FTW_BillsFan Posted September 16, 2004 Posted September 16, 2004 I think that is the one think that makes the NFL so great and have a pretty level playing field.
CircleTheWagons Posted September 16, 2004 Posted September 16, 2004 I think that is the one think that makes the NFL so great and have a pretty level playing field. 34192[/snapback] No. Although there is some money that goes to small market (Canadian) teams if they meet certain incentives in season ticket sales. Do you really think it's the revenue sharing that makes the level playing field or the salary cap? Personally, I think it's the salary cap. In the NHL, the player's union has been very strong for decades and the owners have a history of caving. Apparently the owners have told Bettman that they are willing to lose the whole season to get a salary cap. I guess we'll see. I think the NHL will end up with a luxury tax similar to MLB, except that the penalties will be more severe. Also, if the league keeps arbitration, I'm hoping contracts from teams paying the luxury tax aren't considered in the arbitration amounts - that way a couple of teams (Rangers) spending ridiculously won't set precedents for the rest of the league.
Alaska Darin Posted September 16, 2004 Posted September 16, 2004 I think that is the one think that makes the NFL so great and have a pretty level playing field. 34192[/snapback] The NFL is unique in that respect. It has everything to do with the game being perfect for television. The TV contract ensures that each team is profitable before the do ANYTHING. That's the reason they can level the playing field. No other sport has that luxury. The NHL players are being idiots and they are going to pay dearly for their arrogance.
MattyT Posted September 16, 2004 Posted September 16, 2004 Revenue sharing only makes the field level if the owners are required to put the shared revenue towards building the team or more specifically the coaching/player payroll. The MLB system (not sure about NFL) is basically welfare. The salary cap is a much more affective equalizer, but as we all know it has its share of ups and downs. Personally, I've grown accustomed to free agency in sports and I'm OK with it.
SilverNRed Posted September 16, 2004 Posted September 16, 2004 The NHL players are being idiots and they are going to pay dearly for their arrogance. 34249[/snapback] Yes, they are going to pay. So are the fans. So are the owners. So is hockey in general. Good job, boys.
FTW_BillsFan Posted September 16, 2004 Author Posted September 16, 2004 Circle the Wagons - I think the salary cap and revenue sharing go hand in hand because it would be hard for small market teams (Buffalo) to even match the cap if it were not for revenue sharing. Imagine Dallas, NY teams and Washington the kind of money they could make (and overspend) with their own TV deals (ala Yankees). The cap can be circumvented. The 49ers did it for years.
Alaska Darin Posted September 16, 2004 Posted September 16, 2004 Circle the Wagons - I think the salary cap and revenue sharing go hand in hand because it would be hard for small market teams (Buffalo) to even match the cap if it were not for revenue sharing. Imagine Dallas, NY teams and Washington the kind of money they could make (and overspend) with their own TV deals (ala Yankees). The cap can be circumvented. The 49ers did it for years. 34293[/snapback] Amazing how bad we sucked just before the cap was implemented. [/sarcasm]
MadBuffaloDisease Posted September 16, 2004 Posted September 16, 2004 No. Although there is some money that goes to small market (Canadian) teams if they meet certain incentives in season ticket sales. Do you really think it's the revenue sharing that makes the level playing field or the salary cap? Personally, I think it's the salary cap. It's both. The salary cap ensures that actual teams on the field (or ice) theoretically have an equal opportunity, while revenue sharing in conjunction with a cap that is some percentage of the revenue (~2/3 in the NFL's case) ensures that all teams are profitable. In the NHL, the player's union has been very strong for decades and the owners have a history of caving. Apparently the owners have told Bettman that they are willing to lose the whole season to get a salary cap. I guess we'll see. I see the owners sticking to their guns this time. Most of the Canadian franchises have folded and player salaries are getting ridiculous. It's in the best interest, even for the big market teams, to have a cap. I think the NHL will end up with a luxury tax similar to MLB, except that the penalties will be more severe. Also, if the league keeps arbitration, I'm hoping contracts from teams paying the luxury tax aren't considered in the arbitration amounts - that way a couple of teams (Rangers) spending ridiculously won't set precedents for the rest of the league. 34233[/snapback] There are a lot of permutations and combinations of ideas, but the NFL created a model that works and works well.
sfladave Posted September 16, 2004 Posted September 16, 2004 Salary cap is the answer to all, except the players. Owners want it to control costs (fug them), fans want it to level the playing field. I'm not talking about MLBs or the NBAs cap deal either, they're not true salary caps. The bottom line is that it is the fans that pay for and support these leagues, and if the NHL is not careful they just might lose that small fan base that they have. MLB found that out and the NHL doesn't have anywhere near the fanbase that MLB has/had!
sfladave Posted September 16, 2004 Posted September 16, 2004 Circle the Wagons - I think the salary cap and revenue sharing go hand in hand because it would be hard for small market teams (Buffalo) to even match the cap if it were not for revenue sharing. Imagine Dallas, NY teams and Washington the kind of money they could make (and overspend) with their own TV deals (ala Yankees). The cap can be circumvented. The 49ers did it for years. 34293[/snapback] While I agree on a cap you picked a bad choice for an arguement.
FTW_BillsFan Posted September 16, 2004 Author Posted September 16, 2004 If you have revenue sharing every team has an equal shares the revenue generated from the sport (some exceptions). If you do that every team will have spending capital to make moves/sign players. Don't you think Buffalo would have wanted to keep Hasek if possible, but he wanted more then we could pay. The players need to realize that hockey make about 1/4 of what the other major sports make and they need to be paid accordingly, but of course they don't care. The players need to force the owners to go to full revenue sharing between the teams and the owners need to get the cap and pay the players about 55-60% of the revenues from the NHL.
FTW_BillsFan Posted September 16, 2004 Author Posted September 16, 2004 QUOTE(FTW_BillsFan @ Sep 16 2004, 05:45 PM)Circle the Wagons - I think the salary cap and revenue sharing go hand in hand because it would be hard for small market teams (Buffalo) to even match the cap if it were not for revenue sharing. Imagine Dallas, NY teams and Washington the kind of money they could make (and overspend) with their own TV deals (ala Yankees). The cap can be circumvented. The 49ers did it for years. * While I agree on a cap you picked a bad choice for an arguement. Well I found the easiest that I could find. Why is it a bad choice? Should I have went to MLB and the Yankees?
FTW_BillsFan Posted September 16, 2004 Author Posted September 16, 2004 Salary cap is the answer to all, except the players. Owners want it to control costs (fug them), fans want it to level the playing field. I'm not talking about MLBs or the NBAs cap deal either, they're not true salary caps. The bottom line is that it is the fans that pay for and support these leagues, and if the NHL is not careful they just might lose that small fan base that they have. MLB found that out and the NHL doesn't have anywhere near the fanbase that MLB has/had! 34300[/snapback] Finally figured out the quotes. Think of the parity you could get in hockey. #8 can beat #1 in the playoffs now. The NHL fan will come back. the NFL, NBA, and MLB fans came back. It will take time, but they will come back.
Guest RabidBillsFanVT Posted September 16, 2004 Posted September 16, 2004 In a nutshell (how did I get into this nutshell? ) , this is the problem: The NHL has a much smaller fan base than the NFL, NBA, or even MLB. The players want to be paid like they are in the other major sports. The owners can't afford to pay the salary desires of the players because it will cause them to lose money due to a lack of revenue due to a small fan base, AND THEREFORE... A salary cap is needed to hold player salaries to a reasonable level where they can still get paid for their value as a player without bankrupting NHL franchises. If the players continue to fight salary controls like they are, then they are GUARANTEEING themselves never to make the money they want by refusing the controls, and they are idiots. The NHL will suffer because of this, and they can't afford to screw around like MLB. The NFL is a beautiful thing, NO??
CircleTheWagons Posted September 16, 2004 Posted September 16, 2004 Circle the Wagons - I think the salary cap and revenue sharing go hand in hand because it would be hard for small market teams (Buffalo) to even match the cap if it were not for revenue sharing. Imagine Dallas, NY teams and Washington the kind of money they could make (and overspend) with their own TV deals (ala Yankees). The cap can be circumvented. The 49ers did it for years. 34293[/snapback] Interesting take, but I'm too conservative (right-wing?) to accept that revenue sharing is required. My thinking is that the league sets a fair bar (the salary cap) and the owners decide if they can meet it. If they can't meet it, then the team should probably fold or move. Howevever, it's my belief that once there is a legitimate cap in place the great majority of teams will be able to come close. I don't know why I think a salary cap is ok, but I don't like revenue sharing. I didn't say my opinions are consistent - that's why I stay out of PPP forum .
KD in CA Posted September 16, 2004 Posted September 16, 2004 The real difference between football and hockey/baseball is television. All football games are televised under contracts between the NFL and the networks and a set of rules that applies to all teams. Thus, it is very easy to determine TV revenue and divide it up equally among the teams. Once you have revenue sharing, making the cap work is a lot easier. In baseball and later hockey, TV is dominated by individual team deals with local stations. Since those deals are not part of any collective MLB agreement (or strategy), teams in bigger cities natuarally get bigger contracts, cable deals or if you are the Yankees, your own network. Hello Ted Turner....he was the first guy to figure it out and that's why we've all grown up watching the Braves in TBS. (Read Lords of the Realm if you are a baseball fan...fantasic and entertaining account of the history of the business of baseball.) Thus, the reason that baseball could never implement a salary cap is because the owners all had their own turf to protect...they've never been a group with a collective interest. Steinbrenner makes a lot more money now than he would with full revenue sharing and an $80MM salary cap. Plus he wouldn't have all those championships, so why on earth would he support it? Of course, the problem is that you risk driving the smaller, poorer team out of the sport, which is bad for everyone. Because the fan base is so much smaller, this is a much greater risk in hockey than baseball. I believe that is why the owners are addressing this with such determination at this time.
Live&DieBillsFootball Posted September 16, 2004 Posted September 16, 2004 Well, they have to do something. Regular people can't afford to take the family to a hockey game. It's cheaper to take a family to a Bills game than to a Sabres game if you want decent seats. The other problem is that the hockey game is just one of 41 home games whereas the Bills game is one of 8. It going to take a lot to reign in salaries and cut costs enough to make tickets reasonable since there is very little TV money. I think that this season is definitely gone and next season may be in jeopardy also. From the players standpoint you may get a lot of Europeans going back home for good. I think that both sides have a lot to risk, but they are digging in for a looooong fight.
BuffalOhio Posted September 17, 2004 Posted September 17, 2004 I think that is the one think that makes the NFL so great and have a pretty level playing field. 34192[/snapback] All the money for the NFL (all the money that matters, anyway) comes from the ginormous TV contract. 2/3's of it goes to the players, 1/3 goes to the teams, at least that's the way I understand it. These teams would make money with completely empty stadiums thanks to that deal. The NHL is a ticket-revenue league because their TV contract is relatively small.
MadBuffaloDisease Posted September 17, 2004 Posted September 17, 2004 Interesting take, but I'm too conservative (right-wing?) to accept that revenue sharing is required. My thinking is that the league sets a fair bar (the salary cap) and the owners decide if they can meet it. If they can't meet it, then the team should probably fold or move. Howevever, it's my belief that once there is a legitimate cap in place the great majority of teams will be able to come close. I don't know why I think a salary cap is ok, but I don't like revenue sharing. I didn't say my opinions are consistent - that's why I stay out of PPP forum . 34351[/snapback] I don't know either. Without revenue sharing, the Bills are likely gone from Buffalo. Revenue sharing is a must for small market teams like the Bills, and to keep a league where all teams have a chance, not just a select few like the other major sports. If you don't have a problem seeing the Bills move, your line of thinking is fine. Otherwise it makes no sense.
Spun Posted September 17, 2004 Posted September 17, 2004 When Gretzky and Lemieux came along it attracted many new "observers" to the sport. Ticket sales, tv ratings and salaries boomed. That era was very unique and great for the sport. There was a windfall for both players and owners. That time has past. It is painful to go backwards especially as paychecks go but for the health of the sport which in my view is maintaining the current teams (especially the ones in Buffalo and Canada), the players need to back up. As in any business, the prestige of owning a team is severely diminished when losses mount. Also, not that I have a problem with all the Euros in the league (I enjoy seeing the best in the world) but most North Americans can't even say their names. And borderline fans still hold that "I can't follow the puck on tv excuse" (just follow the action for a while and you'll get it?). The NHL is in a crisis. I hate to see teams move and fold. It is not that fans in these locales don't love hockey (Quebec City, Winnipeg) but the reality is that tickets are too pricey in some cities. Remember when Hamilton was a threat to the Sabres until they realized that the city simply couldn't afford a team (along with Buffalo /Toronto territorial claims). Hockey needs growth for both players and owners to thrive. This growth will not come from franchise shifts and teams folding. Maybe Sydney Crosby's entry into the league will ignite widespread interest again?
Recommended Posts