Two new NHL proposals

[ktang 34]

MDE3:

That's a set of interesting ideas.

But, I don't think the NHLPA would go for it, because it wants the star players on the smaller-revenue teams to be able to migrate to the larger-revenue teams, make more money, and inflate salaries for the other players.

About having the players help market the teams: I think Brett Hull wanted that. But, I don't think the teams would want to do that, because after a player becomes the marketing identity for a team, the player would have more leverage in negotiations ("I'm holding out unless you give me more money..."), and it would be tough to trade the player after investing the team's identity with him.

I think the good players would want to get out of the smaller-revenue teams, because if all teams apply the same marketing strategies, the smaller-market teams will remain smaller-revenue.

[MDE3 0]

However one of the problems with your response about players all wanting to gravitate to big market teams, is offset by the fact that some of these teams at the top are pretty much already at the peak of their market development, with little room to grow.

A unilateral hard cap, would be a device where the already profitable large market teams become enormously profitable, and "off books" compensation would be come a whole new domain to police for the league as these teams try to find ways to use this extra cash to secure better talent.

To support my position, imagine a "cost of living"/lifestyle index variable, and it becomes obvious that $1.5m in Clevland or Nashville, Calgary, Edmonton, Tampa, might be equivalent to $2.5m in New York, Toronto or Detroit, LA, Montreal, Boston etc. etc.....

As far as inflating salaries go, I think that's as much an agent's push as the players, but new rules governing arbitration, and free agency could off-set this..

The same kinds of formulas are used in big business, where salaries are "pro-rated" by not so much by just a "cost of living index", as a "lifestyle index" based on location, costs, schooling, family opportunities, stated priorities of potential employees. etc etc.

I think tieing earnings to performance is important, for both the teams as well as the players.

We have all seen what a "hungry team" can do to an "established powerhouse" at many levels of the game....this scenario could help promote the "miracle" phenomenon...making for harder fought, more exciting games. The David and Goliath situation is a natural draw for fans as well.

[ktang 34]

Yes, I now see your point about the large markets' standard of living adjustments.

To further support that: some pro athletes are afraid of going to New York because of the intense pressure there, and others who have gone there were chewed up and spit out by the media...

[Chadd 916]

So you propose that small market teams shouldn't be permitted to spend as much as a large market team, even if they wanted to do so? That makes absolutely no sense at all.

In August, the NHL offered up 6 systems to the NHLPA. One of them was a hard cap system linked to 53 to 55% of league revenues. Once you did the math, that put the hard cap payroll number at around $32 million based on the NHL's numbers of $2 billion in revenue and once you figure in the $2 to 3 million per team that the NHL would assign for other player benefits.

Most of the numbers have said 2.1B for revenues for the last full season. 50% of that is 1.05B, divided by 30 teams is $35M. That's using a percentage lower than the 53-55% and it still comes out higher.

[Jim Bob 0]

So you propose that small market teams shouldn't be permitted to spend as much as a large market team, even if they wanted to do so? That makes absolutely no sense at all.

In August, the NHL offered up 6 systems to the NHLPA. One of them was a hard cap system linked to 53 to 55% of league revenues. Once you did the math, that put the hard cap payroll number at around $32 million based on the NHL's numbers of $2 billion in revenue and once you figure in the $2 to 3 million per team that the NHL would assign for other player benefits.

Most of the numbers have said 2.1B for revenues for the last full season. 50% of that is 1.05B, divided by 30 teams is $35M. That's using a percentage lower than the 53-55% and it still comes out higher.

http://www.andrewsstarspage.com/CBA/1-4cba.htm

There have been no recent negotiations between the players and management concerning the new Collective Bargaining Agreement, but there was a lot of talk in the media the past few weeks. Here's a look at what is being said.

National Hockey League executive vice-president and chief legal officer Bill Daly has been briefing the media on the issues and negotiations, which are on hold these days. The last two times the sides talked was back in October.

That's when the NHL reportedly made its pitch for a $31 million salary cap. During a briefing with reporters last week, Daly explained how the league came up with that figure, and said the NHL was not proposing a hard cap.

"We kind of backed into that number," Daly was quoted as saying by the CanWest News Service. "Take our current level of league-wide revenues, our current level of league-wide other costs, our current level of league-wide player costs -- that are not related to player salaries -- and build in an average profit and what's left for player payroll and you divide that by 30 teams."

"That's where we came up with the $31-million average. As long as you have a fixed relationship between revenues and player costs, you're able to grow your revenues. It's not like I'm demanding a $31-million hard-salary cap on a per team basis."

[Chadd 916]

Virtually every number on that site is different from what has been mentioned publicly for revenues, profits, percentages, etc.. I'm not saying they're wrong, just that they are all different from what has been mentioned in most of the press. The fact all of them are skewed to benefit the owners more, is just a coincidence.

[ktang 34]

Back to the 2 proposals: Bettman did say, just before the NHLPA came back with their deadline $49 million number, that his $42.5 million offer would be the best that the NHL would offer, take it or leave it etc. So, the NHL is just following through on that warning / threat / plan.

I don't think that the NHLPA would have been busted then if they took that deal, although Goodenow may have lost his position.

[Eazy_b97 1]

If they accept anything at or under $42.5 million, the NHLPA will be blamed for losing the season. If the NHL goes over that number, then they will be blamed. Neither of these wants, or can afford, to take that responsibility.

I still cannot see this getting done. The NHL isn't going to be able to offer the money the players want. If they go for replacement players, it should leave the top 2/3 of NHL players available. All someone would need to do is start something up and all of a sudden the NHL is done. It's weird, I keep hearing how the NHL is in control, but I can't figure it out. They signed the cheques for years, but the players are the ones who people pay to see. They can't get away with charging top dollar for a low end product, especially when theirs a constant threat of a better league with better players buzzing around.

[MDE3 0]

Gary Bettman made the cover page of USA Today Business section in yesterday's USA Today.

The story being told was of the history of the NHL's current problems and not exclusively about Bettman.....It was a pretty interesting analyses...I have no means of installing the link here, but maybe someone else does.

It appeared to be a fairly neutral analyses with plently of blame to spread around for both sides, and alluded to their being several subdivisions within both nominally "unified" groups. Interesting read.

[koivulchuk 1]

is this it MDE3?

http://www.usatoday.com/money/companies/20...l-trouble_x.htm

[MDE3 0]

Thanks a ton..I had typed about half the article, when I thought: "by the time I get this all done (my typing being so fast and all) somone will probably have it posted...."....and By God...there it were.......I now have "carpel tunnel" syndrome......

[Chadd 916]

Two once-vital NHL teams — the Buffalo Sabres and Ottawa Senators — filed for bankruptcy and had to be rescued by the league.

I read the article the other day and this is the only thing that I think is wrong. Ottawa was never very stable financially. Other than that, it is a well written, factual account, something that is rare in sports reporting anymore. Very well done, in my opinion.

[MDE3 0]

I think you may be right about Ottawa, but that was more to do with the debt load, than their market....although not a large city, they are definitely capable of filling the Corel Center(sp?) on a regaular basis....the "Ottawa Valley" has been a hockey hotbed for years.

[Chadd 916]

I think you may be right about Ottawa, but that was more to do with the debt load, than their market....although not a large city, they are definitely capable of filling the Corel Center(sp?) on a regaular basis....the "Ottawa Valley" has been a hockey hotbed for years.

the problem was that they did not have much cash to start and even financed their expansion fee if I remember correctly.