NA) league, and got a TV contract (I know this is completely hypothetically but stay with me). Would you honestly watch the old league? I might keep tabs on the Canucks, but doubtful.

And you say "they can draft new players" The NHL isn't the only league that has a draft, the KHL drafts NHL prospects all the time, they just choose not to go there, so the new league could have a draft aswell, then it would be prospect descision on where they would want to go. Some would prob go to the NHL but I could see other's going to the other league aswell.

The players are the one's that are marketed, and the players are what sells tickets and makes money, if all the NHL's stars jumped ship to a new NA league that league would gain a ton attention.
  • 0

zackass.png


#2302 -Vintage Canuck-

-Vintage Canuck-

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 72,100 posts
  • Joined: 24-May 10

Posted 04 November 2012 - 03:19 PM

Malhotra: Players would be “on vacation somewhere stuffing our faces” if they didn’t want to play:

Manny Malhotra is like most other players affected by the lockout. He’s upset with the owners and he just wants to get out there and play hockey.


As he tells Elliott Pap of the Vancouver Sun, he’d have other plans if he wasn’t serious about getting back on the ice and getting a new CBA worked out with the owners.


“If we had no desire to get back to the games, we’d be on vacation somewhere stuffing our faces rather than skating and working out every day,” he stated. “To say that guys don’t want to negotiate and get things done would be a wrong statement.”


The players’ resolve hasn’t been questioned at all through this process. If you’re on Twitter and following any of the players, you know they’re involved in the process even to the point of annoyance.


Add to that the number of players who headed overseas to play as well as CBC’s Elliotte Friedman report saying the players want Donald and Steve Fehr to negotiate with the owners more.


Putting that much more effort into the process might be one of the few things to help get a deal done sooner than possible.


http://prohockeytalk..._medium=twitter
  • 0

307mg00.jpg


#2303 thad

thad

    Canucks Second-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,216 posts
  • Joined: 09-February 09

Posted 04 November 2012 - 03:56 PM

Mobile
  • 0

#2304 -Vintage Canuck-

-Vintage Canuck-

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 72,100 posts
  • Joined: 24-May 10

Posted 04 November 2012 - 04:04 PM

@RenLavoieRDS
Next NHL CBA talks will be in NY this week. Probably not before Tuesday. Positive ? We'll see, but better than the last 2 weeks ? Yes
  • 0

307mg00.jpg


#2305 gizmo2337

gizmo2337

    Canucks Prospect

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,056 posts
  • Joined: 30-September 05

Posted 04 November 2012 - 04:07 PM

After compiling the numbers and doing some more thinking, my respect level for Charles Wang has gone up a fair amount. He's a backwards thinking cap-ologist to the rest of the league. "How can I ice a team and spend the minimum real dollar value possible, to break even".

That trade for Visnovsky was about meeting the cap floor for NYI, and reducing player salary level for ANA. Any player whose cap hit is higher than payout is valuable to Mr Wang, such as Visnovsky. In fact, the new retirement rule is dangerous for that club. For instance, Wang could sign a long term deal mid-loaded, trade the player away and hope that that player retires. It's like our Luongo situation, but for the cap floor teams, this rule actually helps. It quickly gets axed with short contract length and % variance though. However, I think putting the 5% variance in there actually might hurt some teams trying to get by on the real dollar budget (as opposed to cap).
  • 0

#2306 DeNiro

DeNiro

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 22,420 posts
  • Joined: 22-April 08

Posted 04 November 2012 - 04:50 PM

@RenLavoieRDS
Next NHL CBA talks will be in NY this week. Probably not before Tuesday. Positive ? We'll see, but better than the last 2 weeks ? Yes


Back to the media manipulation game I guess.

I honestly think that everyone involved here relish having the spotlight on them too much. And that's a problem. Too many egos going on here.

Edited by DeNiro, 04 November 2012 - 04:55 PM.

  • 0

Posted Image


"Dream until the dream come true"


#2307 Hobble

Hobble

    Canucks All-Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 15,675 posts
  • Joined: 27-June 07

Posted 04 November 2012 - 04:57 PM

Why can't they have an upper cap tied to revenue, but the floor be fixed at some finite amount? That way, teams aren't forced to spend past their means.
  • 0

#2308 poetica

poetica

    Canucks Third-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,635 posts
  • Joined: 09-June 11

Posted 04 November 2012 - 05:04 PM

It's like our Luongo situation, but for the cap floor teams, this rule actually helps. It quickly gets axed with short contract length and % variance though. However, I think putting the 5% variance in there actually might hurt some teams trying to get by on the real dollar budget (as opposed to cap).


Very true. Those long contracts were actually a rather clever way for teams to get what they wanted out of the last CBA, either to get to overpay if you could afford to do so or to underpay if you needed to. Reducing the length and allowed growth percentage will definitely hurt both the top teams and the bottom teams by removing that option. It seems it really only helps the middle spending teams. Lowering the cap floor significantly, as proposed, will obviously help the lower end teams but will not help the higher end teams with any problems the NHL's proposed CBA would create for them getting under cap without having to trade away players.

I think that's why some people have suggested a luxury tax where teams pay to get a higher cap with the proceeds going to the lower teams. It's certainly a viable option, although a different option may be just to create a bigger spread between the floor and ceiling from the get go. That of course won't have a direct benefit on team revenue sharing, but since the top revenue teams contribute 50% of the team revenue share money already I don't think they'll want to be taxed for more. (That being said, if the "purchase cap" system were created as an alternate method of contributing to revenue sharing it might work, but only with a backup system in place to guarantee a set amount of team revenue sharing in the event that teams don't volunteer to "donate.") Personally, I like the wider cap spread idea because it would allow teams to better decide for themselves what they can/should spend and force them to take responsibility for their own bottom line. Of course, the major problem with that idea is ensuring owners spend around the players' share in each year without going too much over or under and my only thought for a way to address that (a 3-tiered cap system) sort of ballooned on me and became way too complicated. *lol*

EDIT: Actually, I just thought of another possible solution: What if we allowed teams to make $10M of their cap space transferable? Then, the higher end teams could trade to get more cap space and the lower end teams could trade away cap space they can't afford. That would allow teams losing money to lower their salary floor while allowing teams that want to spend more to raise their cap ceiling, all the while ensuring players' share remains consistent.

Edited by poetica, 04 November 2012 - 05:08 PM.

  • 0
Go, Canucks, Go!
Every single one of them.

Thanks for the memories, Luo! :'(

#2309 DeNiro

DeNiro

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 22,420 posts
  • Joined: 22-April 08

Posted 04 November 2012 - 05:10 PM

Why can't they have an upper cap tied to revenue, but the floor be fixed at some finite amount? That way, teams aren't forced to spend past their means.


Because then you don't have the parity that Bettman and co have tried to implement.

There's no way the struggling teams can compete with the wealthy teams if you allow them to spend that much more money.
  • 1

Posted Image


"Dream until the dream come true"


#2310 WHL rocks

WHL rocks

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,615 posts
  • Joined: 09-May 10

Posted 04 November 2012 - 05:24 PM

Mobile

  • 0




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users

Canucks.com is the official Web site of The Vancouver Canucks. The Vancouver Canucks and Canucks.com are trademarks of The Vancouver Canucks Limited Partnership.  NHL and the word mark and image of the Stanley Cup are registered trademarks and the NHL Shield and NHL Conference logos are trademarks of the National Hockey League. All NHL logos and marks and NHL team logos and marks as well as all other proprietary materials depicted herein are the property of the NHL and the respective NHL teams and may not be reproduced without the prior written consent of NHL Enterprises, L.P.  Copyright © 2009 The Vancouver Canucks Limited Partnership and the National Hockey League.  All Rights Reserved.