JP-era Posted February 19, 2005 Posted February 19, 2005 Or the system is broke!!! Right now there is a handfull of teams that can pay players top dollar because they think they are worth it. With a salary cap, these teams will get a padlock on their wallets when they reach the cap. That logically means that some of the leagues best players wont be able to sign with those hadnfull of teams. So, they then have to go elsewhere. Heres the problem, if the leagues other teams cant afford to even get to the cap as far as salaries, these top flight players will end up taking a pay cut or being out of a job. Do they have a right to complain? yes they do. In the NFL, each and every team can afford to reach the cap. So, players can move from team to team and find work. Any player can find work somewhere. The NHL and NFL are reported to be different because some NHL teams cant afford 45mill in salary. Now, in the NFL, parity exists. Each year there is a new influx of teams that are competing for the SB. An despite what that idiot Madden says, we do still have dynasties (see the Pats). Parity does not exist in the MLB or the NHL at this point. But, cap system only wokrs if each team can spend all of their cap. Both the MLB and NHL have teams that cant reach a proposed cap. So, what happens? Im worried that lower market teams will not reach the proposed cap and then wont be able to sign some of the leagues best, the NFL doesnt have that problem, every team has a shot to sign some of the best players and then the teams are equal in talent level. In the NHL, if the teams cant afford them the top players will either take a pay cut or be out of work, that waters down the talent (if out of work) which kills parity. On the flip side, if these players take a pay cut, the teams that can afford them without a cap get screwed and can argue that it isnt fair. Either way it isnt fair to someone. The only answer is to have ALL teams have enough cash to reach the cap. Does revenue sharing do this? maybe, if so cap + revenue sharing = parity and everyones happy. But if some teams cant reach the cap the system is screwed. I hope the owners do their math and think this through. I want nothing more than to see a cap and an equal playing field, but equal talent across the league means equal cash to spend each year.
MadBuffaloDisease Posted February 19, 2005 Posted February 19, 2005 The NHL needs a HARD cap and revenue sharing. They also need to realize that they need each other to make a successful product. The NFL did that awhile ago and things have been great ever since. Sure it's not ideal for the players, who would want to make more money than the owners if they could, but tough sh--.
Hawk Posted February 19, 2005 Posted February 19, 2005 You have to stop comparing the NFL to the NHL. The money each team gets from the TV contract in the NFL essentionally pays the salary cap. The rest of the money the NFL owners make is gravy. Small market NHL teams can do well and not spend the whole cap. Just because you have a high payroll does not guarentee a cup. See: NYR or Yankees for that matter.
JimBob2232 Posted February 19, 2005 Posted February 19, 2005 Listen, a cap is a cap. This 45mil threshold will not solve the entire problem today, but let inflation and the popularity of the sport increase, and every team will be at 45 mil in a few years. Give it some time. This is a good step in the right direction
Tom Posted February 19, 2005 Posted February 19, 2005 ALL teams better use all the cap!!!!! Dems are fighting words!
RVJ Posted February 19, 2005 Posted February 19, 2005 How does this cap help the Sabres. Isn't their player salary around 37 million. If their losing money at that price , how is a 45 mil cap going to help ?
JP-era Posted February 19, 2005 Author Posted February 19, 2005 How does this cap help the Sabres. Isn't their player salary around 37 million.If their losing money at that price , how is a 45 mil cap going to help ? 245965[/snapback] Has to be revenue sharing. Now, the situation with cap often looks such that players cant demand the contracts the once could, players must take less because no one could field an whole team and afford to pay these guys that much. For the Sabres, that may mean we get additional funds from revenue sharing and then get studs at cheap prices. Lets hope it works that way.
MarkyMannn Posted February 19, 2005 Posted February 19, 2005 How does this cap help the Sabres. Isn't their player salary around 37 million.If their losing money at that price , how is a 45 mil cap going to help ? 245965[/snapback] Yeah, I'd llike to know the answer to that one too. There salary last year was 34, and they lost about 10. Their salary this year is 39, in a full season they would now loose 15. With a cap of 45, they loose $21 million. Hope Golisano knows what he is up against. You know I honestly believe the NHL owners should have still held firm to $42 and linkage. They really don't solve all the costs issues with this deal. Good luck on rev sharing. If you are a money making club, why would you share, and loose profits and lower the value of your club. Doesn't make sense
zonabb Posted February 19, 2005 Posted February 19, 2005 The only way a cap helps the Sabres is a couple other things happen as well: 1. Revenue sharing in some form that provides a substantial revenue increase for the lower economic teams. That's a simple answer but how it is accomplished and works is completely another. 2. A better product with more parity. This is particilarly important to teams like Bflo, Pitts, Calgary, Edmonton, etc. The game has to get better on the ice, which in turn should/could increase its popularity and revenue/TV contracts. 3. Dedicated leadership/front office, which I think the Sabres have. Golisano seems to want to increase attendance and revenue AND provide a better team/product. I think a more level economic playing field and competitive team cures the Sabres ills. A better team will bring more people to the Arena. Face it, this town, loves hockey and a good team. You win, we come.
UConn James Posted February 19, 2005 Posted February 19, 2005 Has to be revenue sharing. Now, the situation with cap often looks such that players cant demand the contracts the once could, players must take less because no one could field an whole team and afford to pay these guys that much. For the Sabres, that may mean we get additional funds from revenue sharing and then get studs at cheap prices. Lets hope it works that way. 245967[/snapback] It means the player salaries will have to come back down to reality. There are too many people who think the NHL is somehow on par w/ the NFL, simply b/c it's the Major League! And until this same thing happens in baseball, that league will continue to be a joke. Good luck on rev sharing. If you are a money making club, why would you share, and loose profits and lower the value of your club. Doesn't make sense 245971[/snapback] B/c it gets boring for the Colorado Avalanche playing the Red Wings 40 consecutive times. And the Avalance/Red Wings cannot play against the Avalanche/Red Wings in a regular season game.
Puhonix Posted February 19, 2005 Posted February 19, 2005 Is it possible for the NHL to put in place their own rules, and then invite the players back at their own convenience? I mean, its not the players league, they're just employees. Right?
Zamboni Man Posted February 19, 2005 Posted February 19, 2005 Good luck on rev sharing. If you are a money making club, why would you share, and loose profits and lower the value of your club. Doesn't make sense There are two teams taking the ice during every game, so why should only one team get money from it? I'm not saying there should be a 50/50 split of ticket revenue, but there should be some money going both ways.
JP-era Posted February 19, 2005 Author Posted February 19, 2005 There are two teams taking the ice during every game, so why should only one team get money from it? I'm not saying there should be a 50/50 split of ticket revenue, but there should be some money going both ways. 246009[/snapback] Its an excellent point and revenue sharing fixes this. Facts are facts, the Sabres will put more fannys in the seat if Detroit comes to town.
Steven in MD Posted February 19, 2005 Posted February 19, 2005 There are two teams taking the ice during every game, so why should only one team get money from it? I'm not saying there should be a 50/50 split of ticket revenue, but there should be some money going both ways. 246009[/snapback] Your revenue is set by YOUR ability to sell games at YOUR home arena. Revenue sharing helps keep struggling franchises in business. It does not solve the problem. The #1 problem, EXPANSION. The league expanded and there are not enough quality players or cities to host NHL hockey. You can put in a salary cap, but as was mentioned, most teams cannot afford to use the entire cap and remain profitable. Those teams need to increase revenue, or fold. Having teams who make money share that profit with other teams will not bring parity.
JP-era Posted February 19, 2005 Author Posted February 19, 2005 Your revenue is set by YOUR ability to sell games at YOUR home arena. Revenue sharing helps keep struggling franchises in business. It does not solve the problem. The #1 problem, EXPANSION. The league expanded and there are not enough quality players or cities to host NHL hockey. You can put in a salary cap, but as was mentioned, most teams cannot afford to use the entire cap and remain profitable. Those teams need to increase revenue, or fold. Having teams who make money share that profit with other teams will not bring parity. 246017[/snapback] I lost you on the last part, why does revenue sharing not equal parity? It lets small market teams reach the cap, they then can spend money on big name players which may put more fannys in the seats.
Steven in MD Posted February 19, 2005 Posted February 19, 2005 I lost you on the last part, why does revenue sharing not equal parity? It lets small market teams reach the cap, they then can spend money on big name players which may put more fannys in the seats. 246018[/snapback] Because revenue sharing allow teams who are currently losing money to lose less money, not necessarily invest in better players. Or said another way, it will allow teams to continue to exist without in markets that cannot bear the costs of the team. If a t eam is currently losing 5 mil a season, and they receive 8 mil in revenue sharing, do you think the 3 mil surplus will go to getting another player for 3 mil? Nope, it will go into the owners pocket. There is no incentive to improve their team since they know they will make a profit regardless. Hockey unlike any other professional sport have owners that do not have egos to win Stanley Cups (many teams are owned by corporations!). So, they look at it as a business or an investment. Need to eliminate the extra capacity of teams.
JP-era Posted February 19, 2005 Author Posted February 19, 2005 Because revenue sharing allow teams who are currently losing money to lose less money, not necessarily invest in better players. Or said another way, it will allow teams to continue to exist without in markets that cannot bear the costs of the team. If a t eam is currently losing 5 mil a season, and they receive 8 mil in revenue sharing, do you think the 3 mil surplus will go to getting another player for 3 mil? Nope, it will go into the owners pocket. There is no incentive to improve their team since they know they will make a profit regardless. Hockey unlike any other professional sport have owners that do not have egos to win Stanley Cups (many teams are owned by corporations!). So, they look at it as a business or an investment. Need to eliminate the extra capacity of teams. 246021[/snapback] gotcha, i dont think thats always the case but you certainly would have to have rules around that and yes fold some teams if necessary
JimBob2232 Posted February 19, 2005 Posted February 19, 2005 Another way a 45 mil salary cap will benefit teams like buffalo is as follows: 2003-2004 salaries Detroit Redwings 78mil New York Rangers 76 mil Dallas 69 mil Philly 63 mil Colorado 62 mil stlouis 62 mil Now, with the 45 mil cap, all of the above teams, and any other team above 45 mil (NJ and boston), cannot go out and spend money on big time free agents. They cannot afford to sign or trade for Jagr's and lindstroms of the world. They simply cannot continue to pay huge salaries to these players. So they have to make concessions. Either they sign a Jagr or they sign a bunch of guys at a lower pay rate. Either way, there will be better players available for other teams (the buffalos and pittsburgh) to get at a cheaper price. So your B range players will be available for buffalo to pick up cheaply. Buffalo fields a better team, at the expense of a detroit or new york, who can no longer fit them in under the cap. So the margin of play between the top payrolls and the bottom payrolls is decreased. All in all this is a decent proposal. One which will at least allow some teams to regain profitablility short term, and will allow virtually any team who can survive the next few years long-term profitability
LabattBlue Posted February 19, 2005 Posted February 19, 2005 Another way a 45 mil salary cap will benefit teams like buffalo is as follows: 2003-2004 salaries Detroit Redwings 78mil New York Rangers 76 mil Dallas 69 mil Philly 63 mil Colorado 62 mil stlouis 62 mil Now, with the 45 mil cap, all of the above teams, and any other team above 45 mil (NJ and boston), cannot go out and spend money on big time free agents. They cannot afford to sign or trade for Jagr's and lindstroms of the world. They simply cannot continue to pay huge salaries to these players. So they have to make concessions. Either they sign a Jagr or they sign a bunch of guys at a lower pay rate. Either way, there will be better players available for other teams (the buffalos and pittsburgh) to get at a cheaper price. So your B range players will be available for buffalo to pick up cheaply. Buffalo fields a better team, at the expense of a detroit or new york, who can no longer fit them in under the cap. So the margin of play between the top payrolls and the bottom payrolls is decreased. All in all this is a decent proposal. One which will at least allow some teams to regain profitablility short term, and will allow virtually any team who can survive the next few years long-term profitability 246107[/snapback] I guess until we see all the details, it's nothing more than speculation, but here is my take on it.... By having a $45 million dollar salary cap you will bring the elite spenders and perennial contenders like Detroit, Colorado & Dallas back to the pack. This will enable lower salaried clubs like the Sabres to compete more evenly with them. What this won't help the Sabres with, is they will STILL be losing money even at their current salary level in the low 30's. I believe they lost somewhere around 10 million last year. Therefore ticket prices will have to remain at their current level and the Sabres will have to make it to the 2nd round of the playoffs(each home game will probably generate about $1 million in ticket sales) in order to reduce the size of their losses. When all is said and done, If the NHL still has 1/3 of it's teams losing money to the tune of 5-10 million per year after an agreement is hammered out and in place, than they still have a problem.
JimBob2232 Posted February 19, 2005 Posted February 19, 2005 I guess until we see all the details, it's nothing more than speculation, but here is my take on it.... By having a $45 million dollar salary cap you will bring the elite spenders and perennial contenders like Detroit, Colorado & Dallas back to the pack. This will enable lower salaried clubs like the Sabres to compete more evenly with them. What this won't help the Sabres with, is they will STILL be losing money even at their current salary level in the low 30's. I believe they lost somewhere around 10 million last year. Therefore ticket prices will have to remain at their current level and the Sabres will have to make it to the 2nd round of the playoffs(each home game will probably generate about $1 million in ticket sales) in order to reduce the size of their losses. When all is said and done, If the NHL still has 1/3 of it's teams losing money to the tune of 5-10 million per year after an agreement is hammered out and in place, than they still have a problem. I agree with you, however by bringing dallas detroit and colorado back to the pack, the chances of buffalo and others excelling is greater. Their 30 million dollar salary will now buy better players, they will field a more competitive team, solidify their fan base, and increase revenues. They might still be losing money next year and the year after, but eventually they will be right up there with the rest of the league. Also, dont underestimate the value of inflation. Hopefully the cap stays at 45 mil for 10 years, and inflation can eat away at this problem as well.
Recommended Posts