The_Admiral Posted August 18, 2012 Share Posted August 18, 2012 More from PPP:As revenues grow in places like Toronto and Montreal, so too does a salary cap linked to HRR. That means that teams like Phoenix are required to spend more money based on what Toronto earns. Nothing in the NHL's proposal changes that in any way. The NHL has chosen a CBA model that ties each teams' spending to the other teams' revenues. Without significant revenue sharing this is always going to be a problem unless the players' share of HRR is reduced to something absurd like 10%.What lowering the share of HRR given to the players does do is allow those big markets like Toronto and Philadelphia to pocket some of that additional revenue at the expense of the small markets. If Toronto generates $10 million in new revenue, MLSE is guaranteed that some of that money will be pure profit - they're not allowed to spend all of it on player salaries. But the small market teams who have not generated a single dollar of additional revenue are now required by the CBA to spend more money. The salary cap forces small market teams to continually outspend their revenues so that the large markets are guaranteed a certain profit threshold. As long as the NHL insists on there being a cap floor of any kind, this simple fact will not change. Contrary to the NHL's position, the salary cap does not enable the small market teams to be financially solvent; in reality, the salary cap actively bankrupts them.This is a Leafs blog, so everything is informed by a "screw all y'all who aren't the Leafs" mindset, but this is damning stuff. They don't mention, however, the inverse of Toronto's revenues dictating Phoenix's expenses, which is that Phoenix's revenues dictate Toronto's expenses. Having those teams that just don't make a cent act as a hedge against the HRR calculations that yield the salary floor/ceiling: if they were doing twice as well out there as they're doing now, that would force MLSE to spend more without making any more money in their own back yard. It's then in the best interests of the league's elite to keep a couple fires burning if it means more of that profit they're not "allowed" to spend. ♫ oh yeah, board goes on, long after the thrill of postin' is gone ♫ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Magnus Posted August 18, 2012 Share Posted August 18, 2012 Just a quick thought, in the interest of potentially saving buttloads of money for cheapskate owners: Make the salary floor not tied to a percentage of Hockey-Related Revenue, but equivalent to the minimum player salary x spots on active roster. So like, $500,000 x 23, or roughly $11.5 M. I'm sure that would allow some teams that don't pull in the revenue to field a team with $50+ M in salaries to at least garner some profit, instead of bleeding their owners (or cities) dry. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dfwabel Posted August 18, 2012 Share Posted August 18, 2012 Just a quick thought, in the interest of potentially saving buttloads of money for cheapskate owners: Make the salary floor not tied to a percentage of Hockey-Related Revenue, but equivalent to the minimum player salary x spots on active roster. So like, $500,000 x 23, or roughly $11.5 M. I'm sure that would allow some teams that don't pull in the revenue to field a team with $50+ M in salaries to at least garner some profit, instead of bleeding their owners (or cities) dry.You may start collusion with such a policy since it is reported that 18 of the 30 teams do not make money. 18 teams could just only offer minimum free agent deals. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Admiral Posted August 18, 2012 Share Posted August 18, 2012 Just a quick thought, in the interest of potentially saving buttloads of money for cheapskate owners: Make the salary floor not tied to a percentage of Hockey-Related Revenue, but equivalent to the minimum player salary x spots on active roster. So like, $500,000 x 23, or roughly $11.5 M. I'm sure that would allow some teams that don't pull in the revenue to field a team with $50+ M in salaries to at least garner some profit, instead of bleeding their owners (or cities) dry.That's called just not having a salary floor, since you're not enforcing any minimum payroll beyond what it takes to field a team. ♫ oh yeah, board goes on, long after the thrill of postin' is gone ♫ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Magnus Posted August 18, 2012 Share Posted August 18, 2012 Just a quick thought, in the interest of potentially saving buttloads of money for cheapskate owners: Make the salary floor not tied to a percentage of Hockey-Related Revenue, but equivalent to the minimum player salary x spots on active roster. So like, $500,000 x 23, or roughly $11.5 M. I'm sure that would allow some teams that don't pull in the revenue to field a team with $50+ M in salaries to at least garner some profit, instead of bleeding their owners (or cities) dry.You may start collusion with such a policy since it is reported that 18 of the 30 teams do not make money. 18 teams could just only offer minimum free agent deals.Alright, but think about this: Players are interested in getting the most money for their services, in general, right? They are still more likely to sign contracts with teams that will pay them top dollar. I don't think Montreal, Toronto or Philadelphia would suddenly force everyone on their team to take a massive paycut like that - just the teams that clearly can't afford them. Talent would end up being concentrated in fewer teams. I think that fewer teams with more stars on each is better overall for the league, even if it reduces the number of "television markets". If nobody is going to the arena in a certain city because the team is no good, will they really be watching the team on TV? I also tend to think that with hockey, in particular, it is a cultural thing. While some non-traditional markets like San Jose and Carolina have embraced a sport that normally can never be played outside in their climate, other such locations have been miserable failures on and off the ice because there is no desire for the sport there. If those teams are looking to make a profit, I see it as only natural to want to cut costs. If they do that, they will likely attract less talent, and go on such a downward spiral that the owners of those teams will finally realize that this venture is not going to work out in this location. Contraction or relocation then become the options that look best for these teams, and they will end up in markets that will make them more money. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NJTank Posted August 18, 2012 Share Posted August 18, 2012 Does it bother American hockey fans that ESPN gives Little League baseball more attention in one day than they do hockey the entire year?Who the hell watches the Little League World Series any way? www.sportsecyclopedia.com For the best in sports history go to the Sports E-Cyclopedia at http://www.sportsecyclopedia.com Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zpqmaowl Posted August 18, 2012 Share Posted August 18, 2012 Dany Heatley files an $11 million lawsuit against his former agent. the worst helmets design to me is the Jacksonville jaguars hamlets from 1995 to 2012 because you can't see the logo vary wall Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bigbean24 Posted August 19, 2012 Share Posted August 19, 2012 Dany Heatley files an $11 million lawsuit against his former agent.He can do that, he's a f#cking All Star!! St. Paul Pioneers(GHA) Minnesota Skeeters(CL) Minnesota Lake Monsters(UFL) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Admiral Posted August 19, 2012 Share Posted August 19, 2012 Dany Heatley files an $11 million lawsuit against his former agent.He can do that, he's a f#cking All Star!!hyeah, with all that money I stole I bought a f-ckin' gym. no one to lift with, I got no friends out here. ♫ oh yeah, board goes on, long after the thrill of postin' is gone ♫ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HedleyLamarr Posted August 19, 2012 Share Posted August 19, 2012 I'll be rooting for Stacey McAlpine in that lawsuit..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Admiral Posted August 19, 2012 Share Posted August 19, 2012 That sounds like something you'd pejoratively call a girl who thinks she can ski but can't. Way to work that bunny hill, Stacey McAlpine. ♫ oh yeah, board goes on, long after the thrill of postin' is gone ♫ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NJTank Posted August 19, 2012 Share Posted August 19, 2012 Dany Heatley files an $11 million lawsuit against his former agent.He can do that, he's a f#cking All Star!!Dany Heatley is a douche www.sportsecyclopedia.com For the best in sports history go to the Sports E-Cyclopedia at http://www.sportsecyclopedia.com Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
charger77 Posted August 22, 2012 Share Posted August 22, 2012 Taylor Hall signs a new 7 year $42 Million deal in Edmonton. PotD May 11th, 2011looooooogodud: June 7th 2010 - July 5th 2012 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Admiral Posted August 22, 2012 Share Posted August 22, 2012 That's good. I maintain that the rules should be tweaked so that Edmonton can keep its core together, though.Doing some math with that NHL ticket revenue graph. It would take an average ticket price of $59 at 41 15,176-seat sellouts for Quebec City to double the Coyotes' ticket revenue from $18.4 million to $36.8 million. I wonder if that's doable. That's just above Boston, and just below Washington, Pittsburgh, and Minnesota. It's well below Toronto, Montreal, Vancouver, Calgary, Edmonton, and Winnipeg, though. And that's just to double revenue. Demand may be such that you could do even better than to merely double it. This isn't even taking into account the vastly superior television deal that would accompany the team. Money on the table that the league won't take. This is why we need to take money from the players. ♫ oh yeah, board goes on, long after the thrill of postin' is gone ♫ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Magnus Posted August 22, 2012 Share Posted August 22, 2012 Money on the table that the league won't take. This is why we need to take money from the players.Wait - you're saying that because the owners are too stupid and/or greedy to end the Desert Experiment that we should punish the players? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NEW.ERA Posted August 22, 2012 Share Posted August 22, 2012 No defense, no goalie. It's fine and dandy that they can keep their "core" together, maybe. But, they're still not going to have a ton of on ice success. JETS|PACK|JAYS|NUFC|BAMA|BOMBERS|RAPS|ORANJE| Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Admiral Posted August 22, 2012 Share Posted August 22, 2012 Money on the table that the league won't take. This is why we need to take money from the players.Wait - you're saying that because the owners are too stupid and/or greedy to end the Desert Experiment that we should punish the players?That's what Count Bettman is saying!NEW.ERA, you're just Oiler-hating. It's coming together as well as can be expected. ♫ oh yeah, board goes on, long after the thrill of postin' is gone ♫ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
officeglenn Posted August 22, 2012 Share Posted August 22, 2012 No defense, no goalie. It's fine and dandy that they can keep their "core" together, maybe. But, they're still not going to have a ton of on ice success.Petry, Potter, J. Schultz, N. Schultz, Whitney ... I think their defense is underrated and will likely be pretty good by the time the forwards have truly matured. Sure, they don't have a goalie, but who needs a goalie to win these days? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NEW.ERA Posted August 22, 2012 Share Posted August 22, 2012 No defense, no goalie. It's fine and dandy that they can keep their "core" together, maybe. But, they're still not going to have a ton of on ice success.Petry, Potter, J. Schultz, N. Schultz, Whitney ... I think their defense is underrated and will likely be pretty good by the time the forwards have truly matured. Sure, they don't have a goalie, but who needs a goalie to win these days? I`m jealous and we all know that. JETS|PACK|JAYS|NUFC|BAMA|BOMBERS|RAPS|ORANJE| Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Magnus Posted August 23, 2012 Share Posted August 23, 2012 From CBC:http://www.cbc.ca/sports/story/2012/08/23/sp-canada-sports-expansion.htmlAnd this:http://www.cbc.ca/sports/hockey/nhl/story/2012/08/23/sp-nhl-labour-talks.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.