I would think that Negotiations 101 state that both sides lowball each other and you meet in the middle. If the owners lowball and the players shoot straight, does that mean that meeting in the middle means it will be heavily favored towards the owner's requests? If both sides have to give a little to get and the NHLPA have made a reasonable request, it may not favor the NHLPA too well. - steelydan
I think it's known that the NHLPA will have to give more then the NHL to get a deal done.
No reason that couldn't happen again. In fact, if the loonie drops to something more like $1.20CN = $1US, at least two teams in Canada not only become eligible for revenue sharing funds, they potentially start needing revenue sharing funds to be able to spend to the midpoint of the salary cap range. - Irish Blues
Actually there is a big reason it won't happen again....USA running a huge deficit year after year after year (with no signs of stopping), and Canada's strong/stable economy. Those days are over.
they show up to work get their paycheck and go home. owners have all the risks. even if the owners win big this time, in the end the players still win.
lets say the NHLPA bows down to the NHL in this upcomming CBA well it will benefit the players by having a stronger and more stable league. put the shoe on the other foot and there is no more NHL but the players can still go and play in other leagues. so the players win no matter the outcome
Also if someone could give their input on what i'm about to say...
The cap was set at 39M last lockout.... this helped reduce how much money was spent, and helped allow small market teams have a better chance.
The average payroll in 2003 was 45M, thus on average each teams payroll dropped atleast 6M. So around 180M in salaries were cut.
Thus the league was making more profit. Small Market teams were able to be competitive, and it kept costs low.
Flash forward to today, the cap is 70M and it seems that every small market team is losing money and can;t be competitive.
IS the cap the problem? - cor99
In theory, the cap did exactly what it set out to do. However, it did it too well. The league revenue grew so fast that the cap, based on a mathematical system, followed it.
Yes lower teams are still struggling to make it to the floor and yet be profitable. They currently have the same money at the end. Players cost more, but they have more money to spend for them. 20 million more in revenue to spend on players.
Ideally, by giving more of the profit to the owners (especially lower market), they can now spend to the ceilling and not lose anything.
I think a good scenario would be a smaller difference between the floor and the ceilling. Then do the revenue sharing accordingly. They can then start discussing luxury tax, because richer teams will still want that edge.
It's an endless cycle. The more the owners earn, the more they can spend. The more they can spend, the more profit they can get, the more profit, the more they spend, and so on. Someday they will have capped out on popularity. This will be when they get the best TV deals, best sponsor money. Until then, owners want more money to spend more to make more.
Actually there is a big reason it won't happen again....USA running a huge deficit year after year after year (with no signs of stopping), and Canada's strong/stable economy. Those days are over. - The-O-G
History is littered with things that were "sure bets" and "events that will never happen again." I would never assume that "the way it is now" is "the way it will always be." As much as I hear about Canada's "strong/stable economy" it contines to be predicated on two things:
1. A massive real estate bubble [which most people in Canada swear to God doesn't exist ... which is exactly what was said in huge swaths of the U.S. in 2005-2006], and
2. The idea that commodity prices are going to continue ever-higher. If the world economy sputters [as all signs point to], commodity prices are not going to go up, up and away. If the world economy crashes outright [as some suspect - and if/when Europe implodes, that's a real possibility], demand is going to crash; surely I don't have to say what that means for commodity prices.
Sure, the U.S. has warts and long-term we're screwing ourselves. Unfortunately for Canada, its fortunes are tied to the U.S. [roughly 70% of your exports come to us, roughly 60% of your imports come from us]. In short: if we go to the mat, you're getting dragged down as well - and since only one of us is the world's reserve currency, the other one could face harsh consequences much faster when problems hit.
But, maybe you're right. Maybe this time really is different, and maybe this time you'll buck history.
Location: Peter Chiarelli is a fking moron, Calgary, AB Joined: 07.12.2012
Aug 14 @ 3:40 PM ET
The thing that annoys me about the greedy, selfish owners is that even in the smaller market cities, they are offering huge contracts to players with massive bonuses that don't count towards their cap, and yet they still complain about how they aren't making money, or even losing money each year. - OilersFan1985
Location: This world is just a veil and the face you wear is not your own., ON Joined: 07.06.2007
Aug 14 @ 3:42 PM ET
Also if someone could give their input on what i'm about to say...
The cap was set at 39M last lockout.... this helped reduce how much money was spent, and helped allow small market teams have a better chance.
The average payroll in 2003 was 45M, thus on average each teams payroll dropped atleast 6M. So around 180M in salaries were cut.
Thus the league was making more profit. Small Market teams were able to be competitive, and it kept costs low.
Flash forward to today, the cap is 70M and it seems that every small market team is losing money and can;t be competitive.
IS the cap the problem? - cor99
No the cap isn't really the problem. Normally, the growth in revenues and therefore the cap, would come as a result of revenue growth across the League. Instead, it has come from 4 or 5 teams. That imbalance is the problem as is the league's attempt to use further reduction in player salaries to fix the problem instead of using more revenue sharing
No the cap isn't really the problem. Normally, the growth in revenues and therefore the cap, would come as a result of revenue growth across the League. Instead, it has come from 4 or 5 teams. That imbalance is the problem as is the league's attempt to use further reduction in player salaries to fix the problem instead of using more revenue sharing - Canada Cup
So do u think taking away the salary floor would help those teams? So that they don't have to spend to the floor or would putting a contract length cap be the better way to go.
Also if someone could give their input on what i'm about to say...
The cap was set at 39M last lockout.... this helped reduce how much money was spent, and helped allow small market teams have a better chance.
The average payroll in 2003 was 45M, thus on average each teams payroll dropped atleast 6M. So around 180M in salaries were cut.
Thus the league was making more profit. Small Market teams were able to be competitive, and it kept costs low.
Flash forward to today, the cap is 70M and it seems that every small market team is losing money and can;t be competitive.
IS the cap the problem? - cor99
Yes, but not for the reason most people think. Some look at the floor as a percentage of the cap and think the problem lies there. Those people fail basic math and think that if I have a fraction like 3/4 and I add 6 to both the numerator and the denominator, the resulting fraction should still equal 75%.
The real problem is that much of the revenue growth has come from large-market teams, where growing revenues is easier to do. Because they grow faster than small-market teams, they have the greatest impact on the growth of the cap; small-market teams then have to grow at an even faster rate to keep up, but are constrained by the nature of the particular markets they're in. Throw in growth due to the appreciation in the Canadian dollar [probably worth about $4 million on the cap per year; I'd have to find my data files to get the exact numbers] and you have a double-edged sword carving up the ability of small-market teams to break even.
Even if you change the percentage of revenues going into the cap, if you don't put a brake in on how high-revenue teams drive the growth in the cap and/or fundamentally change revenue sharing to provide more assistance, we'll be back at the same point in 6-8 more years. Sure, short-term the small-market teams will look good ... but long-term, they'll still be screwed because they can't grow as fast as the large-market teams.
That is the root problem. Not ultra-long contracts, not signing bonuses, not player salaries in general - it's the fact that small-market teams are being taken for a ride by the large-market teams who are growing at a faster pace.
So do u think taking away the salary floor would help those teams? So that they don't have to spend to the floor or would putting a contract length cap be the better way to go. - Yeti1181
A contract length cap fixes nothing. Arguably, it makes the problem even worse as players are guaranteed to make their fair market value more often. [Not to mention, it makes the players pay for the inability of the GM's to control themselves when handing out contracts.]
Taking away the salary floor would help in theory - but the players won't go for that if there's still a cap in place. It has to come down to improved revenue sharing and/or slowing down the growth in the cap to something the small-market teams can deal with. Anything else is treating symptoms instead of the problem.
Location: Peter Chiarelli is a fking moron, Calgary, AB Joined: 07.12.2012
Aug 14 @ 3:55 PM ET
Also if someone could give their input on what i'm about to say...
The cap was set at 39M last lockout.... this helped reduce how much money was spent, and helped allow small market teams have a better chance.
The average payroll in 2003 was 45M, thus on average each teams payroll dropped atleast 6M. So around 180M in salaries were cut.
Thus the league was making more profit. Small Market teams were able to be competitive, and it kept costs low.
Flash forward to today, the cap is 70M and it seems that every small market team is losing money and can;t be competitive.
IS the cap the problem? - cor99
The cap is NOT the problem...Its the percentages, hence the league wanting to cut the players share to 46%. If they got 50% I think they would be very happy.
ie: At the current revenues:
The cap is at 70 million
Cut players share to 50% then cap would go to roughly 61 million.
A contract length cap fixes nothing. Arguably, it makes the problem even worse as players are guaranteed to make their fair market value more often. - Irish Blues[Not to mention, it makes the players pay for the inability of the GM's to control themselves when handing out contracts.]
Taking away the salary floor would help in theory - but the players won't go for that if there's still a cap in place. It has to come down to improved revenue sharing and/or slowing down the growth in the cap to something the small-market teams can deal with. Anything else is treating symptoms instead of the problem.
If they can't do long term contracts they can't be giving out 12 year deals were cap hit is low but paying out huge money at the start see weber, Shea. So it would force the contract to be actually worthless money or player cap hit would be close to 11 million for some players which hopefully we won't see.
Location: This world is just a veil and the face you wear is not your own., ON Joined: 07.06.2007
Aug 14 @ 4:10 PM ET
The cap is NOT the problem...Its the percentages, hence the league wanting to cut the players share to 46%. If they got 50% I think they would be very happy.
ie: At the current revenues:
The cap is at 70 million
Cut players share to 50% then cap would go to roughly 61 million. - Iggysbff
Why should the players pay to keep those teams afloat? Why not high revenue teams through more ervenue sharing or a luxury tax?
