293 replies to this topic

[Triumph]

You are dreaming, 7. No teams will be 'going under' as a result of either proposal: there IS REVENUE SHARING INVOLVED. I don't think you understand negotiation either.

smelly, 45 million isn't ideal. I think the league would've liked the number to be around 39 million and who knows, they may not budge off 42.5 (which is really 40.5). It's not a complete win for the owners, especially in light of the fact that the players will still get paid and the owners are going to take it in the face for years to come as a result of this lockout.

['7']

yea, revenue sharing of what, less than 3 mil. Revenues will be so miniscule that it won't save anybody.

[Don]

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.

['7']

teams will still lose money under this new proposal. yes, but that doesn't mean every single one should go under. Did these owners know what they were getting into or did Bettman sell them on some imaginary gravy train. He couldn't guarantee them profits every year, and he shouldn't!


if I thought 18 would go under then I would be dead set against it as well.

I'm calling Edmontons bluff, they won't go under.

we'll lose 4, but no more than 6.

Bettman finally saw that losing a whole season and having this drag on for another year would've been the death blow for hockey, and would only lead to some of the middle market teams falling into economic ruin.

he held out as long as he could, but he couldn't save every team. He got a "cap", he gets a victory speech. he should be happy.

Edited by '7', 16 February 2005 - 12:06 AM.

[Triumph]

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.

These teams needed a salary cap not for themselves, but so the other teams won't spend.

Edited by Triumph, 16 February 2005 - 12:06 AM.

[PeteyNice]

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}>

Ohhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh

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

['7']

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.

[Triumph]

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.

['7']

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.

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.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

yea, great times in hockeys dark ages. such entertaining games, such high tv ratings.

I don't think so. What do you think board advertisements will dissapear in Boston because the Predators don't exist? how many people even know they exist to begin with. The gang of 8 has cause this lockout to drag on long enough. Moving from a 28-32 mil cap to a 42-46 mil "cap" will put some teams in peril, but bettman had no choice. Those teams not existing would actually create an increase of revenue to this league. The NHL has more to gain by reaching out to fans like me and derek rather than expanding to where its not wanted and spending money trying to teach people why they need to love hockey.

less teams = higher quality of play, more rivalry games and higher attendance in traditional markets. maybe some network would take a chance on the game again.

Edited by '7', 16 February 2005 - 12:32 AM.

[Devils30]

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/nh...y.asp?id=115096

['7']

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', 16 February 2005 - 12:46 AM.

[Derek21]

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

[Derek21]

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.

[PeteyNice]

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.

['7']

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', 16 February 2005 - 12:56 AM.

[Z-Man]

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%.

[Derek21]

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

[sheeps]

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.

[Z-Man]

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, 16 February 2005 - 01:26 AM.

[Z-Man]

Bob McKenzie not optimistic....

http://www.tsn.ca/co...e.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.