NHL Players offer to take 24% off their salary

[Pyser]

very interesting proposal from the nhlpa. lets hope the owners think about it, instead of just countering right away with the hard cap:

Salary Rollback
Immediately cuts 24 percent off all existing contracts. NHLPA says that will save teams $270 million in the first year and $528 million over three years. The previous offer of Sept. 9 offered a 5 percent rollback.

Salary Restraints
Would restrict rookie contracts to $850,000 a year for three years, down from last season's $1.2 million level. There would also be reductions in qualifying offers to restricted free agents, and would give clubs the chance to elect arbitration in a system similar to one used in baseball. The union estimates clubs will save $400 million over the next six years and reduce the aggregate qualifying offers due to restricted free agents by $285 million over three years.


Luxury Tax
Would penalize teams 20 cents for each dollar they spend between $45 million and $50 million. The penalty would increase to 25 percent the second year and 30 percent in the third. Teams spending between $50 million and $60 million would be taxed 50 cents on the dollar the first year, 55 cents the second year and 60 cents the third. Those with payrolls above that would have to pay 60 cents for every dollar the first year, 65 cents the second, and 70 cents the third year on each dollar over the threshold. Includes a revenue-sharing plan to bring the bottom 15 teams within 30 percent of the revenues of the top 15 teams.


Joint Players-Club Committees
Committees would be designed to ensure improvements in the game, its marketing and its revenues. The players proposed to play in the 2006 and 2010 Winter Olympics.
-- Associated Press

[RPI-Fan]

I'm guessing this is one of those things where they're blowing smoke because there is some stipulation which means the owners could never actually do the deal.

But DEAR GOD I hope I'm wrong please bring back hockey!!!!!!!!!!!

[sterlingice]

I love the salary rollback. But it's clear they are trying to throw that out there because they know the market will correct. So, everyone saves a bunch of money now but when the Red Wings then go out and spend their newfound money on giving some free agent twice what they're worth because they have this new money, it'll actually hurt the financial state of the game even worse in the long run. Nothing like the Rangers going out and signing, say, Sean Hill for $10M per year because they have the cash sitting around. That'll really help the Pittsburg's of the world.

SI

[Fidatelo]

I agree with Sterling Ice, the rollback is a short-term gain for long-term pain solution in my eyes. The luxury tax is a good start, but I still feel the penalties are too weak. They need to go from $1-2 of tax for every dollar over to really make them effective, but the players don't really want them to be effective so that's the point.

Now they can say to the public "look at our offer, not only will we give away 1/4 of our salaries, but also a luxury tax! If the owners don't accept this, they're greedy!". It's all just a PR ploy. Lets hope the owners hold out for more.

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by Fidatelo

I agree with Sterling Ice, the rollback is a short-term gain for long-term pain solution in my eyes. The luxury tax is a good start, but I still feel the penalties are too weak. They need to go from $1-2 of tax for every dollar over to really make them effective, but the players don't really want them to be effective so that's the point.

Now they can say to the public "look at our offer, not only will we give away 1/4 of our salaries, but also a luxury tax! If the owners don't accept this, they're greedy!". It's all just a PR ploy. Lets hope the owners hold out for more.

A salary tax would be ok- fair to both sides, but not some toothless one like baseball has where it's basically the Yankee tax. It's gotta have significant penalties for breaking a reasonable number like $40 or $45M barrier on the order of 50% or more. A hard cap is unrealistic (tho, I'm all in favor of one so it levels the playing field completely but it won't happen).

SI

[Solecismic]

It does a good job of addressing many of the concerns. But you have to wonder who the union is serving here. By doing everything to avoid a salary cap, protecting the Sakics at all costs, are the players just shooting themselves in the feet?

Everyone agrees that the major sport that's grown the most in recent years, with both the owners and players gaining enormously, is professional football. There's so little animosity, everyone seems to realize they're all part of something special. In the NHL, well, the union president just got done calling the commissioner a stupid man who needs to be fired. That helped.

IMO, the NHL needs to drop to 24 teams immediately. Columbus? Raleigh? Florida? Dallas? Phoenix? Two in the LA area? What the hell were they thinking? Then put in a salary cap at a level determined by independent audit.

[SunDancer]

Originally Posted by Solecismic

It does a good job of addressing many of the concerns. But you have to wonder who the union is serving here. By doing everything to avoid a salary cap, protecting the Sakics at all costs, are the players just shooting themselves in the feet?

Everyone agrees that the major sport that's grown the most in recent years, with both the owners and players gaining enormously, is professional football. There's so little animosity, everyone seems to realize they're all part of something special. In the NHL, well, the union president just got done calling the commissioner a stupid man who needs to be fired. That helped.

IMO, the NHL needs to drop to 24 teams immediately. Columbus? Raleigh? Florida? Dallas? Phoenix? Two in the LA area? What the hell were they thinking? Then put in a salary cap at a level determined by independent audit.

Why Dallas? They actually can and are usually profitable if they make the playoffs. But remember, these markets (Miami, Dallas, Phoenix and two LA teams give the league bigger markets to market the league and to tv products). Plus, if they get a cap, it might allow these teams to be financially competitive.

[klayman]

Originally Posted by Solecismic

IMO, the NHL needs to drop to 24 teams immediately. Columbus? Raleigh? Florida? Dallas? Phoenix? Two in the LA area? What the hell were they thinking?

Money.

[PSUColonel]

Sorry folks..but IMO a hard cap is the only way to go.

[Solecismic]

I don't think the NHL belongs in any area where the kids can't go to the neighborhood rink and play a pickup game. Do Texas and Texas A&M even have college hockey teams? Do UNC or USC? Miami or Florida State? The NHL gets such horrendous ratings on television in warm weather areas that it probably hurts more to have a warm-weather team do well (in terms of lost viewers in colder areas) than it helps.

[Draft Dodger]

Originally Posted by Solecismic

It does a good job of addressing many of the concerns. But you have to wonder who the union is serving here. By doing everything to avoid a salary cap, protecting the Sakics at all costs, are the players just shooting themselves in the feet?

hey, pick on someone else's favorite player, OK! Go with Jagr - no one likes HIM...

[Draft Dodger]

Originally Posted by Solecismic

I don't think the NHL belongs in any area where the kids can't go to the neighborhood rink and play a pickup game. Do Texas and Texas A&M even have college hockey teams? Do UNC or USC? Miami or Florida State? The NHL gets such horrendous ratings on television in warm weather areas that it probably hurts more to have a warm-weather team do well (in terms of lost viewers in colder areas) than it helps.

the NHL gets crappy ratings pretty much everywhere (in the US, that is).

Carolina and Nashville admittedly are doing very poorly in attendance. But lots of warm weather teams do just fine - Dallas was 8th in average attendance last year. LA and Tampa were 10th and 11th.

and, even teams in "cold" areas (Boston, Chicago, NJ, Pittsburgh) did poorly attendance-wise.

[RPI-Fan]

Originally Posted by Solecismic

I don't think the NHL belongs in any area where the kids can't go to the neighborhood rink and play a pickup game. Do Texas and Texas A&M even have college hockey teams? Do UNC or USC? Miami or Florida State? The NHL gets such horrendous ratings on television in warm weather areas that it probably hurts more to have a warm-weather team do well (in terms of lost viewers in colder areas) than it helps.

Actually, UT does, as does FSU (club teams... but they're teams). Hockey is growing - there are several quality NCAA Div. I players from Texas & Georgia and other southern areas.

I think we know that Jim's next sim isn't hockey.

[sachmo71]

Originally Posted by Solecismic

I don't think the NHL belongs in any area where the kids can't go to the neighborhood rink and play a pickup game. Do Texas and Texas A&M even have college hockey teams? Do UNC or USC? Miami or Florida State? The NHL gets such horrendous ratings on television in warm weather areas that it probably hurts more to have a warm-weather team do well (in terms of lost viewers in colder areas) than it helps.

Don't be a snob, Jim.

Youth hockey is *VERY* popular in Texas, and I hope it stays that way. There are rinks in most of the suburbs of Dallas, and there are many sprouting up in cities with minor league teams. If you are interested, look up the Dr. Pepper Stars Centers in Google and you'll see that the area is within driving distance of most points in Dallas.

Just because we don't get 90 feet of snow every winter doesn't mean that there isn't a loyal fan base here. I've seen them in the lean years. I talk to them. Many of the are native Texans who don't know much about snow, but they know that they love the game as much as anyone else.

The TV ratings for the NHL are dropping everywhere. Those who have grown up with it will probably stick around longer than a newer fan, but the real problem is the game itself. It needs to be more exciting to the casual fan. Possibly even less violent. But the problem is not the dumb southerners. Don't sell the sun-worshipers short, dog!

[Honolulu_Blue]

Originally Posted by sterlingice

I love the salary rollback. But it's clear they are trying to throw that out there because they know the market will correct. So, everyone saves a bunch of money now but when the Red Wings then go out and spend their newfound money on giving some free agent twice what they're worth because they have this new money, it'll actually hurt the financial state of the game even worse in the long run. Nothing like the Rangers going out and signing, say, Sean Hill for $10M per year because they have the cash sitting around. That'll really help the Pittsburg's of the world.

SI

Exactly. The market will correct itself and this "luxury" tax is so soft that the teams that can go over (Colorado, Rangers, Philly, Detroit, etc.) will go over the cap and in a few years we'll be back where we started. That said, hockey is not like baseball. Yeah it looks good to have a bunch of superstars, but putting a collection of high-priced All-stars together has, to my knowledge, only ONCE led to a Stanley Cup (2002 Detroit Red Wings). It ensures a certain level of success (though not always, see: Rangers), but look at the last few teams in the Cup: Calgary, New Jersey, Anaheim, Tampa Bay. None of these teams are big market teams or had exceeding large pay-rolls when they won.

Also, the Wings have not historically been the team to drive up prices. They weren't the ones who signed free agents to ridiculous level contracts. The teams that did include the Rangers, Dallas, Philly, and St. Louis for the most part. The Wings did spend a lot to keep their own (Lidstrom, Yzerman, etc.) and have been agressive in free agency, but I can't think of any one free agent that the Wings paid more than market value for. They certainly have never paid the alleged "twice what they are worth" claim. Hull and Robitaille both came at a reasonable price. As did Hatcher. Yeah, they paid CuJo $9 million, but the market for a top notch goaltender (we can debate if CuJo falls into that category elsewhere) had already been set at that price the prior year.


The Wings aren't the team offering the Bobby Holiks of the world $9.5 million or the Martin LaPointes of the world $5 million. In fact, they let LaPointe walk. They are also not paying the Tkachuks and Weights of the wolrd $9 million.

Point your accusations elsewhere, Chicago fanboy!

[sterlingice]

True on some accounts but false on others.

Originally Posted by Honolulu_Blue

Exactly. The market will correct itself and this "luxury" tax is so soft that the teams that can go over (Colorado, Rangers, Philly, Detroit, etc.) will go over the cap and in a few years we'll be back where we started. That said, hockey is not like baseball. Yeah it looks good to have a bunch of superstars, but putting a collection of high-priced All-stars together has, to my knowledge, only ONCE led to a Stanley Cup (2002 Detroit Red Wings). It ensures a certain level of success (though not always, see: Rangers), but look at the last few teams in the Cup: Calgary, New Jersey, Anaheim, Tampa Bay. None of these teams are big market teams or had exceeding large pay-rolls when they won.

It could be argued that those 4 teams you named all rode hot goalies to the Stanley Cup. That's not to say you don't need a decent team around them but you can have live with a top half team if you have a keeper who is playing out of his mind when it's time to win those 16 games.

Originally Posted by Honolulu_Blue

Also, the Wings have not historically been the team to drive up prices. They weren't the ones who signed free agents to ridiculous level contracts. The teams that did include the Rangers, Dallas, Philly, and St. Louis for the most part. The Wings did spend a lot to keep their own (Lidstrom, Yzerman, etc.) and have been agressive in free agency, but I can't think of any one free agent that the Wings paid more than market value for. They certainly have never paid the alleged "twice what they are worth" claim. Hull and Robitaille both came at a reasonable price. As did Hatcher. Yeah, they paid CuJo $9 million, but the market for a top notch goaltender (we can debate if CuJo falls into that category elsewhere) had already been set at that price the prior year.

Well, but this is the Yankees as a homegrown team baseball argument which I've always thought was full of crap. "We don't overpay for free agents- we just keep our own guys". Which on one hand is true. But on the other hand, no one was going to pay Bernie Williams $11M per year or Derek Jeter his type of obscenely money but they overpaid to keep them. If an agent had asked a team like the Astros or Blue Jays to pony up that kind of money, they would no longer have been on those teams. And those signings drive the market. It's not as if the Edmonton's or Calgary's of the world wouldn't like to keep their hometown guys, too. A "reasonable price" for Jarome Iginla is still different in Calgary than it is in Detroit so one of the primary pillars your argument is based on is faulty.

(That said, this is basically my baseball economics argument adapted straight up to hockey because I don't know entirely about all of the specifics of the hockey but many of the principles are the same.)

Personally, I thought the CuJo signing was a fairly good deal and he got an unfair rep in his time there. But I've said that on a lot of occasions (in both playoff threads, I've remember writing posts about how foolish it is to blame a goalie with a 2 GPA in the playoffs when the offense can't score).

Originally Posted by Honolulu_Blue

The Wings aren't the team offering the Bobby Holiks of the world $9.5 million or the Martin LaPointes of the world $5 million. In fact, they let LaPointe walk. They are also not paying the Tkachuks and Weights of the wolrd $9 million.

Point your accusations elsewhere, Chicago fanboy!

This is very true. It's not like baseball where you can point to one team who really drive the market and a few others who help. In hockey, there's more a conglomeration and, yeah, some are more stupid than others. Detroit has been fairly smart with their cash.

SI

[Honolulu_Blue]

Originally Posted by sterlingice

True on some accounts but false on others.

It could be argued that those 4 teams you named all rode hot goalies to the Stanley Cup. That's not to say you don't need a decent team around them but you can have live with a top half team if you have a keeper who is playing out of his mind when it's time to win those 16 games.

This is true. Though, not so much with Tampa. Yeah, Bhulin was solid, but that team has a lot of talent. Calgary and especially Anaheim rode the tender though. That's what really makes hockey so much different than almost all other sports. A hot goalie, one player, can really carry team very, very far. Almost on his own at times. For the most part it's nearly impossible to know when this will happen (save for the few truly exceptional goalies, i.e., Roy, Brodeur, Hasek, etc.). I think that's one thing that foils that Super Star plan. You can have two lines of $9 million a year forwards, but if you have a team playing solid, smart defensive hockey, a bunch of $500,000 a year grinders and a hot $500,000 goalie can beat you in a 7 game series.

Originally Posted by sterlingice

Well, but this is the Yankees as a homegrown team baseball argument which I've always thought was full of crap. "We don't overpay for free agents- we just keep our own guys". Which on one hand is true. But on the other hand, no one was going to pay Bernie Williams $11M per year or Derek Jeter his type of obscenely money but they overpaid to keep them. If an agent had asked a team like the Astros or Blue Jays to pony up that kind of money, they would no longer have been on those teams. And those signings drive the market. It's not as if the Edmonton's or Calgary's of the world wouldn't like to keep their hometown guys, too. A "reasonable price" for Jarome Iginla is still different in Calgary than it is in Detroit so one of the primary pillars your argument is based on is faulty.

(That said, this is basically my baseball economics argument adapted straight up to hockey because I don't know entirely about all of the specifics of the hockey but many of the principles are the same.)

It's not exactly faulty. Yes, the Wings have had the luxury of being able to sign their own guys to big money deals. But the only signing that I am not 100% sure of (Lidstrom) did not drive up the market. Again, as before, the Wings re-signed their guys at a reasonable market value. I don't recall any player the Wings re-signed which sort of set the benchmark for salaries at a given position or seemed out of whack what other big money teams were doing. Yes, this did not help lower salaries, but it wasn't directly inflating them either. Again, Lidstrom may be an exception. I think there was a time when he was the highest paid defensemen in the league and then deal Pronger signed was modeled after his.

Originally Posted by sterlingice

Personally, I thought the CuJo signing was a fairly good deal and he got an unfair rep in his time there. But I've said that on a lot of occasions (in both playoff threads, I've remember writing posts about how foolish it is to blame a goalie with a 2 GPA in the playoffs when the offense can't score).

This is very true. It's not like baseball where you can point to one team who really drive the market and a few others who help. In hockey, there's more a conglomeration and, yeah, some are more stupid than others. Detroit has been fairly smart with their cash.

SI

I've never been anti-CuJo. I've always thought he played just fine and did get a bad rep and was a model citizen during that whole Return of Hasek cluster fuck. He handled that amazingly well.

Actually, during this whole lock-out thing I either read or heard what was the triggering point for all these massive contracts. Shockingly it all led back to the New York Rangers. Back in 1997, as you know, the Rangers signed Joe Sakic to a ridiculous offer sheet. It was incredibly front-loaded and ended up giving Sakic a salary of around $9 million a year or so. Colorado had to, and did, match the offer.

Next year rolls around and Kariya is a restricted free agent. He is still playing amazing hockey with Teemu. He looks around and says "I am one of the best young forwards in the game. I want top money. Sakic money." The young Ducks franchise either loses their best player, probably taking a blow they would never survive, or pony up. They pony up. All of a sudden the benchmark for a top-flight forward is right around $9 million. From then on salaries start going through the roof. The Hurricanes offered Fedorov a similar type of offer, which the Wings match. LaPointe gets his $5 million, Holik his $9.5. The way the aribtration system works allows restricted free agents who don't get an offer they like to compare themselves to higher paid players and things continue to go up and up and up...

[Honolulu_Blue]

Dola.

Here's a link to the article I refer to in my post above:

http://www.tsn.ca/nhl/news_story.asp...78&hubName=nhl


Three key contracts helped kill the CBA


Canadian Press



9/20/2004

On paper, the recently expired collective bargaining agreement should have done a better job keeping NHL salaries under control for players in their 20s, but three contracts signed in 1997-98 blew that out the window.



Joe Sakic, Paul Kariya and Eric Lindros signed deals that season that sent salaries into a spiral that in no small part led to the current NHL lockout.



All three deals did irreparable damage to a CBA that should have worked better. And don't blame the players, it's not their fault.


The hope 10 years ago, from the owners' side, was that the CBA would effectively control the rise of salaries because teams controlled players until they were 31, when unrestricted free agency finally kicked in.



The owners hoped to limit some, if not most, Group 2 restricted free agents to no more than a 10 per cent raise on their salary from the season before - as written out in the CBA - especially those without salary arbitration rights.



Yeah right.



Sakic, 28 at the time, was the first shocker. The Colorado Avalanche felt obliged to match a three-year, $21-million US offer sheet made by the New York Rangers in August '97. It was one of the rare times during the CBA's 10-year run from January 1995 to September 2004 where a restricted free agent received an offer sheet.


The Avs preferred to match the offer rather than receive draft picks as compensation.

"The Group 2 system, with the team having the right to match, works extremely effectively," says Sakic's agent Don Baizley. "That right to match just chills the market place, as it does in most business settings. But Joe's situation was exceptional, the Rangers were looking for someone to replace Mark Messier (who went to Vancouver).

"So they came along and made an offer sheet to him, which rarely happened. And Colorado went ahead and matched it."

It more than doubled his salary from the $3.1 million he earned in 1996-97 (the deal was actually broken down as a $15-million signing bonus and $2 million a season in base salary - giving him an average of $7 million a year).



Suddenly, the benchmark for a top player under the age of 31 went from $3 million to $7 million.



And then there was Kariya, 23 at the time. He was coming off his third NHL season, a 99-point campaign when he earned $2.075 million. He was looking for a big raise, but as a Group 2 restricted free agent with not enough NHL experience to qualify for salary arbitration, he had very little recourse.



Under the terms of the collective bargaining agreement, all the Ducks had to do is offer him no more than a 10 per cent raise.



Kariya rejected his qualifying offer and did the only thing he could do: he skipped training camp and missed Anaheim's first 32 games. He wanted Sakic money.



Disney, its Ducks team struggling without its top star, caved in and gave Kariya a two-year, $14-million deal in December 1997, a monstrous raise which changed the Group 2 market forever. What made it worse is that the two-year deal was broken down as $5.5 million the first year and $8.5 million the second season, meaning the Ducks could never qualify him for less than $8.5 million.



In April '98, Ducks teammate and linemate Teemu Selanne received a two-year extension for 2000-01 and 2001-02 which also hit the jackpot. After earning $3.4 million in 1997-98, $4.75 million in 1998-99 and $5.45 million in 1999-2000, the new extension raised him to $8 million for 2000-01 and $9.5 million for 2001-02.



Those deals would not have happened without the Sakic signing in '97.



"The Sakic offer from the Rangers, which Colorado matched, was the first one that saw salaries go up (for Groups 2s)," said one NHL general manager who requested anonymity. "And then shortly after that, Kariya and Selanne, as Group 2s, with no other rights, not even arbitration rights (in Kariya's case), they signed enormous contracts.



"They were good players, but they hadn't won anything and their new deals took them right up to where Sakic was. So those signings affected the entire Group 2 market and became comparable in salary arbitration. And they really hurt, because Kariya was making $7 million and a guy with numbers almost as good is only making $2 million but he now thinks he's worth $5 million."



And then there was Lindros, 24 at the time, who signed a two-year contract extension with the Philadelphia Flyers in January 1998 worth $16 million. The agreement raised his 1997-98 salary of $3.74 million to $7.5 million for that season, and gave Lindros $8.5 million for 1998-99.



And it went on and on for the game's biggest Group 2 stars, Jaromir Jagr and Peter Forsberg later eclipsing the $10-million barrier.



Baizley, based in Winnipeg, represents Sakic, Kariya, Selanne and Forsberg among others. One of the game's top agents who tries to keep a low profile, he admits Kariya's deal had a huge impact on the market for Group 2 players.



"I don't think we can deny it was a pivotal signing," he said. "But it was a signing that took place in a market-place where revenues for all teams were going up. There was a very optimistic view in terms of economic outlook. So this was paid by a company, Disney, that obviously had some projections that they were satisfied they could handle with this salary."



What made the Sakic, Lindros and Kariya deals even more difficult to swallow for the NHL in retrospect is that all three deals came about only after the league agreed with the NHLPA in June 1997 to the four-year extension of the CBA for 2000-2004.



The damage had already been done. And now the NHL wants a salary cap to fix it.

[SirFozzie]

If the owners can't save themselves after 1 Billion Dollars being given back (covering their ENTIRE losses).. after the players VOLUNTARILY gave back a quarter of the salaries/bonuses and proposed taxing the rich to give to the poor.. then the league should fold right now.

If they are going to be that stupid, they shouldn't be running a lemonade stand, nevermind a professional sports franchise.

[Tekneek]

Let's make the lowest six teams, by attendance last season, inactive for the indefinite future :

1. Pittsburgh Penguins (11,877 avg)
2. Carolina Hurricanes (12,086 avg)
3. Nashville Predators (13,168 avg)
4. Chicago Blackhawks (13,253 avg)
5. New York Islanders (13,456 avg)
6. Washington Capitals (14,720 avg)

What? No Tampa Bay in there? No Atlanta in there? Dallas? Columbus? Florida? Phoenix? Anaheim? LA? That's right.

Anaheim - 14,988 avg
Atlanta - 15,121 avg
Columbus - 17,369 avg
Dallas - 18,355 avg
Florida - 15,936 avg
Los Angeles - 17,883 avg
Phoenix - 15,469 avg
Tampa Bay - 17,820 avg

[Tekneek]

Originally Posted by SirFozzie

If the owners can't save themselves after 1 Billion Dollars being given back (covering their ENTIRE losses).. after the players VOLUNTARILY gave back a quarter of the salaries/bonuses and proposed taxing the rich to give to the poor.. then the league should fold right now.

If they are going to be that stupid, they shouldn't be running a lemonade stand, nevermind a professional sports franchise.

Voluntarily? If they were so anxious to give that back, they would have made that proposal during the summer. This give-back is a product of the lockout. The luxury tax they proposed is laughable. If they made it at least dollar-per-dollar over $35 million, and $2 dollar/dollar over $45 million, I'd be fully in support.

The reason the owners can't just decide to be responsible with their dollars and keep wages down is because of fear of collusion suits and losses in court. If the union agreed to never file such suits, perhaps they could more easily come to a compromise. The union would never give up that right, so they will have to deal with the owners forcing hard language into the next CBA that allows them to explicitly restrain salary growth.

[oykib]

Originally Posted by Tekneek

Voluntarily? If they were so anxious to give that back, they would have made that proposal during the summer. This give-back is a product of the lockout. The luxury tax they proposed is laughable. If they made it at least dollar-per-dollar over $35 million, and $2 dollar/dollar over $45 million, I'd be fully in support.

The reason the owners can't just decide to be responsible with their dollars and keep wages down is because of fear of collusion suits and losses in court. If the union agreed to never file such suits, perhaps they could more easily come to a compromise. The union would never give up that right, so they will have to deal with the owners forcing hard language into the next CBA that allows them to explicitly restrain salary growth.

Dollar-for-dollar isn't a payroll deterrent, it's a payroll cap. If the owners win, they'll get a cap. But the players aren't bad guys for not wanting one.

I percieve this as a problem the owners made for themselves.

Now, unlike baseball, th owners here are not lieing about losing money. So I think a salary rollback seems in order.

But none of you here would want a payroll cap in any of your industries.

[gstelmack]

Before everyone goes slamming on Carolina hockey fans:

This area has turned out in huge numbers for games. What's made a difference, especially over the last season or two, was the owner using the Stanely Cup run as an excuse to raise ticket prices, and then having the team turn to complete mush.

For the most part, we haven't had much of a team. We had a great run the one season where the team took New Jersey to six games (I was at game 6 where the fans gave a HUGE standing ovation during the last minute+ of the game to show their appreciation of the effort), and a great run when we made it to the Stanely Cup finals, but much of the rest of the team's history has been marked by a very poor effort on the part of the team.

I went to one game against Montreal when Carolina was in the thick of the playoff chase, and watched exactly one player (Gary Roberts) play with any kind of energy. Most of the game was spent watching a scrum in the Montreal end, the puck come squirting out, and two Montreal players speeding after the puck with one Carolina player (often Roberts) attempting to give chase. Similar thing during a Boston game the season before, where Boston had just traded Ray Borque and had their top goalie and offensive player out of the lineup, and the 'Canes again gave a poor effort while fighting for a playoff spot.

Youth and adult hockey leagues exploded around here with the 'Canes in town, but when you combine a poor effort by the team with increased ticket prices and a dip in the job market, you get low attendance. But there is a lot of support here if we'd just get some players that want to play.

Of course, all of that is probably a symptom of too many teams in the league (so not enough talent to go around). But I don't think the market here is the issue.

[Butter]

Yeah, I was going to say that Columbus seems to be doing pretty well attendance-wise. There is not a HUGE fan base, but it has a very solid and supportive one. Whether it will persist in the long run is another matter altogether.

[sachmo71]

Salary problems = Pierre Turgeon & Donald Audette

If Tom Hicks could have signed Lapointe for $6 million, he would have.

I still have faith that he has finally learned his lesson. Maybe.

[HornedFrog Purple]

Not that I really care about sticking up for hockey, but we have local high school hockey teams.

[Marmel]

Originally Posted by gstelmack

Before everyone goes slamming on Carolina hockey fans:

This area has turned out in huge numbers for games. What's made a difference, especially over the last season or two, was the owner using the Stanely Cup run as an excuse to raise ticket prices, and then having the team turn to complete mush.

For the most part, we haven't had much of a team. We had a great run the one season where the team took New Jersey to six games (I was at game 6 where the fans gave a HUGE standing ovation during the last minute+ of the game to show their appreciation of the effort), and a great run when we made it to the Stanely Cup finals, but much of the rest of the team's history has been marked by a very poor effort on the part of the team.

I went to one game against Montreal when Carolina was in the thick of the playoff chase, and watched exactly one player (Gary Roberts) play with any kind of energy. Most of the game was spent watching a scrum in the Montreal end, the puck come squirting out, and two Montreal players speeding after the puck with one Carolina player (often Roberts) attempting to give chase. Similar thing during a Boston game the season before, where Boston had just traded Ray Borque and had their top goalie and offensive player out of the lineup, and the 'Canes again gave a poor effort while fighting for a playoff spot.

Youth and adult hockey leagues exploded around here with the 'Canes in town, but when you combine a poor effort by the team with increased ticket prices and a dip in the job market, you get low attendance. But there is a lot of support here if we'd just get some players that want to play.

Of course, all of that is probably a symptom of too many teams in the league (so not enough talent to go around). But I don't think the market here is the issue.

Funny how a team can change cities, colors, logos, arenas, and most of the players.....yet the results are identical.


Long live the Whale.

[Tekneek]

Originally Posted by oykib

But none of you here would want a payroll cap in any of your industries.

I might accept one if I was guaranteed a minimum salary of $200k, which is the going rate in the NHL.

[Honolulu_Blue]

Originally Posted by oykib

But none of you here would want a payroll cap in any of your industries.

No. But you can't equate any of the industries we work in with professional sports. I imagine we wouldn't want a entry draft in of our industries either. Or restricted free agency.

Different worlds, my friend...

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by SirFozzie

If the owners can't save themselves after 1 Billion Dollars being given back (covering their ENTIRE losses).. after the players VOLUNTARILY gave back a quarter of the salaries/bonuses and proposed taxing the rich to give to the poor.. then the league should fold right now.

If they are going to be that stupid, they shouldn't be running a lemonade stand, nevermind a professional sports franchise.

You're missing the point here. As I stated above, this is a red herring. It's a lot of money to give back but it's given back equally based on spending right now so those teams that need the most relief will get the least help because they have the lowest salaries right now. It's a progressive tax cut where those at the top get the most back. Huh? Aren't they the ones with no money troubles right now? Nothing gets done about the disparity between the owners of the smaller and larger market teams and the market rolls unimpeded because the money was given to all the wrong owners.

SI