Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
PeteyNice

NHL SEASON OFFICIALLY CANCELLED

294 posts in this topic

Funny. I'm against the new proposals because teams are going to go under.

7 on the other hand is for the new proposals because teams are going to go under.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

HoustonOilers.jpg

Ohhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh

Houston has the Oilers the greatest hockey team.....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
If Calgary, Edmonton, or Pittsburgh goes under, it will be because they don't have a new facility, not because of any CBA.  Pittsburgh especially needs a new building.  However, Calgary and Edmonton have rabid fan bases and under a new CBA, they will not face serious salary problems. 

If teams did not go under during the old CBA, they will not be folding now.  As smelly has so often said:  the value of a franchise is its value, not its profits; as long as losses run consistently under 10 million, these teams will stay afloat.  The consortium that owns Calgary, for example, has plenty of money.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

bettman has said that he wants every team to be able to make money, obviously he has come off that. it won't happen.

teams DID go under in the old CBA. buffalo, pittsburgh and ottawa were pretty much dead, they were kept on life support for this very moment.

you don't know what these owners can tolerate, yea I think they should stay afloat with losses under 10 mil but they did make it clear in previous weeks that they were sick of doing that. bettman didn't guarantee them any money with this new CBA, but he is testing there committment to hockey. I don't think Edmonton and Calgary were that bad off to begin with.

Pittsburgh will struggle to meet the minimum and probably won't last long. same with anaheim, atlanta, nashville, carolina, and florida. They still will be outspent by a wide margin and won't make the playoffs. maybe he gave them a tiny safety net, but he's all but abandoned saving the weaker, unecessary teams for the greater good of the game, which is the right thing to do.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

the weaker, unnecessary teams you mention: in the last 9 years, four of the six made it to the conference finals, and the other two were recent expansions. Hell, in the last four years, three of them made it to the conference finals.

They're hardly weak, and hardly unnecessary. If teams begin folding, that will create serious problems for potential investors in the NHL. There is no way that that can begin happening.

Eight teams is enough to vote down any CBA proposal. If things turn out as you say they will, and they usually don't, then there's no way this would get approval.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
the weaker, unnecessary teams you mention:
Edited by '7'

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yet another letter from the NHLPA:

Dear Gary,

This is in reply to your most recent letter.

1. Your claim that the Clubs ''cannot afford'' our proposal is based on your hypothetical fear of what would happen if every team spent to the $49 million level the Players have proposed. The notion that ''every Club'' will spend at the $49 million level is contradicted by years of actual payroll experience under the old CBA system and by Exhibit 12 of your December 14 document (attached for your recollection), in which you projected 24 teams well below the $49 million level after the rollback. Further, this experience is based on an environment without revenue sharing, taxes on team payrolls and the numerous new system restrictions.

2. Based on your own calculations from Exhibit 12, over 21 Clubs are spending significantly less than your team payroll limit number of $42.5 million. I am at a loss to understand how you suggest your offer earlier today represents a $75 million dollar increase when it only impacts the spending of nine teams!

You will receive nothing further from us.

Regards,

NATIONAL HOCKEY LEAGUE

PLAYERS ASSOCIATION

Robert W. Goodenow

Executive Director & General Counsel

http://www.tsn.ca/nhl/news_story.asp?id=115096

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I still think the players should've dug in at 47 mill. 49 is a bit risky for Goodenow. The NHLPA should've made 1 more offer and waited.

will they crack at 49?

Edited by '7'

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I hate to say it. But Goodenow called him out on what others posted here. It's time for Gary to step up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am also calling Goodenow's letter bluff. I think if he got Gary to go up to say 44, then he'd go down to 47 and they'd be almost at the point where they could finalize.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think it's a bluff Derek. He's just saying that he won't make the next move. If the owners come back with another proposal I am sure Goodenow will counter he just won't negotiate with himself against the deadline.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I am also calling Goodenow's letter bluff. I think if he got Gary to go up to say 44, then he'd go down to 47 and they'd be almost at the point where they could finalize.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

there is one more major movement left. if bettman goes to 44 and goodenow still insists on 49, it's goodenow's fault. If Gary doesn't respond to this letter then it's his fault for not taking the next step.

Edited by '7'

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

These two morons should pick up the phone, talk about how INCREDIBLY stupid they'll look for letting $6.5 million be a sticking point, and compromise at $46 million.

If a deal doesn't get done now, the media criticism will increase by about 10,000%.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Agreed Z-man. It would be ridiculous to lose the entire season now. They really should make it work.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Agree, agree, agree. This is ridiculous. I think Goodenow is waiting for Gary to make the next move, and I think Gary will. Bettman says $44, Goodenow $47, and they settle somewhere in between.

This HAS to end here. The damage will be too big if it doesn't.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The accountant in me just did some figuring....after the 24% rollback and a $46 million cap, here's what the NHL would save in salaries (using Puck's payroll list from this thread):

$1.332 billion - Total 2004 salaries

$1.012 billion - Total 2004 salaries after 24% rollback

$ 320 million - Total payroll reduction from 24% rollback

Also, after the rollback, seven teams would still be over the cap. After figuring how much these teams would have to trim from their payroll, that accounts for another $42 million.

So the total payroll savings would result in a mind-boggling $362 million.

Bettman can't compromise and get the cap to $46 million???? Give me a break.

Edited by Z-Man

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bob McKenzie not optimistic....

http://www.tsn.ca/columnists/bob_mckenzie.asp?id=115101

McKenzie: I don't see any hope

TSN.ca Staff

2/16/2005

Quite frankly, I just don't see any hope for a season.

You always allow for a possibility of a miracle, that infinitesimally small percentage point that maybe something will happen at the last second to save the season, but logic would dictate otherwise.

There is a huge gap here. The NHL proposed a $42.5 million hard cap vs. the NHLPA proposal of a $49 million soft cap that could be as much as $53.9 million depending on the circumstances.

Those are big numbers to crunch. Right now, I don't see the NHLPA making the move to $42.5 and I don't see the NHL making the move from $42.5 to anything - maybe $43 or $44 million. When you put it in that context, where do we go?

Nowhere.

The facts are the facts. When NHL Commissioner Gary Bettman publicly stated that he wasn't willing to go any higher than $42.5 million on a hard salary cap and with that they still feel like they're extending themselves, for me that was a signal that that's it. He's not going to negotiate that number and we're not going to have a season, unless the players agree to that.

It certainly doesn't look as though that is going to happen.

It looks like a numerical argument now. The average person at home is saying ''let me get this straight, the NHL wants a $42.5 million hard cap and the Players Association proposed a $49 million cap. Are you telling me that a $6.5 million difference per team is going to be the thing that kills the season?''

Yes it is. Those are bigger numbers than they look. If you multiply $6.5 million times 30 teams means we're almost talking about $200 million. On top of that, the $49 million that the NHLPA proposed is a soft cap. They have two exceptions in six years that would allow teams to go 10% over the cap. So as far as the NHLPA is concerned, the real hard cap - at least twice - for each team would be $53.9 million. The NHL feels overextended at $42.5 million. That's a big difference and it's a difference that doesn't look like it's going to get breeched.

It's sad to say but the time for creativity has passed. On Valentine's Day, the two sides finally got together and decided to make up. The league came off linkage and the NHLPA agreed to a salary cap. With the spectre of the season going down the drain they finally started to negotiate. Where the heck were they six months ago?

It has been a bizarre, dysfunctional process from the get go. While it's hard to predict what will happen down the road, I'm sure that the Harvard Law School, business schools and journalism schools will take what's happened over the past year between the NHL and the NHLPA, and I guarantee that there will be case studies and books written about this very bizarre process.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Bettman can't compromise and get the cap to $46 million????  Give me a break.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

He will. He HAS TO.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I do not think that Bettman will not make another offer.

When he said final, he meant final.

At 11:05, we will know the answer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I do not think that Bettman will not make another offer.

When he said final, he meant final.

At 11:05, we will know the answer.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

He also said there had to be a link between revs & payroll.... unitl he decided to drop that on monday....

At this point they are so close I think its a PR nightmare for BOTH sides if they donot get something done...

Most of us had come togri[ps with the fact that the season was over... then all this crap the last 48 hours have given us more hope hen we have had since July.... they blow this now... alot of people are going to be PISSED!!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well I think all along the buzz-word was for certainty, and the cap provides for that. Of course, the cap alone is not as certain as a "cap with linkage" but I do not see that the NHL is giving up that much by dropping the linkage issue.

BTW, Red - only 2 more posts for you to hit 2000, so Congrats !

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'mnot so sure... the NHL has no idea how the corp sponsors will react, how the corp season ticket holders will react, how the non fanatical fans will react....

TV contract alone is not enough for the NHL.... in the long run I think the cap will do it job but this season and next could be tough on the owner....at 42 mil or 49 mil....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is a huge gap here. The NHL proposed a $42.5 million hard cap vs. the NHLPA proposal of a $49 million soft cap that could be as much as $53.9 million depending on the circumstances.

If Goodenow was serious about saving the season, he would've come back with a "soft" cap below Bettman's 42.5, and his "circumstantial" cap would've been in the 45 mil range. JMHO

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree Liz. Goodenow's offer includes letting teams spend 10% over the cap in several years of the 6 year deal. That is a luxury tax on top of the cap.

The union is nuts. I would be shocked if the NHL negotiates against it's "final" offer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0