The salary cap and the revenue sharing isn't what screwed things up. It was the fact that the players are getting 57% of the revenue and the revenue skyrocketed. I don't think anybody expected the NHL to come back as hard and as strong as it has. If they adjust the percentage of revenue the players get, they adjust the cap floor and the cap ceiling and fix what is throwing half of the league out of whack.

I think they could also benefit from a system that allows teams to go over the salary cap ceiling by a maximum of 10% and force offending teams to pay a dollar for dollar (or more) luxury tax with that money going to revenue sharing.
- Two_For_Truth

Any chance you know how much a richer team like the big 5 or so actually pay out to the rest of the league via revenue sharing? I'm sure it's been brought up in an article somewhere. Curious if a luxury tax would make that much of a difference. I guess it would...maybe another 60-70 mil a year potentially.

Or maybe they could simply change the ruling to no more contracts longer than 6 years and for any of the contracts that were longer than 6 years and the player retires early...that team keeps the cap hit until the contract has expired.

That would be bloody awesome! 7.5 million sitting on your cap just completely gone to waste.
- Juice

honestly that's the best way to do it without just (frank)ing everything up. Either that or they void all the offending contracts and everybody goes UFA again which I bet the teams might go for.

Burke is being too smart...He's not doing anything...
- Flyfreaky

HEY! I can twist it anyway I like, this is hockeybuzz!

The salary cap and the revenue sharing isn't what screwed things up. It was the fact that the players are getting 57% of the revenue and the revenue skyrocketed. I don't think anybody expected the NHL to come back as hard and as strong as it has. If they adjust the percentage of revenue the players get, they adjust the cap floor and the cap ceiling and fix what is throwing half of the league out of whack.

I think they could also benefit from a system that allows teams to go over the salary cap ceiling by a maximum of 10% and force offending teams to pay a dollar for dollar (or more) luxury tax with that money going to revenue sharing.
- Two_For_Truth

Or they could do what other sports have done and add a "Franchise player" clause. Maybe one or two contracts for franchise players that doesn't count against the cap. Or an even better idea is if they do count for the cap, and what is past the maximum salary over the cap per year gets taxed heavily ( matched dollar for dollar by the team) and added to revenue sharing pot, this way revenue sharing goes up and exempts the owners greed as well, although they have to pay for it twice. It is win/win IMO.

Canadian dollar at par was also a huuuuuuuuge factor.
- Atomic Wedgie

An unanticipated event that they have to take into account.

Oh, please Lord, let it be so.

Praise be to the Leafs.

Once upon a time, the Leafs spent as much or more than anybody but still didn't win it all. Granted, more successful but being able to spend more doesn't automatically equate success.

It's not what you spend that counts, it's what you spend it on that matters.

honestly that's the best way to do it without just (frank)ing everything up. Either that or they void all the offending contracts and everybody goes UFA again which I bet the teams might go for.
- Big_Lightnin

New CBA.....everyone is a free agent all teams start from scratch........now that would be a blast

And with the first pick in the scrambled egg draft the toronto maple leafs select............Scott Gomez

honestly that's the best way to do it without just (frank)ing everything up. Either that or they void all the offending contracts and everybody goes UFA again which I bet the teams might go for.
- Big_Lightnin

Would love it...but there's no way the players union even thinks of agreeing to it.

Stupid unions

honestly that's the best way to do it without just (frank)ing everything up. Either that or they void all the offending contracts and everybody goes UFA again which I bet the teams might go for.
- Big_Lightnin

Cripes if they put a cap on length and money, good luck Toronto EVER signing a big name like they once did in 1998.

Any chance you know how much a richer team like the big 5 or so actually pay out to the rest of the league via revenue sharing? I'm sure it's been brought up in an article somewhere. Curious if a luxury tax would make that much of a difference. I guess it would...maybe another 60-70 mil a year potentially.
- weirdoh

I have no idea. I think it's the top 10 teams pay the bottom 15 teams or something to that effect.

A luxury tax system could see between five and ten teams paying 10% of the cap towards revenue sharing. So let's say seven teams spend 10% over the cap and the cap is set at 60 million dollars. That's 42 million dollars of added revenue sharing in luxury tax payments.

Lance Hornby ‏@sunhornby

After F Joel Wigle needed plastic surgery Tusday for a puck in the face, No. 1 pick Morgan Rielly was @ dentist after losing a tooth today.

I have no idea. I think it's the top 10 teams pay the bottom 15 teams or something to that effect.

A luxury tax system could see between five and ten teams paying 10% of the cap towards revenue sharing. So let's say seven teams spend 10% over the cap and the cap is set at 60 million dollars. That's 42 million dollars of added revenue sharing in luxury tax payments.
- Two_For_Truth

Was a luxury tax brought up the last CBA?

Or they could do what other sports have done and add a "Franchise player" clause. Maybe one or two contracts for franchise players that doesn't count against the cap. Or an even better idea is if they do count for the cap, and what is past the maximum salary over the cap per year gets taxed heavily ( matched dollar for dollar by the team) and added to revenue sharing pot, this way revenue sharing goes up and exempts the owners greed as well, although they have to pay for it twice. It is win/win IMO.
- eihcnerf

The franchise tag usually allows that player to get paid more than with any other team which gives them an incentive to stay with the team they are with but it hasn't worked the way they intended it to because a lot of players have ditched it to have a chance to win and make up the lost money in other avenues such as endorsements.

Lance Hornby ‏@sunhornby

After F Joel Wigle needed plastic surgery Tusday for a puck in the face, No. 1 pick Morgan Rielly was @ dentist after losing a tooth today.
- steve362

As long as the puck don't hit his knee we're fine.

Phoenix is.

The Stars were.

The Devils will be in the next 2 months.

Tampa was until it found a new owner.

The Thrashers were.

The Panthers are the next after the Devils.
- Atomic Wedgie

So, what what this boils down to is not really about whether or not these teams can survive past a lock-out, but whether or not they can survive, lock-out or not, favorable economic model or not.

I'll bet no less than 3 teams will have relocated/folded by 2015.

Was a luxury tax brought up the last CBA?
- weirdoh

Not sure. Maybe briefly.

um, then why they paying all that money? $2 Billion over next 10 years.
- Big_Lightnin

$2 billion over 10 years.

For that, they get this:

Under the new rights deal, the NBC Sports Group will air 100 regular season games each year, mostly on Versus, which will see its number of games rise from 50 to 90, and introduce a national NBC broadcast on Thanksgiving Friday.

So let's start with the math. $200 million a year, which sounds like a lot, until you divvy it up. Let's say that the NHL takes no cut (I'm guessing they actually do, but what'evs). So to make the math simple, let's call that $7 million per team.

Once again, keeping the math simple, that means half goes in the pocket of the owner, half goes to players.

So this year, NBC will pay Matthew Lombardi's salary. That's the sum total of what the Leafs get out of it. $3.5 million to throw on the pile of money the owners bathe in, and they don't have to pay Lombardi. NBC does.

OK, now let's look at the actual broadcast numbers. 100 games seems like a lot, until you realize that they are going to put the vast majority of those on Versus. Once again, keeping the math simple, that's about a game every other night throughout the season. But it isn't throughout the season - they weight it more towards the end, because nobody in the US of A gives two poops about hockey until after football season. By the way, nobody actually gets Versus. Try finding it on the tv in your hotel room the next time you are in the States. And try getting them to put it on in a sports bar.

NBC will start airing a game of the week - but only after the Winter Classic kicks it off.

Is it better than nothing? For sure.

Is it enough to make an owner bleeding money pause? Nope.

It's $3.5 million in lost revenue. That's nothing compared to the bleeding going on in Phoenix, Miami and Columbus right now.

http://blog.marlies.ca/856/

Burke is being too smart...He's not doing anything...
- Flyfreaky

id rather build through the draft than sign all these 14 year deals

sometimes doing less is more, look at LA, sat by built through the draft then went aggressive when they saw their opportunity

id rather build through the draft than sign all these 14 year deals

sometimes doing less is more, look at LA, sat by built through the draft then went aggressive when they saw their opportunity
- nightmare3020

That buys you 3 years, tops. And not even three very productive years (players usually take a couple years in the majors to hit their stride).

I think they could also benefit from a system that allows teams to go over the salary cap ceiling by a maximum of 10% and force offending teams to pay a dollar for dollar (or more) luxury tax with that money going to revenue sharing.
- Two_For_Truth

10% over
that's half a Parise!
i like it

id rather build through the draft than sign all these 14 year deals

sometimes doing less is more, look at LA, sat by built through the draft then went aggressive when they saw their opportunity
- nightmare3020

The franchise tag usually allows that player to get paid more than with any other team which gives them an incentive to stay with the team they are with but it hasn't worked the way they intended it to because a lot of players have ditched it to have a chance to win and make up the lost money in other avenues such as endorsements.
- Two_For_Truth

Still you have to believe that teams in the bottom 10 are sick of losing the players they drafted to big market teams, and if this were something they could do to keep those players then would it not make them want to be a part of it. Think of edmonton in the next 3-4 years. What is happening with Columbus now?

Something more exciting than the McClement signing happened today in Toronto!

Batman battled Spiderman on the rocket!

10% over
that's half a Parise!
i like it
- Sammich

Actually that's almost 93% of a Parise. If the salary cap is 70 million dollars, going 10% over would allow you to spend 77 million dollars in cap hits but forcing you to pay an additional 7 million dollars in luxury tax which would go to revenue sharing.

So, in essence, if you go 10% over, you get to spend an extra 7 million dollars in cap hits but it costs you 14 million in real dollars. Steep price to pay.

So, what what this boils down to is not really about whether or not these teams can survive past a lock-out, but whether or not they can survive, lock-out or not, favorable economic model or not.

I'll bet no less than 3 teams will have relocated/folded by 2015.
- Leeman4Gilmour

There isn't really a great economic case for folding a team.

It's much more likely the league would assume the team, and then sell it off.

Why get nothing, when you can get $2?

Sure, you could maybe fold it, and then sell of a new franchise fee, but I don't see that working in this economic climate - unless you are selling for a new franchise in the GTA, and the league could always just charge a relocation fee anyways (not that the Leafs would ever allow it).