I don't think anyone is saying that.

I think the point is that those players are replaceable.

Three facts are relevant:

1) As a "generation" of stars gets older and eventually retires, people cheer for new stars, buy new stars' sweaters etc. Edmonton fans will buy Taylor Hall sweaters. I imagine there are very Few Gretzky and Messier sweaters being sold now, comparatively speaking.

2) If the big stars, or your favorite stars get traded, almost no fans will switch allegiance. They will continue to cheer for their team. Are Flyers fans rushing out to buy L.A. "Richards" sweaters or are they buying Giroux sweaters?

3) Even if your team sucks, do you go buy sweaters of the stars from another team. Do you cheer for another team. The Habs and Leafs were among the most supported teams in the league last year, and every year, and they were also among the 5 worst teams in the league.

The point is pretty clear, and pretty difficult (impossible) to deny. People cheer for the sweater. At any given point of time they will cheer for a star, or even a goon, wearing the sweater, but that particular star or goon is replacable. The cheering for the sweater endures.

The owners own the sweaters.
- Aetherial

Oh I agree that the owners proposal in the $ figure doesn't fix the problem. Someone posted something earlier that said you can't come up with a perfect CBA.

To be honest, the only way to "fix" the problem so that all 30 teams are healthy is to completely redifine HRR or base players salary on a fixed cap where the floor and ceiling are wider apart. Have a cap that does not increase 5-7% each year. So have a 5 year CBA and then you can renegotiate the cap.
- l3ig_l2ecl

I guess I just don't think there is a share of HRR that would make some of these teams viable. Maybe players could pay for the right to play for the Coyotes.

Oh I agree that the owners proposal in the $ figure doesn't fix the problem. Someone posted something earlier that said you can't come up with a perfect CBA.

To be honest, the only way to "fix" the problem so that all 30 teams are healthy is to completely redifine HRR or base players salary on a fixed cap where the floor and ceiling are wider apart. Have a cap that does not increase 5-7% each year. So have a 5 year CBA and then you can renegotiate the cap.
- l3ig_l2ecl

I guess I just don't think there is a share of HRR that would make some of these teams viable. Maybe players could pay for the right to play for the Coyotes.

[quote=l3ig_l2ecl]Oh I agree that the owners proposal in the $ figure doesn't fix the problem. Someone posted something earlier that said you can't come up with a perfect CBA.

Double -- deepest apologies

Or move to a luxruy tax system that recognizes the differences in economic capacity across the franchises and uses revenues generated by teams going over to support those at the bottom
- Canada Cup

The only problem with this is something you pointed out way back: the way the cap system has been set up, the floor got shoved above what low-revenue teams could afford to spend to - and that meant they needed more revenue sharing to get there. Even if you have a luxury tax to help low-revenue teams, since high-revenue teams will grow faster than low-revenue teams, they're going to drive growth in the cap and the floor - and they're going to keep shoving the floor north faster than low-revenue teams can keep up with.

I still think you have to cap revenues from the top-10 teams in some way. If you do that, you slow down growth of the cap and floor, which helps low-revenue teams and decreases the need for more revenue sharing. At the same time, it will pull down the average amount spent per team closer to the uncapped midpoint, and will decrease escrow imposed on the players. The key problem here is that you have to get the players to buy into this; right now, they think they're better off getting $67 and paying back $12 than if they get $55 and have to pay back nothing.

Anyone feel like a candy cane?

OK, so that's one issue. What about the non money related issues such as back diving contracts?
- l3ig_l2ecl

Actually enforce Article 26, and combine that with a cap penalty (penalty = cap hit - salary for that year) for when the player isn't playing in the NHL (other than due to illness or injury). Do that, and teams instantly quit doing those contracts out to age 40.

You can have the best management around but if you can't afford players......
57% is to the cap?
so what if they can only afford to spend to the floor, then maybe they don't have the players to complete and then if they don't then attandance suffers and when the majority of revenues is gate......I'll let you figure it out
- braidan

If you draft well and make shrewd moves and put a winning team on the ice. That can build an increased fan base, and increase revenue. Now there are a lot of things involved, in building a successful franchise. And I don't pretend to know everything about it. But look at the Columbus Blue Jackets. They were 14th last year in Cap spending. They spent more then the Detroit Red Wings did. Is it that they can't afford the players to put a quality team on the ice. Or is it that they don't spend the money wisely?

PA is willing to do their share to help out. They're willing to do their part and take a lesser percentage of Revenue in the future.
- MJL

They never should have been getting it in the first place. Ceasing to rob the coffers blind is what you consider "doing their part"?

The only problem with this is something you pointed out way back: the way the cap system has been set up, the floor got shoved above what low-revenue teams could afford to spend to - and that meant they needed more revenue sharing to get there. Even if you have a luxury tax to help low-revenue teams, since high-revenue teams will grow faster than low-revenue teams, they're going to drive growth in the cap and the floor - and they're going to keep shoving the floor north faster than low-revenue teams can keep up with.

I still think you have to cap revenues from the top-10 teams in some way. If you do that, you slow down growth of the cap and floor, which helps low-revenue teams and decreases the need for more revenue sharing. At the same time, it will pull down the average amount spent per team closer to the uncapped midpoint, and will decrease escrow imposed on the players. The key problem here is that you have to get the players to buy into this; right now, they think they're better off getting $67 and paying back $12 than if they get $55 and have to pay back nothing.
- Irish Blues

Ok but you go explain that revenues will be capped to Rogers and Bell who just spent $1.3 B for their share of MLSE

They never should have been getting it in the first place. Ceasing to rob the coffers blind is what you consider "doing their part"?
- prock

So, who brought in the system that causes Phoenix's Ford plant to pay the same salaries as MLSE Motors? Why do we have a system where industry wide salaries are set by the least productive, least profitable company in the industry?
- Canada Cup

As I tried explaining to you last night, the NHLPA did.

Salary cap = owner demand

Salary floor = NHLPA demand.

Why do the Coyotes have to pay the same salaries as the Leafs?

Because the NHLPA insists on it.

As I tried explaining to you last night, the NHLPA did.

Salary cap = owner demand

Salary floor = NHLPA demand.

Why do the Coyotes have to pay the same salaries as the Leafs?

Because the NHLPA insists on it.
- Atomic Wedgie

So Bob Goodenow was pressing for a salary floor and Gary said sure but insisted on a cap to go with it?

OK, so that's one issue. What about the non money related issues such as back diving contracts?

What about the issues with a lock out every 6 years?

Because I think the NHL found a solution to those, but the players, although they claim to want to fix the game and be partners have not come up with a single solution.
- l3ig_l2ecl

You think the plan the Owner's have put forward is going to stop lockouts in the future? I guess we'll see and time will tell.
All the solutions the NHL has found is to take from the players. What are the Owners willing to do, to give to fix the game and be partners with the players? And how is taking from the players on all the issues, actually being partners?

As I tried explaining to you last night, the NHLPA did.

Salary cap = owner demand

Salary floor = NHLPA demand.

Why do the Coyotes have to pay the same salaries as the Leafs?

Because the NHLPA insists on it.
- Atomic Wedgie

Follow @alanwalsh he's explaining the pa side on twitter daily.

They never should have been getting it in the first place. Ceasing to rob the coffers blind is what you consider "doing their part"?
- prock

I don't like the term "rob" because no owner was ever forced to make a guy sign a stupid contract.

Both sides (on Hockeybuzz) need to quit putting emotions into this.

They signed a CBA in 2005 to address structural problems in the business model.

Several years later, the world around them has changed, and there needs to be further changes.

It's not a bad thing. No one is at fault.

It's simply evolution.

Follow @alanwalsh he's explaining the pa side on twitter daily.
- Scooby_Doo

Why would I bother to do that when I have MJL?

So Bob Goodenow was pressing for a salary floor and Gary said sure but insisted on a cap to go with it?
- Canada Cup

Cart before the Horse?

So Bob Goodenow was pressing for a salary floor and Gary said sure but insisted on a cap to go with it?
- Canada Cup

Don't get all bee-yotchy with me for pointing out the problem with your argument.

You complained that the Coyotes shouldn't have to pay the same salaries as the Leafs.

I pointed out that the NHLPA insists upon it.

So if you want to go and propose we scrap the entire salary cap system, the floor is open to you.

Follow @alanwalsh he's explaining the pa side on twitter daily.
- Scooby_Doo

He's an idiot.

You think the plan the Owner's have put forward is going to stop lockouts in the future? I guess we'll see and time will tell.
All the solutions the NHL has found is to take from the players. What are the Owners willing to do, to give to fix the game and be partners with the players? And how is taking from the players on all the issues, actually being partners?
- MJL

How do you take something from them if you haven't given it to them yet?

Follow @alanwalsh he's explaining the pa side on twitter daily.
- Scooby_Doo

Does he represent Maxim Lapierre? Might be a good fit

I guess I just don't think there is a share of HRR that would make some of these teams viable. Maybe players could pay for the right to play for the Coyotes.
- Canada Cup

Owners buy teams to make a profit. That's a no brainer. I'm all up for revenue sharing. However, if the Revenue sharing is used to only bring teams out of the red and not make them profitable, then there's no reason to invest in a business like that.

I know other sports league do revenue sharing. There is a major difference though.
In the NFL, teams share revenue from TV contracts. So a rich team might not get any of the contract revenues. However they can still make a poopload with gate fees, merchandise, etc.

In MLB, you just need teams like the Yankees, White Socks, Boston, to support the other teams, and yet they still make billions.
In the NBA, they are in deep poop like the NHL, but they at lease have move revenue to share.

So then it comes down to the NHL. 50% of the revenue comes from Gate sales. That means the Rich teams have to share their "hard earned" cash. If you include merchandise, it's even worst. Rich teams are not making Billions like in the NFL. Only 3 teams are making over 50mil and thats because they sell clothing and tickets. No other league gives up that revenue.

Everyone talks about profit sharing like it's a solution. However, this is why it will never be a solution in the NHL.

How do you take something from them if you haven't given it to them yet?
- Oilhab

It's the same sort of logic that says that I lost 10 pounds last week, because I didn't sit on the couch for 7 days and eat fried cheese.

I don't like the term "rob" because no owner was ever forced to make a guy sign a stupid contract.

Both sides (on Hockeybuzz) need to quit putting emotions into this.

They signed a CBA in 2005 to address structural problems in the business model.

Several years later, the world around them has changed, and there needs to be further changes.

It's not a bad thing. No one is at fault.

It's simply evolution.
- Atomic Wedgie

I agree actually. I’m just responding to MJL with the logic his posts deserve.