TSN to air their CBA solution

[Jim Bob 0]

http://www.tsn.ca/nhl/news_story.asp?ID=100496&hubName=nhl

[Chadd 916]

With Pierre McGuire involved, banning composite sticks is sure to be in there somewhere.

[Chadd 916]

Get rid of the individual player cap and reduce unrestricted free agency to 28 or 29 and it's a good plan. They might also want to raise the tax after the first $10M to 1.50 or 2 for every $1 over, that would increase pressure on teams to reduce spending. I'd also like to see a minimum % of seats sold to qualify for revenue sharing. That would encourage teams to increase marketing efforts.

[crosskore 0]

Sorry, but what do you mean when you say " reduce free agency to 28 or 29 " Only people under 29 can become free agents or something? I have absolutly no idea... sorry.

[Chadd 916]

You can only become an unrestricted free agent at 31 years of age, they need to reduce that number to 28 or 29 to get the NHLPA to agree to the other conditions.

[Jim Bob 0]

I'd also like to see a minimum % of seats sold to qualify for revenue sharing. That would encourage teams to increase marketing efforts.

Or they could pad their numbers by having loads of two for one nights, selling tickets for $5 a pop, etc. in markets that are having trouble drawing fans.

[Jim Bob 0]

You can only become an unrestricted free agent at 31 years of age, they need to reduce that number to 28 or 29 to get the NHLPA to agree to the other conditions.

I don't believe the NHLPA is all hot and bothered to get the UFA age lowered. They know that having fewer players on the UFA is inflationary and helps keeps the salary spiral going upwards.

If you lower the age for UFA, you add more players to the market (increasing supply), and that in turn helps keep salary growth to a lower level because teams have more options to fill needs.

Players themselves may say they want the freedom to choose where they can play, but Bob Goodenow knows that significantly lowering the UFA age will not help keep player salaries growing. And I'm betting that's the #1 thing in Goodenow's mind when he talking about a new CBA.

[Jim Bob 0]

Using last year's salary numbers, and figuring that teams would spend a total the same as they spent last season (a $60 million payroll would now be $50 million in payroll and $10 million in tax), here is how the revenue sharing would work:

Teams paying taxes(14): Detroit, NYR, Dallas, Philadelphia, Colorado, Toronto, St. Louis, LA, Anaheim, Washington, NJ, Boston, Vancouver, and NYI.

Total taxes paid: $127,540,757

Teams receiving taxes(11): Ottawa, Phoenix, Montreal, Calgary, Carolina, SJ, TB, Columbus, Edmonton, Buffalo, and Chicago.

If evenly distrubuted, the tax payments would be a little over $11.5 million per team.

Teams left out of the revenue sharing due to payrolls below $30 million (5): Atlanta, Minnesota, Florida, Pittsburgh, and Nashville.

[Jim Bob 0]

Here are the tweaks I would suggest:

1) Revenue sharing that sends money from the higher revenue teams to the lower revenue teams. If teams do use the $40 million threshold as a "de facto salary cap", then you will still have teams that are in financial trouble because they won't be receiving any aid and they can't survive with payrolls in the $25 to 35 million range today.

2) Lower the UFA age further to help drag down salaries even more.

[Chadd 916]

I'd also like to see a minimum % of seats sold to qualify for revenue sharing. That would encourage teams to increase marketing efforts.

Or they could pad their numbers by having loads of two for one nights, selling tickets for $5 a pop, etc. in markets that are having trouble drawing fans.

AS long as more people are getting exposed to the sport, it's a good thing.

[Dan_The_Man_16 0]

Thats still retarded. I can still see guys getting over paid way to much, and exactly what Theo said. Our ancestors moved to N.A. to see how much money they could make, not be limited by a cap, and I don't think it should ever be that way. I think a team salary cap is in order, or a fairly heavy luxary tax, but having individual player caps is retarded.

[Eazy_b97 1]

I like the idea of individual player caps.

[Chadd 916]

The individual cap in the NBA has created a lot of bad contracts that teams get stuck with. Players are demanding "max out" deals and getting them. Then when their production goes down, or doesn't increase, teams realize they made a mistake and can't get out of the deal.

If they do actually go with that type of limit they need to limit it to no more than 3 years. Otherwise one bad contract can kill a team.

EDIT:

Here's an interesting review of it.

http://spectorshockey.tripod.com/spectors_soapbox.html

[Jim Bob 0]

(1) A hard cap of $6 million on individual player salaries with no cap on how much teams may spend on total payrolls

Does anyone else have a problem with this? I find it wrong on so many levels based on the principals of this country.

Not really, my job has a max salary for it. Why should a hockey player be any different?

If they want to work in another league and try and get more money, they are free to do so.

This isn't any different than McDonald's corporate setting pay guidelines for all of their restaurants to use.

[Jim Bob 0]

The individual cap in the NBA has created a lot of bad contracts that teams get stuck with. Players are demanding "max out" deals and getting them. Then when their production goes down, or doesn't increase, teams realize they made a mistake and can't get out of the deal.

If they do actually go with that type of limit they need to limit it to no more than 3 years. Otherwise one bad contract can kill a team.

EDIT:

Here's an interesting review of it.

http://spectorshockey.tripod.com/spectors_soapbox.html

That's funny, usually it's the owners that get blamed by Spector for bad deals. Now he's trying to blame the system.

Please...............

[Jim Bob 0]

http://www.tsn.ca/audio_video/

NHL Insider

10/6/2004

Bob McKenzie discusses the NHL and NHLPA's response to the TSN Solution.

This is really funny.