I don't think they get any revenue sharing now, but that might have been the case with the old owners.

The making teams raise ticket prices because they have a waiting list idea is moronic. Let's make tickets $500 each in major markets and make it so 99% of our fans can't afford to go to games. And then when they watch on TV all they will see is empty seats because the people who can afford those prices only have time to go to a handful of games a year. Eventually those teams will lose their fans and they won't be coming back just because ticket prices are back down.
- noffsin6

to be clear I added raise ticket prices for teams with a waiting list who are getting revenue sharing. that was the point. The Sabres were keeping prices low, had a waiting list, AND were getting rev sharing. make sense?

Two things the owners are flat out never going to go for:

1. Requirement of any team to be in any location. That goes against Article 5, which gives the owners the right to decide where, how, and if a team operates; they're never going to cede any portion of that control to the players.

2. Mandatory raising of ticket prices in any scenario. Again, it goes squarely against Article 5.

From there,
-- Handling of players in the minors goes beyond 2-way contracts ... but let's stick to that point. The easiest ways to handle that are to raise the limits for a player being subject to recall waivers [say, into the 300K range] or eliminate recall waivers entirely. [The former is more likely than the latter.]
-- Expansion of the playoffs to 20 teams is possible, but the players will probably want protections in scheduling [drastic limiting of 3-in-4 days scheduling, elimination of 4-in-6 and 5-in-7 scheduling, etc.]
-- The point about “trading of cap dollars” is badly labeled; you probably mean “sharing of cap hits” here, where one teams assumes part or all of a player’s cap hit and salary when traded. That said, the small-market teams may fight this tooth and nail, as it allows large-market teams to effectively duck their bad signings much more easily.
-- Changes to the discipline system are likely; I’m not sure it will be a 3-person panel [you can bet which way the NHLPA and NHL rep will vote every time], but I can see it going to a system arbitrator as is currently specified in the CBA.
-- Bonuses for everyone is a good idea in theory … but it’s ripe for being abused to death. [No, no free guesses on which teams would do this.]
-- “Week of discussion” prior to July 1: I’m OK with that, I suspect both sides would be as well [as you indicated].
-- Publishing of player arbitration hearings: there’s so few of them anyway now, I’m not sure anything useful would really be gained from this other than satisfying the curiosity of the fans. That said, I’d be shocked if the NHL said “sure, let everyone hear how we talked down the player in arbitration.”
-- Treating Euros the same as Juniors. In theory, yes - but you’re woefully short on specifics; besides, the European teams have valid arguments why younger European players should be treated differently.
-- AHL players to practice with NHL teams: sounds great, but in practice only a few teams will be able to do this in a cost-effective manner … mainly those teams who have AHL affiliates nearby [especially Toronto, Philadelphia, NY Rangers, Chicago, and Boston]. In other words, this largely benefits large-market teams who will be able to utilize this more frequently.
-- Point #11, I don’t get – unless you really think there’s going to be expansion to 32 teams. Even assuming a $500 million entry fee, that’s only $16 million per team, twice over … over a 6-7 year period [the time the new CBA would be effective]. Effectively, this says “we’re not paying $100 million over 6 years, so we can do without another $33 million when expansion happens.” You’ll have to expand on this.
-- Compensation for departing UFA’s: this reads as one of the forks of the “homegrown player” benefit, and I don’t see the NHLPA agreeing to a system where compensation is determined by a factor that players who are not UFA don’t have control over.
-- Luxury tax: this is going to be in the NHLPA’s proposal; watch the sparks fly, then tell me how likely it is that the owners go for it. Like most things here, this is missing details - especially how this impacts the share of revenues the players get.
-- Franchise tags. Not saying this couldn’t happen, but without real specifics [is this limited to only “homegrown” players? How is their salary set when franchised? How many times can a player be franchised? Can that player be traded when franchised? Lots of details missing here] I don’t see it happening.

really? expand the playoffs to 20 teams?

The regular season is already to long and now you want to make the regular season totally irrelevant?

I have an idea;

Do away with the playoffs all together and make the regular season the playoffs.

The team with the best record at the end of the regular season wins the cup!

Now all teams can charge playoff money for all 41 regular season games!



- ggunky

I know you're not serious, but THIS would render the regular season meaningless for over half the games for close to half the league.

More teams making the playoffs makes the late season games MORE meaningful. It's not good for business when 8-10 teams are already out of it by the all-star game.

The luxury tax idea is good in theory, but I think the gap between the have's and havenot's is way too wide for that to happen and for the parity in the league to remain the way it is.
- buffalofan19

You can limit the Luxury Tax to either an amount or percentage over the cap. The League doesn't care if the Smaller Markets are spending a lot of money so long as they are given a fair chance. But then you have to consider that successful, high spending franchises like LA, NYR, Philly, Toronto, Montreal (Essentially your bottom line) are given the opportunity to use that wealth just that much more.

I'm a proponent of lowering the Cap Floor to 50-55% of the Cap total, with a Luxury tax, and Revenue Sharing. Everybody wins.

I like the idea of selling players, because then it gives smaller market teams incentive and clout to either pay for bigger fish, and thus, keep their talent. Anything that rich teams can do to solve their problems, and then give the smaller market teams every chance for more playable dollars solves a lot of problems.

For example, if I am the owner of Montreal, and I give my GM the authority to move a contract. Let's say I send Erik Cole's Contract back to Carolina because he's detrimental in the Locker Room, and give Carolina Say 75% of that years Cap hit, I've not only removed a problem and cut losses, I've also reduced my cap and bought myself a trade. If any team can do this, then poorer teams paying overpriced, let's say untradeable contracts, I've essentially spent less total cost to move, and saved money. And in the end, formulated a trade for cash incentives meaning I'm not just moving players at a cost, I'm buying decent trading for annual loss recovery.

Point 14 would be ridiculous in Montreal. Tickets are already way up, and waiting list is like 4 years long. I think a nose bleed seat would end up costing $400 before the waiting list stops.

to be clear I added raise ticket prices for teams with a waiting list who are getting revenue sharing. that was the point. The Sabres were keeping prices low, had a waiting list, AND were getting rev sharing. make sense?
- Eklund

Okay, that does make more sense. I still think that's going to be a pretty complicated system and probably won't work but I see the problem your trying to fix now.

Can't say that I am a fan of the 20 teams making the playoffs idea.
I could maybe get on board with a wildcard series where 8 and 9 playoff for the final playoff seed... but that's a stretch.
If 2/3 of the teams make the playoffs... it really does make the regular season almost pointless.

Not to mention... the Leafs may actually get postseason revenue for the first time in a decade!
- mlindsay

that was exactly what he suggested. 7 plays 10, 8 plays 9 for the final 2 spots. likely a 3 game series...

#3 Require a Second Team in Southern Ontario


- HabsKovalev27

A second team in southern Ontario would be great, might bring out the need to compete rather then just simply drift along as a monopoly for the Leafs.

Point 14 would be ridiculous in Montreal. Tickets are already way up, and waiting list is like 4 years long. I think a nose bleed seat would end up costing $400 before the waiting list stops.
- l3ig_l2ecl

put a $ value that the tickets need to be above with waiting lists...and make it reasonable, like 2/3rds of Montreal/Toronto's average.

I know you're not serious, but THIS would render the regular season meaningless for over half the games for close to half the league.

More teams making the playoffs makes the late season games MORE meaningful. It's not good for business when 8-10 teams are already out of it by the all-star game.
- Big_Lightnin

If the playoffs become even longer than they currently are, fans will likely stop watching it as it would get boring. Eventually making the first round meaningless. They are already 2 months long. I'm a huge hockey fan, but unless Montreal is in the playoffs, I wont start watching until the semis. This means I'm a month in front of my TV none stop.

There's a number of reasons why expanding the playoffs isn't a great idea, but the one that's relevant to this blog is that by expanding it so 20 teams make the playoffs is going to kill the trade deadline off for good. There are already more than 20 teams that still have a shot of making the playoffs at the trade deadline as it is. If you expand it to 20 teams everyone except the very bottom dwellers will think they have a chance to get in and won't want to trade their players away.

The soft cap on the other hand, would probably boost trade deadline deals (as long as you don't expand the playoffs too).

A second team in southern Ontario would be great, might bring out the need to compete rather then just simply drift along as a monopoly for the Leafs.
- gstrandberg

It will always be a mistery why there isn't another team in Southern Ontario. I remember in the mid 90s that Hamilton put a bit to get a team. I was too young to follow closely, but I think the problem wasn't Toronto, but rather Buffalo. I still think that's a road block for Hamilton to get a team. However Brampton or Mississauga now has grown by so much compared to 15 years ago. It would be perfect.

If the playoffs become even longer than they currently are, fans will likely stop watching it as it would get boring. Eventually making the first round meaningless. They are already 2 months long. I'm a huge hockey fan, but unless Montreal is in the playoffs, I wont start watching until the semis. This means I'm a month in front of my TV none stop.
- l3ig_l2ecl

There is that issue. Though really you're only talking a week tops (3 game series), and often there is a week between end of season and regular season anyway. Wildcard teams don't get that week.

Definitely don't want to go later into June, but Reg season could always start a week earlier.

Casual fans of teams not in the playoffs might watch less, but more affected Fan Bases will watch. And again, makes late season games more important for bottom teams, so more viewers/gate revenue from fans who would normally have switched to baseball or NBA cause their team is out.

not perfect idea, but there are a lot of financial pluses. Worth looking at.

Eklund: Your Lockout Primer in 5,000words or less.Compromise/Ideas from Top Sources
- Eklund

Good read.
I'm totally against 2, allowing more teams in the playoffs would just dilute it...16 teams is enough. You cant have over 60% of your teams make the playoffs, it simply doesn't make them that much of a big deal anymore.
Same with 12......a team losing an UFA should not be compensated at all..its business, in fact I'm all for players becoming UFA's earlier.
Also, no franchise tags, this isn't a video game...if there's a cap...than abide by it, no loop holes.

There's a number of reasons why expanding the playoffs isn't a great idea, but the one that's relevant to this blog is that by expanding it so 20 teams make the playoffs is going to kill the trade deadline off for good. There are already more than 20 teams that still have a shot of making the playoffs at the trade deadline as it is. If you expand it to 20 teams everyone except the very bottom dwellers will think they have a chance to get in and won't want to trade their players away.

The soft cap on the other hand, would probably boost trade deadline deals (as long as you don't expand the playoffs too).
- noffsin6

That is certainly a downside. But really, so what?

that was exactly what he suggested. 7 plays 10, 8 plays 9 for the final 2 spots. likely a 3 game series...
- Big_Lightnin

No, this isn't baseball....horrible idea.
Leave it at 16 teams.
Did you not read the blog...K.I.S.S!

If the playoffs become even longer than they currently are, fans will likely stop watching it as it would get boring. Eventually making the first round meaningless. They are already 2 months long. I'm a huge hockey fan, but unless Montreal is in the playoffs, I wont start watching until the semis. This means I'm a month in front of my TV none stop.
- l3ig_l2ecl

This. Ask any Sharks fan, there's nothing worse than spending two months watching your team every other night when you know they're just going to lose in the Conference finals.

No, this isn't baseball....horrible idea.
Leave it at 16 teams.
Did you not read the blog...K.I.S.S!
- Fakepartofme

Simple doesn't make the most money. I would be build revenue. Period.

And that's what they are looking to do.

That is certainly a downside. But really, so what?
- Big_Lightnin

Just thought it was interesting considering who is proposing it.

Just thought it was interesting considering who is proposing it.
- noffsin6

Simple doesn't make the most money. I would be build revenue. Period.

And that's what they are looking to do.
- Big_Lightnin

Great, still doesn't make it better for the game.

Great, still doesn't make it better for the game.
- Fakepartofme

Probably not, but that's not the basis for decision making now is it

Probably not, but that's not the basis for decision making now is it
- Big_Lightnin

F'n Bettman.

That is certainly a downside. But really, so what?
- Big_Lightnin

I'm sorry in advance, but if I don't say this, who will???

This could be the only way Toronto makes the playoffs......

lol I'm just teasing...

really? expand the playoffs to 20 teams?

The regular season is already to long and now you want to make the regular season totally irrelevant?

I have an idea;

Do away with the playoffs all together and make the regular season the playoffs.

The team with the best record at the end of the regular season wins the cup!

Now all teams can charge playoff money for all 41 regular season games!



- ggunky

Great, Great idea. Vancouver has just won the last two Stanley Cups and now every team wants Luongo because he doesn't have to play in the playoffs anymore.

Luongo for Crosby, Malkin, Neal, Letang and a circa 1984 Mike Bullard mustache and Pittsburgh still wins the cup by dominating in the regular season.