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.
- Atomic Wedgie

Thanks

Mr Speaker, I rise to introduce a Bill entitled "Let's Get Rid of the NHL Salary Cap and Floor Act".

Thanks

Mr Speaker, I rise to introduce a Bill entitled "Let's Get Rid of the NHL Salary Cap and Floor Act".
- Canada Cup

As a Leafs fan, you have my vote.

Sadly, though, this private member's bill will never make it past second reading.

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

Do you not get it?

There is a problem with back diving contracts is there not?
Then how do you fix it? You can't tell owners to "control" themselves as that's collusion. The only way to fix it is to put a variance restriction.
It's not about taking from the players, it's about fixing the problem. If you keep disagreeing with this, then you simply do not get common sense.

Thanks

Mr Speaker, I rise to introduce a Bill entitled "Let's Get Rid of the NHL Salary Cap and Floor Act".
- Canada Cup

Solves all the problems and free market determines how much players make. The teams that generate the most revenue will be able to afford the better players which there fan base deserves seeing as they will be desirable places to play.
The lower revenue generating teams can set their budgets and survive financially cause they don't have to reach the ridiculous floor.

As a Leafs fan, you have my vote.

Sadly, though, this private member's bill will never make it past second reading.
- Atomic Wedgie

Naahh, even as a Leafs fan I want them to win having played on a more or less even playing field.

You missed a Mt. St. Purse Dog eruption.

It was pretty impressive.

Why would I bother to do that when I have MJL?
- Atomic Wedgie

They both make good points, but Walsh is an agent and might have better credentials.

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.
- Atomic Wedgie

No it's not. The 57% the players made in revenue last year actually happened.

They both make good points, but Walsh is an agent and might have better credentials.
- Scooby_Doo

Oh he's an agent,

Well then for sure he is posting objective, impartial arguments.

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.
- l3ig_l2ecl

John Shannon who is pretty much a League guy had a good explanation -- the Leafs generate about $2M when the Blues come to townhome and the Blues get about half that when the Leafs come to play. Their hard earned revenues depend on having teams to play and they should be helping to keep them around.

He said it better

As a Leafs fan, you have my vote.

Sadly, though, this private member's bill will never make it past second reading.
- Atomic Wedgie

Keep my private member out of this. I am the Minister of Sport and Labour Justice!

No it's not. The 57% the players made in revenue last year actually happened.
- MJL

And they received it.

The owners are not taking it back.

They are not going to get that percentage again because that is the OLD CBA.

They are no longer entitled to 57%. They don't have it, they don't own it, it is impossible for them to give from it or to lose it.

If I used to make 1,000,000, but today I make 50,000, I am pretty sure that when I go to get a mortgage the bank is far more concerned with what I make "now"... because what I made in the past is wholly irrelevant.

The words "basis", "starting point" etc. do not have a dollar value, sorry.

Ignore it all you want. Above are the facts.

John Shannon who is pretty much a League guy had a good explanation -- the Leafs generate about $2M when the Blues come to townhome and the Blues get about half that when the Leafs come to play. Their hard earned revenues depend on having teams to play and they should be helping to keep them around.

He said it better
- Canada Cup

Exactly! As if the Leafs are a separate entity that doesn't rely on a League to play in.

Keep my private member out of this. I am the Minister of Sport and Labour Justice!
- Canada Cup

I'm a wiener.

Do you not get it?

There is a problem with back diving contracts is there not?
Then how do you fix it? You can't tell owners to "control" themselves as that's collusion. The only way to fix it is to put a variance restriction.
It's not about taking from the players, it's about fixing the problem. If you keep disagreeing with this, then you simply do not get common sense.
- l3ig_l2ecl

There are tons of ways for the owners to control themselves and control salaries with out being accused of collusion. Look around the League, and see how players are paid. That collusion argument is a cop out.

John Shannon who is pretty much a League guy had a good explanation -- the Leafs generate about $2M when the Blues come to townhome and the Blues get about half that when the Leafs come to play. Their hard earned revenues depend on having teams to play and they should be helping to keep them around.

He said it better
- Canada Cup

The leafs get 2 million whether they play the blues or the sabres or the bruins. The blues get 1 million if they play the leafs, and say 500k when the Avalanche are in town. The leafs do help the bottom line of those teams already.

Games up to Dec 30th have been cancelled. @DarrenDreger

I think there is a pretty fair chance of you being right.
- Aetherial

I really hope so

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

You really need to tighten up your use of business lingo.

If the players want to be partners, they have to start assuming risk. They are never going to do that.

Should the NHL and NHLPA work more co-operatively? Heck yes.

Create synergies to develop win-wins? Definitely.

Lotsa good business lingo you can use.

Just please refrain from "partnership" - because it isn't.

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

Wrong, it was actually the NHL who insisted upon the salary floor being a FLAT number below the cap rather than a % based formula

Just talked to a source VERY familiar with the situation. He informed me that more games will be cancelled by the league today. Expect cancellations through December 30th.
More to come...

No it's not. The 57% the players made in revenue last year actually happened.
- MJL

If I gained 10 pounds last week from eating cheese, will I lose 10 pounds this week by not eating cheese?

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

The NHLPA wanted a flat $46M cap for the life of the previous CBA. It was Bettman and the owners who wanted the cap linked to revenues

You really need to tighten up your use of business lingo.

If the players want to be partners, they have to start assuming risk. They are never going to do that.

Should the NHL and NHLPA work more co-operatively? Heck yes.

Create synergies to develop win-wins? Definitely.

Lotsa good business lingo you can use.

Just please refrain from "partnership" - because it isn't.
- Atomic Wedgie

Reread what was written. Your going to need to brush up on your reading comprehension skills. I didn't label the relationship a partnership. I questioned the posters use of it in my reply.

If I gained 10 pounds last week from eating cheese, will I lose 10 pounds this week by not eating cheese?
- Atomic Wedgie

Your analogy doesn't fit. The players making 57% of revenue last year isn't a hypothetical. It actually existed.

Wrong, it was actually the NHL who insisted upon the salary floor being a FLAT number below the cap rather than a % based formula
- uf1910

Sorry, I'm not wrong.

NHLPA insisted on a salary floor.

That's all I said, and it remains 100% correct.

Back to the kids' table, and eat your brussel sprouts.