OK, my question: Why can't we have a cap ceiling and a cap floor for ticket prices? Since we have fans in Toronto, paying about 10 times the amount for their tickets, then a fan in Florida, where is the equality here? Revenue sharing has not helped this league, to the extent that the players have believed. The top 10 teams have been bailing out the bottom 10 teams for far too long now. A franchise should only get a two or three year window on turning their franchise around. If in that period of time, they can't make a go of it, then they should be forced to move or fold. As a Leafs fan, I'm sick of paying welfare to these deadbeat teams and want an end to the constant increases to the cost of going to a game in my home arena. I believe that a cap on ticket prices would help keep costs down, in some of these markets. It may not allow for a huge increase in league revenues, but there would be equality and price certainty, in all markets.
- PrinceLH

Totally in agreement with you....we are being forced to pay up for Bettman's bastards...this league needs a 4 team contraction...

attempted description of escrow
- GregMorris

I'm quite familiar with how escrow works. Your assumption that the players are putting 24% of their paychecks in every year, however, is farcical - and illustrates that you either have no idea how the salary rollback worked [the 24% already came off of existing contracts when the 2005 CBA took effect, escrow only applies to the salaries post-rollback or to new contracts signed after the 2005 CBA took effect] or you have no idea how it applies to escrow [it doesn't].

You should do some real research on the Canadian economy and housing market.
- GregMorris

I have. I'm intimately familiar with it because of my job. Canada is in a housing bubble, the only question is when people up north who think it's not realize it. If [when] commodity prices fall, it's going to be apparent to everyone except those who intentionally refuse to admit it. Considering Ontario, Albera and B.C. make up 2/3rds of Canada's GDP, a correction in housing prices in those three provinces would have a dramatic effect on Canada's GDP as a whole.

To give you an analogy you might understand: the U.S. housing bubble was primarily in the Northeast, Florida, Arizona, California, and Nevada [though other areas also saw abnormal price increases]. When prices started declining in those areas, the effects rippled across the U.S. and states in the Midwest that saw little or no price appreciation started seeing home prices decline. Investments related to housing fell, the markets fell, GDP fell, ... even though the impact of the housing bubble were concentrated in about 8-10 states, they compose such a large piece of U.S. GDP as a whole and the country so intertwined that the impacts were spread across the nation as a whole.

Canada is different? Hmmm ... we'll see about that.

The NHL's frivolous expansion of the early nineties is the real problem. That, or the NHL's unwillingness to move unsuccessful franchises to cities that they might have a better chance of success in. These teams are eating up all of the profits of the teams in successful markets and it is hurting the NHL's bottom line. How about this: over the next ten years, move those teams to cities that will make money, or at least come close to breaking even. More money in the owner's pockets, player still get the contracts they want. Problem solved.

The NHL's frivolous expansion of the early nineties is the real problem. That, or the NHL's unwillingness to move unsuccessful franchises to cities that they might have a better chance of success in. These teams are eating up all of the profits of the teams in successful markets and it is hurting the NHL's bottom line. How about this: over the next ten years, move those teams to cities that will make money, or at least come close to breaking even. More money in the owner's pockets, player still get the contracts they want. Problem solved.
- Cimo

Bettman's ego and stuborness won't allow this.

Totally in agreement with you....we are being forced to pay up for Bettman's bastards...this league needs a 4 team contraction...
- Philly1980

Yeah...forced to pay money for entertainment...sure.

If you're so offended by ticket prices, don't pay - there are plenty of other people who will.

Supply and demand, it works.

Totally in agreement with you....we are being forced to pay up for Bettman's bastards...this league needs a 4 team contraction...
- Philly1980

When you figure out who's going to pay the roughly $480 million to make 4 teams go away [I'll pretend Phoenix is 1 of the 4, and since they're league-owned the NHL will just be eating the money they put into the team during the Moyes/Balsillie fiasco ... and, I'll pretend the NHL won't have lawsuits from Glendale and Jamison over time and money spent on saving the franchise], we can talk about contracting 4 teams. Without that, no owner is going to voluntarily shut his team down and take a big zero on it.

Yeah...forced to pay money for entertainment...sure.

If you're so offended by ticket prices, don't pay - there are plenty of other people who will.

Supply and demand, it works.
- VanekForC

I do love the overblown rhetoric on these pages.

Let's do a conservative calculation:

Average # of season ticket holders per team: 10,000
30 teams
Average price per ticket: $50

The league would have to refund as a whole, about $15 million per game based on this conservative estimate, or $150 million for every 10 games lost.

The fans, believe it or not, have some say in this. More specifically, the season's ticket holders. It's no secret why the teams are offering the options they are for cancelled games. By law, they have to refund money for games not played, unless the ticket holders decline to have the money refunded. And for that, they're being bribed with interest rates of 4-5%. This is so teams don't have have to write cheques as much as $1 million+ per game each and instead, get to keep the money in their coffers as a comfort zone. Owner's wouldn't be thrilled if they had to give back more than $300 million as a collective over the span of a lockout. Sure, they'll likely get their money back at a later time, but debt payment, property taxes, utility bills, etc. still have to be paid during a lockout, and they'll have less of a cushion with what to do it all.

The NHL's frivolous expansion of the early nineties is the real problem. (1) That, or the NHL's unwillingness to move unsuccessful franchises to cities that they might have a better chance of success in. (2) These teams are eating up all of the profits of the teams in successful markets and it is hurting the NHL's bottom line. (3) How about this: over the next ten years, move those teams to cities that will make money, or at least come close to breaking even. (4) More money in the owner's pockets, player still get the contracts they want. Problem solved.
- Cimo

1. Which expansions [beyond the one in '97 I assume you'll mention] were frivolous?

2. You do realize the league can't force any team to move - that such a decision is solely up to the owner of the team in question, right?

3. If an owner willingly wants to lose $25 million a year on his hockey team, what business is it of the other owners?

4. Again, you do realize the league can't force any team to move, right? If it costs a team $100 million to break a lease in order to relocate, who's going to pony that money up? It's not going to be the owner told to move, and some teams may not have the free cash to be able to chip in on this; do you really think Ed Snider and Jeremy Jacobs and Rocky Wirtz are going to be willing to write $5-10 million checks each for this?

Will buy watch or wear anything thats has a NHL logo on it.
Peace out Hockey Buzz have a good year!

1. Which expansions
- Irish Blues[beyond the one in '97 I assume you'll mention] were frivolous?

2. You do realize the league can't force any team to move - that such a decision is solely up to the owner of the team in question, right?

3. If an owner willingly wants to lose $25 million a year on his hockey team, what business is it of the other owners?

4. Again, you do realize the league can't force any team to move, right? If it costs a team $100 million to break a lease in order to relocate, who's going to pony that money up? It's not going to be the owner told to move, and some teams may not have the free cash to be able to chip in on this; do you really think Ed Snider and Jeremy Jacobs and Rocky Wirtz are going to be willing to write $5-10 million checks each for this?

In response to 1) Look at the list of team's profits. Most of those teams in the bottom were expansion teams, or teams that were moved from more traditional markets.

2) As an owner, why wouldn't you take your business to somewhere that makes you MORE money?

3) If an owner wants to lose $25 Million a year, I say it is all the business of the other owners, since with equalization payments, that money is coming out of their pockets. If they are OK with losing all of this money, they why are they crying poor and locking out the players?

4) You're right, the semantics of relocating are gigantic and complicated. However, there is no pressure to relocate due to equalization payments. Why not use equalization money to help owners move their teams to more profitable markets, thus helping individual markets and strengthening the NHL as a whole?

1. Which expansions
- Irish Blues[beyond the one in '97 I assume you'll mention] were frivolous?

2. You do realize the league can't force any team to move - that such a decision is solely up to the owner of the team in question, right?

3. If an owner willingly wants to lose $25 million a year on his hockey team, what business is it of the other owners?

4. Again, you do realize the league can't force any team to move, right? If it costs a team $100 million to break a lease in order to relocate, who's going to pony that money up? It's not going to be the owner told to move, and some teams may not have the free cash to be able to chip in on this; do you really think Ed Snider and Jeremy Jacobs and Rocky Wirtz are going to be willing to write $5-10 million checks each for this?

The League may not be able to force a team to move but they have certainly shown the ability and willingness to prevent sales that would lead to a team moving. They have gone to extremes to keep the NHL safe from Hamilton

Specifically it is the fault of Toronto, Montreal and New York Fans. If it wasn't for those 3 teams that cap wouldn't had risen as fast and as much as it did.
Contract those 3 teams and the other 27 teams will be fine.

CNHL
Canadian National Hockey League

Just canadian teams, fak all ya'll

Canada is different? Hmmm ... we'll see about that.
- Irish Blues

I will agree with much of what you say. I cannot agree with your intended meaning here that Canada is NOT different. The fact is, Canada may well be in a housing bubble, but our banking system is different.

Specifically it is the fault of Toronto, Montreal and New York Fans. If it wasn't for those 3 teams that cap wouldn't had risen as fast and as much as it did.
Contract those 3 teams and the other 27 teams will be fine.
- Oilhab

Holy crap Oily,

You just found the freaking answer!

Specifically it is the fault of Toronto, Montreal and New York Fans. If it wasn't for those 3 teams that cap wouldn't had risen as fast and as much as it did.
Contract those 3 teams and the other 27 teams will be fine.
- Oilhab

Perhaps.

But I think the ridiculous contracts handed out by NJD, and specifically Philly and Buffalo with stupid large up-front-signing bonuses is the real issue.

And there are others.

Perhaps.

But I think the ridiculous contracts handed out by NJD, and specifically Philly and Buffalo with stupid large up-front-signing bonuses is the real issue.

And there are others.
- JDJ

Some of those contracts are rediculous, but most of those teams are trying to invest. The revenue for putting a cup run offsets those high contracts.

Everyone cries about Minnisotta's two new outrageous contracts. However, those 2 players just might have made them a playoff team in a hockey mad city. 2 rounds in the playoffs, with all the merchandise sales. They easily break even. Not to mention all the saleouts during the regular season.

If a team like Florida wants to invest that much, I have concerns. However, when Philly, Buffalo, Minnissota does, they are simply taking risks. Which the reward is far greater than the risk.

Who can clarify this for me.

So the current agreement says the NHLPA get 57% of HRR. Let's say the leagues total HRR was $3B, but all of the contract money paid out to players was only $1.5B (50%). Where does the extra $210M go?

If it just goes to some player fund, then people need to stop blaming the owners for the ridiculous contracts. Either way, the money is going to the players, might as well get a good player rather then nothing.

Perhaps.

But I think the ridiculous contracts handed out by NJD, and specifically Philly and Buffalo with stupid large up-front-signing bonuses is the real issue.

And there are others.
- JDJ

So your solution is for all the owners to only pay up to the salary floor?

It still wouldn't save enough money, but it would be close. But you know there is always that one maverick who is willing to pay a little bit extra and sign every ones best players to his team, and then it's free for all.

It's kind of hard for 30 guys to band together and say we are not going to pay to the salary cap to stick it the players when all 30 guys are competing with each other to win. It's easier for players to band together when from one year to the next they can be teamates with anyone.

The GMs pay what they have to within the cap to get the players that they want and put the best players on the ice, and they will find any loophole that wasn't thought of, anything for an advantage.

OK everyone, here is my 2 cents
"Actions speak louder than words"
1. The players and owners state they do not want a lockout, and that they are doing all that they can to prevent one.
False, if they were doing all that they can, they would have been and would currently be actually negotiating. That involves getting together on a regular basis and communicating, giving, taking, talking, etc.. until they had an agreement they all could work with. If there are no meetings scheduled, what are they doing? Golfing, negotiating with european teams??? We as fans want to hear that the two sides are sitting accross from each other every day until the deal is done, they owe that to themselves, and the fans.
2. The players are concerned about the "little guy" who is effected by the lockout. (ticket sellers, parking lot attendants, popcorn vendors, etc...)
False, if they did, there would be meeting 12+ hours a day until the deal was done. Oh and what about the "little guy" hockey players making the league minimum to play hockey in the KHL and Europe who are now on the street because an NHL player took their roster spot? NHL players signed contracts to play in the NHL, not the KHL or any other European League. They should be over here, waiting it out, showing their support like the rest of the players.
3. The owners cannot work under the current CBA.
False, Some owners actions this summer have gone against what Bettman and the League are asking for. I am sure the owners all understood what Bettman was going to ask for. If they want term limits cut to 5 years, why were owners allowed to offer 6, 7, 8, 9, 10+ year contracts this summer????? Some owners have acted irresponsibly, thus eroding the credability of some of the demands the league is asking for. Owners need to be more responsable.
4. Small market teams are having trouble competing with big market teams.
False, the Playoffs every year prove that it's not how much you spend on your team or on individual players, but how well you build your team!
5. Leagues proposed 5 year Rookie salary cap would be better than the current 3 year cap.
False. What are they nuts??? All the top picks would go play in Europe. The KHL must be salivating over this one!!
6. The players ask "would you be happy taking a 24% pay cut?
ABSOLUTELY, that is if, my salary increased an average of 50% - 100% every year instead of the 2.5% that I currently get. (By the way I am a Union Employee working for a company that did cut our salaries 24% and took a week vacation away)

I could go on, but I am just a frustrated passionate hockey fan like everyone else that just wants to see the best players playing in the best League. Both sides need to make some consessions and let us know that they are actually negotiating. The League needs to address Teams that are not making money and take action. I am sure that over the last 6 years the League has lost over $100 Million just on the Phoenix issue. If a team cannot make money in a market, sell it or move it to a place that it will. Why should the teams that work hard, and have worked hard to build a successful franchise continue to give there hard earned $$ to teams that are in a poor location or who are not using their resources as well as they could (marketing, drafting, promoting, etc...).

OK, my question: Why can't we have a cap ceiling and a cap floor for ticket prices? Since we have fans in Toronto, paying about 10 times the amount for their tickets, then a fan in Florida, where is the equality here? Revenue sharing has not helped this league, to the extent that the players have believed. The top 10 teams have been bailing out the bottom 10 teams for far too long now. A franchise should only get a two or three year window on turning their franchise around. If in that period of time, they can't make a go of it, then they should be forced to move or fold. As a Leafs fan, I'm sick of paying welfare to these deadbeat teams and want an end to the constant increases to the cost of going to a game in my home arena. I believe that a cap on ticket prices would help keep costs down, in some of these markets. It may not allow for a huge increase in league revenues, but there would be equality and price certainty, in all markets.
- PrinceLH

Absolutely!!!!!!!! I agree force these teams to fold or go to locations that can support them. Do away with the salary cap and let the market dictate what players make.

Holy crap Oily,

You just found the freaking answer!
- NightTrain_AlMo

It's really insane how much more money those 3 teams make over every body else, and Toronto almost makes asmuch as Montreal and New York Combined.
It's not fair for the other teams who have a modest general growth rate to have to pay to a cap that is enflated by those 3 teams, and that results in those teams being in the negative profit because of it.

Define the Salary cap by the revenue of the bottom 26 teams and every thing would be fine.

Hell you could subtract the bottom 3 teams and the top 3 teams and define the cap by the middle 24 teams and it would still be fine.

The extra revenue that the top 3 teams make should be profit for those 3 owners, otherwise they are killing the league by being too damn proftiable.

Then why is he neck and neck with Romney? His handling of the Islamic uprising is striking! He looks utterly clueless and useless. His first test of strength and it's one big failure. Instead the press jumps on Romney for saying what needed to be said. The press is going to decide this election, if your not careful.
- PrinceLH

Yes the press will decide who the election goes to....You'll know this if you've ever talked to the general public in the USA....Stupid doesn't even begin to describe the average American's view on what's going on in the world.....What's going on in Reality TV world is where you'll find the tru answers....

Absolutely!!!!!!!! I agree force these teams to fold or go to locations that can support them. Do away with the salary cap and let the market dictate what players make.
- tmlfan17

You're ridiculous if you think a league without revenue sharing will result in lower prices. Prices are based on Supply and Demand. Demand is high in Toronto, but supply doesn't change. Your prices will continue to go up regardless, and your owners will continue to make huge profits while fielding an inferior team because they don't need to improve to 'win'