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...
- l3ig_l2ecl

Just gonna pretend it wouldn't help you guys a ton too?

Flames fans would (frank)ing LOVE this idea

Maybe I am in the minority here, and I understadn coming from a leaf fan this can sound liek sour grapes, but with that in mind here goes......

In all other sports, the elagues work to prop up their anchors.
In baseball everyone loves to hate the dodger, yankees, and red sox. The league isn't trying to keep these guys competetive with the rest.
In EPL, Man U and Arsenal etc, are always tops.
In basketball if the lakers aren't in the plyoffs everyone is upset.

In hockey you see the reverse. The last 8 years have seen a huge drop off in fan bases in Detroit, Toronto and Montreal and to a lesser extent Chicago. Dallas went from a top team to bankruptcy.
The system pushed in by the "non hockey market" owners is destroying the base franchises.

I am truely hopeful that this time the corner stone franchises will be a lot more vocal, and persuasive, and ensure a system is put in place that allows for some sort of protection for the big name franchises. I.e. allowing them to spend their own money.

Just gonna pretend it wouldn't help you guys a ton too?

Flames fans would (frank)ing LOVE this idea
- Big_Lightnin

They would find a way to make a run for 11th place.

F'n Bettman.
- Fakepartofme

If there is a Lockout I hope an 8 team Canadian league crops up . Van Tor Mtl Edm CGY Ham. Wpg Ott. We do have the arenas. Just think no more Bettman or weak markets.

a lot of interesting points....some will fly some won't.
Its always important to remamber that this is a "gate driven league".

Some points that will benefit the league and the players....
1) add a second team in southern Ontario. probably 750-800 million. depending on location the Leafs and perhaps the Sabres may be entitled to infringement fee's....But then its a win fall for expansion dollars that would be spread out to other teams as well.
The players gain a cap spending team which is always good...and quite frankly the team would be a $ monster, just like the Leafs......
anyone that knows this area realizes that it wouldn't hurt the Leafs and leafs nation one i-o-ta.
you could probably add two teams in that area.....allthough that won't happen for another decade or so.

2) the % will settle around what the other two leagues have settled for ....around 50 %.

3) Players with experience should be more free to move around as they get into their 30"s....they have paid their dues to the game. Drop the over 35 rule.

4) Your Discipline rule is great for both sides....it makes the process seem more legitimate.

5) Dollars able to be traded. Why Not? trades, Change create interest and god knows the NHL needs that...I might actually watch trade deadline day again!!!!

6)Entry contracts 5 years....6 year-7th year RFA eligible.....year 8-9 a player can become a UFA although a team can use a "franchise tag" for up to a two year contract.... this would slow those 2nd contracts where teams are forced to pay guy for what he might do.

7) the rules for LTIR should not be as strict allowing players to make more and teams that have key guys suffer serious injuries put the $ towards other assets.


The key is still the %....and what actually goes into that Gross #.....Players and Owners still disagree what that number should consist of.

as well many players want the ability to compete in the next Olympics....since its not in North America...I can see why the Owners could care less and may choose tto say no....but its an olive branch issue that may help to bridge the gap.

Maybe I am in the minority here, and I understadn coming from a leaf fan this can sound liek sour grapes, but with that in mind here goes......

In all other sports, the elagues work to prop up their anchors.
In baseball everyone loves to hate the dodger, yankees, and red sox. The league isn't trying to keep these guys competetive with the rest.
In EPL, Man U and Arsenal etc, are always tops.
In basketball if the lakers aren't in the plyoffs everyone is upset.

In hockey you see the reverse. The last 8 years have seen a huge drop off in fan bases in Detroit, Toronto and Montreal and to a lesser extent Chicago. Dallas went from a top team to bankruptcy.
The system pushed in by the "non hockey market" owners is destroying the base franchises.

I am truely hopeful that this time the corner stone franchises will be a lot more vocal, and persuasive, and ensure a system is put in place that allows for some sort of protection for the big name franchises. I.e. allowing them to spend their own money.
- B-Wforever

From the owners proposal, clearly the small market and almost bankrupt teams are running the show. The major market owners don't care that the cap has gone up or that the floor is higher than the original ceiling. And while they probably wouldn't mind seeing the players get 43% of revenue instead of 57% I doubt their losing much sleep over it.

Maybe I am in the minority here, and I understadn coming from a leaf fan this can sound liek sour grapes, but with that in mind here goes......

In all other sports, the elagues work to prop up their anchors.
In baseball everyone loves to hate the dodger, yankees, and red sox. The league isn't trying to keep these guys competetive with the rest.
In EPL, Man U and Arsenal etc, are always tops.
In basketball if the lakers aren't in the plyoffs everyone is upset.

In hockey you see the reverse. The last 8 years have seen a huge drop off in fan bases in Detroit, Toronto and Montreal and to a lesser extent Chicago. Dallas went from a top team to bankruptcy.
The system pushed in by the "non hockey market" owners is destroying the base franchises.

I am truely hopeful that this time the corner stone franchises will be a lot more vocal, and persuasive, and ensure a system is put in place that allows for some sort of protection for the big name franchises. I.e. allowing them to spend their own money.
- B-Wforever

Yet from 95-04, when the thee richest teams could afford to buy any team they wanted, they still coudn't put a winning team on the ice.

Montreal and Toronto couldn't get top players, dumb management could be part of it. NY bought everything they could, but still didn't win cups after 94.

The you had Detroit who had the money, management, and franchise to go along with it. Since then, the city has gone bankrupt (not hockey related), and no one really wants to live there. They still have the management and prestige though.

You had Dallas and Colorado who figured Spending money means championship, but yet that still didn't sell every seat during the regular season. In the end they were broke, but at lease they won Stanley Cups.

Chicago had the worst owner in history. One that figured it was a privilage to go watch hockey, so he blacked out local TV. If they had todays owner between 95-04, they might have pulled a dynasty. Tons of cash, fan base, prestige, management.....

I think NJ might have got the worst of the cap. They are a team that filled out the arena when they were winning. They had the money to do so. Now they kept the same mentality of spending, but the playing field is equal. The arena is 1/2 filled, and they are losing tons of cash....

Oh and btw EK, this is a great blog. A long one, but a great morning read.

BTW, instead of picking apart your suggestions further, why not start with this [I originally put this together back in February, it's undergone 2 major revisions since] and tweak it out? I think it has a much better chance of being what the NHL and NHLPA finally agree to, and it addresses many of the problems that everyone has with the current CBA.

http://www.capgeek.com/NH...LPA_2012_CBA_Proposal.pdf

Forcing teams to raise ticket prices if the have waiting lists is completely ridiculous. Having 1 team charge $10 for a ticket and another team charge $500 shouldn't happen. Also it is completely unfair to force people out of their season tickets because they cannot afford them, only to pass them on to the next "rich guy" on the list. That's nothing but a big "F" you to your most loyal fans.

Besides, if you look at the well-run leagues like the NFL, ticket sales are just the icing on the cake when it comes to revenue. TV deals, advertising and merchandise is where the money is.

Simply put the NHL needs to keep growing the game. They are on the right track but another lockout with set them back another few steps.

Forcing teams to raise ticket prices if the have waiting lists is completely ridiculous. Having 1 team charge $10 for a ticket and another team charge $500 shouldn't happen. Also it is completely unfair to force people out of their season tickets because they cannot afford them, only to pass them on to the next "rich guy" on the list. That's nothing but a big "F" you to your most loyal fans.

Besides, if you look at the well-run leagues like the NFL, ticket sales are just the icing on the cake when it comes to revenue. TV deals, advertising and merchandise is where the money is.

Simply put the NHL needs to keep growing the game. They are on the right track but another lockout with set them back another few steps.
- The-O-G

No word of a lie...the ACC has mortgage centers for ticket purchasers...they give you a discount when you need to remortgage to afford tickets to any given game

Maybe I am in the minority here, and I understadn coming from a leaf fan this can sound liek sour grapes, but with that in mind here goes......

In all other sports, the elagues work to prop up their anchors.
In baseball everyone loves to hate the dodger, yankees, and red sox. The league isn't trying to keep these guys competetive with the rest.
In EPL, Man U and Arsenal etc, are always tops.
In basketball if the lakers aren't in the plyoffs everyone is upset.

In hockey you see the reverse. The last 8 years have seen a huge drop off in fan bases in Detroit, Toronto and Montreal and to a lesser extent Chicago. Dallas went from a top team to bankruptcy.
The system pushed in by the "non hockey market" owners is destroying the base franchises.

I am truely hopeful that this time the corner stone franchises will be a lot more vocal, and persuasive, and ensure a system is put in place that allows for some sort of protection for the big name franchises. I.e. allowing them to spend their own money.
- B-Wforever

what the hell are you talking about? only fanbase thats seen a drop off is Detroit, and that's got more to do with a decaying, crime-ridden and depressed economy than the NHL landscape. but drop offs in fanbases in Montreal, Chicago and Toronto??

No word of a lie...the ACC has mortgage centers for ticket purchasers...they give you a discount when you need to remortgage to afford tickets to any given game
- Colin Dambrauskas

Haha I believe you....but it should never be that way!

Like I said before, ticket revenues should be the icing on the cake, not the main source of revenue.

What needs to be curbed is 12 year, front loaded deals, everything else can pretty much stay the same IMO.

Yet from 95-04, when the thee richest teams could afford to buy any team they wanted, they still coudn't put a winning team on the ice.

Montreal and Toronto couldn't get top players, dumb management could be part of it. NY bought everything they could, but still didn't win cups after 94.


- l3ig_l2ecl

Toronto had more playoff games played (previous decade) than any other NHL team up to the lockout.

Man some people seriously need to read better.

Nobody said to raise ticket prices if there is a waiting list.
It said to raise ticket prices beyond revenue sharing eligibility IF they have a waiting list.

This excludes all major markets with very high ticket prices as they do not get revenue sharing.

This only applies to teams like the Sabres for example, as explained by Eklund who were keeping prices just low enough to be eligible for revenue sharing, yet they had plenty of people on a waiting list willing to pay more money to get tickets.

If you have people willing to wait on a list to get tickets, then you can afford to raise prices and not be eligible for revenue sharing. Revenue sharing is supposed to be there to help the weaker markets.

Did anyone count how many words he used?

Did anyone count how many words he used?
- HuileHab

5367 not counting the title.

Ek said 5000 or less..... What a liar.....

what the hell are you talking about? only fanbase thats seen a drop off is Detroit, and that's got more to do with a decaying, crime-ridden and depressed economy than the NHL landscape. but drop offs in fanbases in Montreal, Chicago and Toronto??
- DoubleDown

For the first time in... well ever I think. Toronto didn't have sellouts last season. Up for sale (sold?) this year.
Canadiens were sold in 09. Operating incomes that have barely increased despite seeing a 30 cents on the dollar difference in gate/salarie due tot he plunge of the american dollar.

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

Dear Ek:

Best blog you've ever written.

But I'll take issue with a few things:

"The percentage that Bettman holds right now is the difference between 57 percent and 48 percent. That's nine points to play with; nine points to try and assure even the most financially vulnerable NHL teams survive. Toward this end, Bettman also holds the negotiating tactic of defining the semantics of "hockey-related" revenue."
- Eklund

It's actually 43 per cent - they are also looking to redefine how revenues are calculated.

"#3 Require a Second Team in Southern Ontario"
- Eklund

Do you think Snider would like a second team in Philly?

"#14. Force Teams With Waiting Lists to Raise Ticket Prices."
- Eklund

Edit - just saw that you meant for teams receiving revenue sharing. Sure, I'll go for that.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

And at the end of the day, I just can't share your optimism.

Sure, we may have a season this year, but it isn't happening before US Thanksgiving.

roughly around what time will the NHLPA'S new offer be submitted?

If there is a Lockout I hope an 8 team Canadian league crops up . Van Tor Mtl Edm CGY Ham. Wpg Ott. We do have the arenas. Just think no more Bettman or weak markets.
- VANTEL

You do know that the NHL propped up Ottawa, Calgary, Edmonton and Vancouver when they were "weak markets", right?

Yes, Vancouver.

Look it up.

For the first time in... well ever I think. Toronto didn't have sellouts last season. Up for sale (sold?) this year.
Canadiens were sold in 09. Operating incomes that have barely increased despite seeing a 30 cents on the dollar difference in gate/salarie due tot he plunge of the american dollar.
- B-Wforever

I don't know the deal with the Toronto sale. I know it's had crap ownership for quite sometime now as I've heard this over and over. Not making the playoffs in 7 years is not good business. A GM like Burke definately kills a team.

I can however speak about Montreal. The prior owner George Gillette has multiple world wide investments. Many of them in the american car industry. The recession killed him. He was so much in debt that he had to either sale the Canadiens or Liverpool. He chose to sell the Habs.

I am confident that neither of these sales had anything to do with the Cap.

"However, where Bettman REALLY won the war last time is he managed to convince a group of 30 wealthy owners to skip a season. Thirty teams who, quite frankly, only have their own interests at heart. Somehow, Bettman got them to work together. "

you really think it was Gary who got 30 millionaires to work together?

Do not think so !

that is not how Boards work !

Gary is the patsy of the 30 owners. The 30 owners got Gary to work with them !

The 30 owners collectively tell Gary to jump, miss a season, shoot himself in the foot, and Gary does what he is told !

Man some people seriously need to read better.

Nobody said to raise ticket prices if there is a waiting list.
It said to raise ticket prices beyond revenue sharing eligibility IF they have a waiting list.

This excludes all major markets with very high ticket prices as they do not get revenue sharing.

This only applies to teams like the Sabres for example, as explained by Eklund who were keeping prices just low enough to be eligible for revenue sharing, yet they had plenty of people on a waiting list willing to pay more money to get tickets.

If you have people willing to wait on a list to get tickets, then you can afford to raise prices and not be eligible for revenue sharing. Revenue sharing is supposed to be there to help the weaker markets.
- Swifty49

If the Sabres [or any other team] are artificially keeping ticket prices low while spending to the cap, the solution isn't "force them to raise ticket prices" because then you run into two questions: (1) how much do ticket prices have to be raised [and who's going to make that decision], and (2) if ticket prices get raised to the point beyond that which the market can bear and marginal revenue is lost, is the rest of the league going to kick in to make up for the difference?

[Example of #2: say the Sabres have 16,000 people [15,000 of which will get tickets] interested in season tickets at an average $60/game; however, the league forces them to raise ticket prices 20%, and at $72/game they only have 12,000 people interested. They lose $36K per game in revenue due to the mandatory price increase [$900K/game down to $864K/game]; that's a little under $1.5 million for a 41-game package. Does the rest of the league kick in $1.5 million to make the Sabres whole for forcing a price increase they might not have otherwise taken?]

If you require revenue sharing, you shouldn't be spending to the cap in the first place; any change should be oriented in that direction, where teams lose some percentage of revenue sharing the more they spend over the midpoint of the salary cap range. This still lets teams spend freely, but puts the onus of overspending what they can afford back on that individual team instead of forcing everyone else to bear the cost.

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

I disagree on the trading of dollars, giving a week to talk prior to FA day or luxury tax. All 3 of these would lead to MORE overspending and ridiculous contracts. The whole idea of the salary cap was to bring parity. Which it has been extremly successful doing. It would be a step backwards to allow these items.

It will be interesting to see what the players put forth. I think this will all be settled pretty quickly if the players agree to lower their share. If they allow a 50/50 split...the rest could go mostly their way.