Let's make this easy:

Last years losses:

Phoenix - 24M
NYI - 8M
Florida - 7M
Nashville - 7.5M
Winnipeg - 5.2M
Carolina - 4.4M
Tampa - 8.5M
Minnesota - 6M

These are all teams that were nowhere near the cap, so you can't blame it on spending to the cap.

Others who were closer to the cap:

Columbus - 13M
Buffalo - 5.6M
Washington - 7.5M

There are others that also lost, but not that much.

So, does anyone really think it's feasable to continue losing that much money? Can we really sit there and say the owners are the bad guys to try to cut their losses (not even trying to make more, just LOSE LESS!)

Now, from my example, Washington and Buffalo have ridiculously rich owners, so those teams aren't going anywhere.

But do you really think 7 of the 8 teams in the first group can continue on if the last CBA carried on ad infinitum?

So, if we had that deal last forever, that's basically 7 less teams in the league. And two (Washington and Buffalo) that are only in cause the owners are so stinking rich that they don't mind losing hand over fist.

Here's another fact for ya. San Jose, while selling out almost every game since they were created, has lost money every year. Sure, they've mainly been a cap team, but still. They've NEVER made money. How much longer could that carry on under the old deal?

I'll say it again. If the old CBA continued on forever, there'd eventually be 1/3 less teams in the league.
- Charliebox

didn't they give Tyler Myers 12 million dollars for absolutely no reason last year?

edit: actually Buffalo gave Christian Ehrhoff 10 million up front last year and are giving 12 million to Tyler Myers this year.

All in the spirit of circumventing the salary cap that the owners canceled a season for because they couldn't live without it.

What you say is not untrue BUT, what the owners are trying to do is make the players absorb all the cost of the money losing teams. if they had better revenue sharing then the owners AND the players would be supporting the losing teams.
- Cfser

How are they absorbing the cost? Based on league revenue, they are treated MUCH better than players in the other two cap sports leagues (NBA and NFL).

Eklund: Welcome To October 15th and the Negotiations FINALLY Getting Real.
- Eklund

Sorry pal, but you are ALWAYS optimistic; that's why I just can't take you seriously.

And now, this message from the NHL's REAL sponsors, us fans...

FU Gary Bettman
FU Donald Fehr
FU NHL owners
FU NHLPA
YOU ALL TRULY SUCK!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Since it's easy -- where do you think we need to get to in revenue share for players for the Coyotes to make money?
- Canada Cup

Well c'mon. Phoenix isn't viable under ANY CBA. They shouldn't exist, period.

Of all the other teams I just mentioned, though, they could all be feasable by cutting the players % by a handful of points.

As for people talking about Minnesota and Buffalo spending.. I see Buffalo just like Ottawa was when Melynk bought the team. He thought he could throw money around and have a champion. It didn't work and now his philosophy is totally different. I can't see Buffalo spending like drunken sailors forever. The guy just bought the team and wanted to make a splash.

All I'm saying is that if a team is losing money, while spending to the FLOOR (like 7 of the teams I listed), how long can they sustain that?

Well c'mon. Phoenix isn't viable under ANY CBA. They shouldn't exist, period.

Of all the other teams I just mentioned, though, they could all be feasable by cutting the players % by a handful of points.

As for people talking about Minnesota and Buffalo spending.. I see Buffalo just like Ottawa was when Melynk bought the team. He thought he could throw money around and have a champion. It didn't work and now his philosophy is totally different. I can't see Buffalo spending like drunken sailors forever. The guy just bought the team and wanted to make a splash.

All I'm saying is that if a team is losing money, while spending to the FLOOR (like 7 of the teams I listed), how long can they sustain that?
- Charliebox

Just brainstorming here, but it seems simple enough:
Scenario 1
10% of revenue goes into pool to help teams
45%-45% split between players and owners
Scenario 2
100m taken off revenue and the balance split 50-50

Not going to happen. The PA will put something on the table, owners will get mad because it is not enough and the lock will continue.....season done, nothing to see here folks, move along....

Well c'mon. Phoenix isn't viable under ANY CBA. They shouldn't exist, period.

Of all the other teams I just mentioned, though, they could all be feasable by cutting the players % by a handful of points.

As for people talking about Minnesota and Buffalo spending.. I see Buffalo just like Ottawa was when Melynk bought the team. He thought he could throw money around and have a champion. It didn't work and now his philosophy is totally different. I can't see Buffalo spending like drunken sailors forever. The guy just bought the team and wanted to make a splash.

All I'm saying is that if a team is losing money, while spending to the FLOOR (like 7 of the teams I listed), how long can they sustain that?
- Charliebox

well, one of the teams you mentioned, Tampa Bay, added two years to the end of Vinny Lecavlier's long term deal for 1 million a year, why did they do that?

Sorry pal, but you are ALWAYS optimistic; that's why I just can't take you seriously.

And now, this message from the NHL's REAL sponsors, us fans...

FU Gary Bettman
FU Donald Fehr
FU NHL owners
FU NHLPA
YOU ALL TRULY SUCK!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

- BiggE

well, one of the teams you mentioned, Tampa Bay, added two years to the end of Vinny Lecavlier's long term deal for 1 million a year, why did they do that?
- jimbro83

To lower the cap hit.
The 1st agreement was a dry run, and now they want to fix the mistakes they made.
Why wouldn't they fix it when the old one has EXPIRED. The owners won't police themselves, it has to be written in black and white.

Just brainstorming here, but it seems simple enough:
Scenario 1
10% of revenue goes into pool to help teams
45%-45% split between players and owners
Scenario 2
100m taken off revenue and the balance split 50-50
- braidan

Not to storm on the parade here, but I have a hard time seeing the players accept a 12% drop in their share of revenue, even with an even compromise like that. The second scenario seems more like something they could make work. Either way, a solution to revenue sharing taking from both sides is definitely what's needed.

Well c'mon. Phoenix isn't viable under ANY CBA. They shouldn't exist, period.

Of all the other teams I just mentioned, though, they could all be feasable by cutting the players % by a handful of points.

As for people talking about Minnesota and Buffalo spending.. I see Buffalo just like Ottawa was when Melynk bought the team. He thought he could throw money around and have a champion. It didn't work and now his philosophy is totally different. I can't see Buffalo spending like drunken sailors forever. The guy just bought the team and wanted to make a splash.

All I'm saying is that if a team is losing money, while spending to the FLOOR (like 7 of the teams I listed), how long can they sustain that?
- Charliebox

But the problem isn't the players' %. The problem is a system where salaries are set by league economics and not the economics of individual teams -- the actual employers. Owners wanted a cap that also brings a floor driven by revenue growth generated by a few teams. That is what is unfeasible.

In almost all sectors of the economy, salary benchmarks are driven by the most profitable and well managed employers. The owners are trying to tie salary benchmarks to the least profitable and worst managed franchises.

We will see work stoppages at teh end of every CBA under this model as the owners push salaries down as the only way they have left to keep the losers afloat.

To lower the cap hit.
The 1st agreement was a dry run, and now they want to fix the mistakes they made.
Why wouldn't they fix it when the old one has EXPIRED. The owners won't police themselves, it has to be written in black and white.
- braidan

it just seems lot of teams that do that are losing money and crying poverty that's all

it just seems lot of teams that do that are losing money and crying poverty that's all
- jimbro83

You could throw the Devils and Kovalchuk's contract in that category, too. But you and I should both know frontloading isn't exclusive to teams losing money. I'm not really seeing the correlation here.

it just seems lot of teams that do that are losing money and crying poverty that's all
- jimbro83

I agree, they made their beds and should have to sleep in them and some of them MAY have signed those deals hoping the new CBA would give them a break.
Hell I think some of the deals signed this summer were done SPECIFICALLY with the hopes of a 20% rollback on what they gave them in good faith.

I agree, they made their beds and should have to sleep in them and some of them MAY have signed those deals hoping the new CBA would give them a break.
Hell I think some of the deals signed this summer were done SPECIFICALLY with the hopes of a 20% rollback on what they gave them in good faith.
- braidan

I would say this summer's giant contracts were almost definitely designed with salary rollback in mind.

To lower the cap hit.
The 1st agreement was a dry run, and now they want to fix the mistakes they made.
Why wouldn't they fix it when the old one has EXPIRED. The owners won't police themselves, it has to be written in black and white.
- braidan

But its the whole structure of the first agreement that is the problem. Caps and floors don't work when there is that much disparity across the franchises. The best thing they could do (since they will never throw the cap out) is widen the distance between cap and floor --- make the floor a percentage to allow the gap to grow as revenues increase.

You could throw the Devils and Kovalchuk's contract in that category, too. But you and I should both know frontloading isn't exclusive to teams losing money. I'm not really seeing the correlation here.
- BulliesPhan87

you mean Lou Lamierello, the architect of the previous CBA who said the league couldn't live without a salary cap? that guy?

But its the whole structure of the first agreement that is the problem. Caps and floors don't work when there is that much disparity across the franchises. The best thing they could do (since they will never throw the cap out) is widen the distance between cap and floor --- make the floor a percentage to allow the gap to grow as revenues increase.
- Canada Cup

That should be one of the things they fix as well.
cap floor
contract length
front loading
elc length
etc

you mean Lou Lamierello, the architect of the previous CBA who said the league couldn't live without a salary cap? that guy?
- jimbro83

...ok?

That should be one of the things they fix as well.
cap floor
contract length
front loading
elc length
etc
- braidan

Until they fix that -- or get rid of a cap or go to a soft cap, or get rid of a few teams, etc -- we will face the same work stoppages at the end of each CBA as the owners use salary reductions to solve structural problems

But the problem isn't the players' %. The problem is a system where salaries are set by league economics and not the economics of individual teams -- the actual employers. Owners wanted a cap that also brings a floor driven by revenue growth generated by a few teams. That is what is unfeasible.

In almost all sectors of the economy, salary benchmarks are driven by the most profitable and well managed employers. The owners are trying to tie salary benchmarks to the least profitable and worst managed franchises.

We will see work stoppages at teh end of every CBA under this model as the owners push salaries down as the only way they have left to keep the losers afloat.
- Canada Cup

I understand completely what you're saying and I totally agree with you. In theory, you're totally right and it is silly to tie it to the 'loser' franchises.

The problem, though, is in practice. In practice, those loser franchises won't have franchises if the current situation were to continue. Whether right or wrong, ethical or unethical, player salaries HAVE to come down in order to make those franchises viable.

If they don't, a good chunk of players would be without jobs as teams fold up.

To me, in an ideal world, there'd be two teams in Toronto, two teams in Montreal, a team in Quebec City and another team in Southern Ontario. They'd also try the Seattle market.

The problem is that the NHL has given too much power to the 'have' franchises and they are blocking the NHL from going to healthy markets (Toronto and MTL).

If you add those 5 teams I just mentioned, you could subtract Phoenix, Florida, Anaheim the Isles and Carolina or Columbus.. whatever

The thing is, all that won't be resolved any time soon. So again, in practice, lowering salaries is the only solution in the short-term. Maybe by the next CBA, teams will be in the proper markets, but as it stands now, they aren't. Because they aren't, players need to realize that if they push too hard, they could lose jobs as teams fold up.

Also, I wonder if the NBC deal would have ever taken place if there were no teams in the markets I just mentioned and there are 4 more teams in Canada? This deal is the reason why Bettman fought so hard to put teams in non-traditional markets: He thought it was the only way to get a national TV deal. And now the NHL is getting 200M/yr from NBC. That works out to over 6.5M per team per year.

Would that deal have taken place if there were 11 teams in Canada and 19 in the states instead of 7 and 23. I would love to ask that question to someone at NBC.

there is no doubt in my mind that defenders of Gary Bettman are the same arseholes who drive 2 miles an hour in front of me when I am late for work.
- jimbro83

I understand completely what you're saying and I totally agree with you. In theory, you're totally right and it is silly to tie it to the 'loser' franchises.

The problem, though, is in practice. In practice, those loser franchises won't have franchises if the current situation were to continue. Whether right or wrong, ethical or unethical, player salaries HAVE to come down in order to make those franchises viable.

If they don't, a good chunk of players would be without jobs as teams fold up.

To me, in an ideal world, there'd be two teams in Toronto, two teams in Montreal, a team in Quebec City and another team in Southern Ontario. They'd also try the Seattle market.

The problem is that the NHL has given too much power to the 'have' franchises and they are blocking the NHL from going to healthy markets (Toronto and MTL).

If you add those 5 teams I just mentioned, you could subtract Phoenix, Florida, Anaheim the Isles and Carolina or Columbus.. whatever

The thing is, all that won't be resolved any time soon. So again, in practice, lowering salaries is the only solution in the short-term. Maybe by the next CBA, teams will be in the proper markets, but as it stands now, they aren't. Because they aren't, players need to realize that if they push too hard, they could lose jobs as teams fold up.

Also, I wonder if the NBC deal would have ever taken place if there were no teams in the markets I just mentioned and there are 4 more teams in Canada? This deal is the reason why Bettman fought so hard to put teams in non-traditional markets: He thought it was the only way to get a national TV deal. And now the NHL is getting 200M/yr from NBC. That works out to over 6.5M per team per year.

Would that deal have taken place if there were 11 teams in Canada and 19 in the states instead of 7 and 23. I would love to ask that question to someone at NBC.
- Charliebox

Different discussion but I wonder if MLSE really would block a team in Markham given the money they would make televising those games.

That is so untrue. Gary is by far the most influential person in the room when the board meets. He prepares carefully and never brings forward a proposal without making sure he has enough support to get it approved.

This is a Board of 30 members - indvidual owners - all with very different interests.
- Canada Cup

You said exactly the same thing as Eklund.

I understand completely what you're saying and I totally agree with you. In theory, you're totally right and it is silly to tie it to the 'loser' franchises.

The problem, though, is in practice. In practice, those loser franchises won't have franchises if the current situation were to continue. Whether right or wrong, ethical or unethical, player salaries HAVE to come down in order to make those franchises viable.

If they don't, a good chunk of players would be without jobs as teams fold up.

To me, in an ideal world, there'd be two teams in Toronto, two teams in Montreal, a team in Quebec City and another team in Southern Ontario. They'd also try the Seattle market.

The problem is that the NHL has given too much power to the 'have' franchises and they are blocking the NHL from going to healthy markets (Toronto and MTL).

If you add those 5 teams I just mentioned, you could subtract Phoenix, Florida, Anaheim the Isles and Carolina or Columbus.. whatever

The thing is, all that won't be resolved any time soon. So again, in practice, lowering salaries is the only solution in the short-term. Maybe by the next CBA, teams will be in the proper markets, but as it stands now, they aren't. Because they aren't, players need to realize that if they push too hard, they could lose jobs as teams fold up.

Also, I wonder if the NBC deal would have ever taken place if there were no teams in the markets I just mentioned and there are 4 more teams in Canada? This deal is the reason why Bettman fought so hard to put teams in non-traditional markets: He thought it was the only way to get a national TV deal. And now the NHL is getting 200M/yr from NBC. That works out to over 6.5M per team per year.

Would that deal have taken place if there were 11 teams in Canada and 19 in the states instead of 7 and 23. I would love to ask that question to someone at NBC.
- Charliebox

You mean NBC who only shows the Bruins, Rangers, Capitals, Penguins, Red Wings, Flyers, and sometimes the Sabres? Don't think they would have cared.