NHL Lockout almost over?

[Crapshoot]

Not good for the sport- since the incompetent idiots who drove the NHL into the ground in the first place are in charge. Bain Capital's takeover would have made more sense.

[Logan]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

Well, looks like the NHL broke the players' union. Good for the sport in the long run, IMO.

Seriously...looks like the players literally left $6 million on the table, dating back to the last breakdown of negotiations.

[stevew]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

Now the real problem. Who wins the Sidney Crosby lottery?

Penguins.

[stevew]

Originally Posted by Logan

Seriously...looks like the players literally left $6 million on the table, dating back to the last breakdown of negotiations.

Yeah, but they arent dealing with as big of a pie as they were previously. Who knows, the players may actually get a higher percentage of revenue under this agreement.

[General Mike]

Originally Posted by Logan

Seriously...looks like the players literally left $6 million on the table, dating back to the last breakdown of negotiations.

6M per team, and it's alot more than that those idiots lost.

[Blade]

One Man's Take on the Story:

http://www.tsn.ca/columnists/bob_mckenzie.asp

McKenzie: Latest cap story is confusing

TSN.ca Staff

6/8/2005

Wednesday's story on the Globe and Mail's website is both interesting and confusing.

Interesting because it re-affirms the rumours that the NHL and NHL Players' Association have basically agreed on a macro-economic linked salary cap payroll system and also interesting because it's chock full of specific numbers, though these numbers are not too much different than what were reported in the New York Post 10 days ago.

But it's an extremely confusing story for the following reason:

The story says each team will have its own individual salary floor and ceiling and that this team-by-team payroll range will be determined as a percentage of each club's individual revenue, not as a percentage of league-wide revenue.

If this were indeed the case, it would be a huge victory for the NHL Players' Association, which would love nothing more than to allow larger revenue teams like the Toronto Maple Leafs and New York Rangers to spend much more than small revenue teams like the Nashville Predators and Phoenix Coyotes.

Think about it. Say for argument's sake, one NHL team has revenues of $100 million and another team has revenues of $50 million. If, as an example, the teams are permitted to spend 54 per cent of revenues on salaries, one team would have a cap of $54 million, while the other team would have a cap of $27 million. That is a $27 million spread between the two teams' caps and you can rest assured it will be a frosty Friday in hell before NHL teams sign off on that type of discrepancy.

And, in fact, the Globe and Mail alludes to the incongruity of that type of formula, but passes it off as saying it will be a "complicated" system.

Oh, it will be complicated alright, but using the Globe and Mail's own numbers, a $22 to $24 million floor and a $34 to $36 million ceiling, those numbers aren't so very different from what the two sides have been batting back and forth for the last month or two on a deal that is linked at 54 per cent of league-wide revenues.

To put it bluntly, if the NHL teams with the highest revenues can't spend any more than $36 million on player costs, you can be sure the new economic system is not based on individual club revenues, which is the premise of the Globe and Mail story.

Now, if all the Globe is actually saying is that big revenue teams will get to spend at the top of end of the $36 million range and small revenue teams will have to spend near the bottom end, well, that's a different story because one suspects those salary range numbers were determined by a percentage of league-wide revenues, such as the 54 per cent figure the league has wanted for a long time.

And, make no mistake, there's a big difference between the two premises. A very big difference.

For TSN.ca, I'm Bob McKenzie.

[DeToxRox]

That story gave me a headache.

So it could be you can have a ceiling for a cap as high as your revenue?

I don't see any problems solved for small market clubs.

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by DeToxRoxDVHStyle

That story gave me a headache.

So it could be you can have a ceiling for a cap as high as your revenue?

I don't see any problems solved for small market clubs.

Yeah- that just sounds like a way to cap costs by the owners but ultimately solving nothing.

SI

[DeToxRox]

Originally Posted by sterlingice

Yeah- that just sounds like a way to cap costs by the owners but ultimately solving nothing.

SI

Exactly. Give it a year before people bring back the dreaded C word again (Contraction)

[Logan]

I've never seen any news that made it seem like some teams could have a cap that high. Everything has said that the highest ceiling would be in the $36-38 million range.

[Blade]

Originally Posted by Logan

I've never seen any news that made it seem like some teams could have a cap that high. Everything has said that the highest ceiling would be in the $36-38 million range.

The question is, is everyone putting out opinions based upon the original article? I think, until something is put out by the NHL and NHLPA, the system is just conjecture...

I am very scared that small market teams are still in trouble, though...

[JPhillips]

I just heard a radio report that the NHLPA has said that reports of an agreement are premature.

[Ryan S]

I would be shocked if the NHLPA agreed to this system. Thye would be far better off waiting another 6 months to try to get a more favorable deal if this is the best on offer right now.

[Logan]

Originally Posted by Ryan S

I would be shocked if the NHLPA agreed to this system. Thye would be far better off waiting another 6 months to try to get a more favorable deal if this is the best on offer right now.

They're not getting a more favorable deal. This was something that was clear months back right before the season officially got cancelled. The owners had all the leverage because they were sticking together. The big market clubs could have went out and said how certain plans would have worked for them, but they stood strong in support of the small market teams. Once the players agreed to any type of salary cap, they were screwed. As time passes on, the owners are in better financial position everyday. The lower revenue teams aren't losing the money they once were, and teams like the Rangers don't care about the lockout, because the owners make more money in other ventures.

It's the players who are losing everything. They are the ones who are taking money-making years off their careers. They are the ones who are all of a sudden 35 when the league starts up again, and whose wheels don't work as well as they did when they were 33, and can't come back at the same level. They are the ones who are suffering big-time injuries playing overseas; they went there with the intent on staying fresh--now they have to worry if they can regain their old form. The owners don't care. When the lockout ends, their money will still be green.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by Logan

The owners had all the leverage because they were sticking together.

Yep, and that is the way that owners can 'win' a strike/lockout. If they stick together and realize that losing seasons will eventually pay off for them in the end, they can't be stopped. That was the problem with baseball and some owners who weren't as into the fight as others. They stuck together poorly and the MLBPA pounced on it. So now you get a system where there hasn't been a banning of steroids until 2004 because the players wouldn't hear of it.

[General Mike]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

Yep, and that is the way that owners can 'win' a strike/lockout. If they stick together and realize that losing seasons will eventually pay off for them in the end, they can't be stopped. That was the problem with baseball and some owners who weren't as into the fight as others. They stuck together poorly and the MLBPA pounced on it. So now you get a system where there hasn't been a banning of steroids until 2004 because the players wouldn't hear of it.

No the problem with baseball is the NLRB fucked everything up.

[Karim]

If it is indeed a team-by-team salary cap based on 54% of team revenues, here's an example from the 2002-2003 season:

		2002-2003
		Revenue	54% Cap
1	New York Rangers	113	61.02
2	Dallas Stars	108	58.32
3	Toronto Maple Leafs	105	56.7
4	Philadelphia Flyers	101	54.54
5	Detroit Red Wings	89	48.06
6	Colorado Avalanche	88	47.52
7	Boston Bruins	84	45.36
8	Minnesota Wild	79	42.66
9	Los Angeles Kings	78	42.12
10	Chicago Blackhawks	74	39.96
11	New Jersey Devils	73	39.42
12	Montreal Canadiens	71	38.34
13	St. Louis Blues	67	36.18
14	Columbus Blue Jackets	66	35.64
15	Vancouver Canucks	66	35.64
16	San Jose Sharks	65	35.1
17	Tampa Bay Lightning	65	35.1
18	Washington Capitals	62	33.48
19	Ottawa Senators	59	31.86
20	Anaheim Mighty Ducks	59	31.86
21	Pittsburgh Penguins	57	30.78
22	Florida Panthers	57	30.78
23	Atlanta Thrashers	57	30.78
24	Carolina Hurricanes	57	30.78
25	New York Islanders	56	30.24
26	Calgary Flames	51	27.54
27	Buffalo Sabres	50	27
28	Edmonton Oilers	48	25.92
29	Nashville Predators	46	24.84
30	Phoenix Coyotes	43	23.22
	Luxury Tax @		42.12

From everything I've read, this is NOT the case. The Shoalts' Globe & Mail article is being heavily criticized today. There are inconsistencies that don't add up. This will have been a completely wasted year if the disparities between top and bottom are still this great wilth the potential to increase. All indications are that the 'payroll range' is indeed based on 54% of league revenues. A $10-$15 million gap between top and bottom is much more palatable.