Comments on: Might the players’ proposal pit the owners against each other?

By: rainyday56

rainyday56 — Mon, 23 Jul 2012 15:45:00 +0000

Yeah NHLPA, go ahead, divide the ownership. You’ll probably push the owners of the original six plus Philadelphia to bolt the league and set up a super league where only they can compete. (Vancouver could join but won’t be invited ’cause the big boys of the NHL hate those guys) It will be happening in Euro soccer in a few years with Man U, the two Spanish teams and the other couple multi billion dollar teams forming their own league. Why not push the inevitable and make it possible for 75% of your membership to make U.S.Major League Soccer money down the road?

By: DED

DED — Mon, 23 Jul 2012 15:37:14 +0000

To support paperlions' point, I can afford one Ranger game/year, but there are plenty of fans in NYC to buy those seats and sell out every night (Glad I've got MSG network). Meanwhile playoff tickets in Phoenix were going for about half of what Ranger fans for regular season tickets.

By: DED

DED — Mon, 23 Jul 2012 15:32:42 +0000

Except that all that spending the Rangers did had diminishing returns in the years after they won the Cup. I don’t know if their philosophy to develop young talent vs. just buying free agents would’ve come about if the lockout and the impending salary cap that was heralded would’ve ever happened.

At least Detroit made some effort to develop young talent and scout out promising young talent around the league.

By: paperlions

paperlions — Mon, 23 Jul 2012 00:39:38 +0000

You realize, don’t you…that if player salaries were cut in 1/2, ticket prices would remain unchanged or go up? Ticket prices are NOT determined by player salaries, they are determined by the market…and fans will pay those crazy prices. Prices determine salaries….not the other way around…if you cut salaries, all you do is give the no-talent fungible owners much larger profits.

By: jmbates10

jmbates10 — Sun, 22 Jul 2012 23:11:54 +0000

TOUCHE ……firemarshall1…

By: firemarshal1

firemarshal1 — Sun, 22 Jul 2012 22:09:37 +0000

NHL players need to realize they play for the fans, who pay for their outrageous salaries. I’m for ANY proposal (labor deal) that lowers ticket prices for the FANS. Sorry, but you guys have priced yourselves out from the common fan base. To the Owners (Mr. Synder-Flyers owner), stop giving out ridiculous contracts, like the Shea Weber deal.

By: somekat

somekat — Sun, 22 Jul 2012 20:03:29 +0000

But the NFL can only sustain it’s sharing model because it’s national TV contract is ridiculous, just with the money from that contract, every team is profitable. The NFL model is unique, and honestly, any union that didn’t already have it, would fight tooth and nail to stop it from being implemented.

I gurantee the owners would agree to a bunch of other concessions is the union was willing to give up guranteed contracts. The fact that they are in place, and aren’t in the NFL, makes any comparison of their pay systems apples and oranges.

By: adlent

adlent — Sun, 22 Jul 2012 19:56:57 +0000

What he said was:

““Salary caps do not work very well — or for very long — if you have a great disparity of revenue between clubs.”

The NFL has probably the best revenue sharing model in all of sports which helps subsidize the smaller market teams. The NHL does not have a great revenue sharing model which means the clubs struggling to turn profits are penalized with the higher caps and inability to spend to be competitive.

By: emperorzero

emperorzero — Sun, 22 Jul 2012 19:34:53 +0000

I agree you have to have some sort of revenue sharing and then there also has to be a guarantee that the money goes to player salaries/expenses and the owners just don’t pocket it. Steinbrenner was angry for years that teams like the Brewers, Twins, and Pirate were just pocketing the revenue shared.

By: somekat

somekat — Sun, 22 Jul 2012 19:26:23 +0000

nfl also has the ability to release a player at any time, therby undoing mistakes. Not other professional union is going to agree to that, because if they do, it will never go away. The NBA has numerous ways to get around their “soft” cap, and I would call the dynamics of the NBA anything but as “parity”. I’m not saying that is the answer, or isn’t, but to just say that the NFL has a cap that works so it will work everywhere is overly simplistic.

There should be a cap at some point, so that teams like the Rangers/Flyers/Red Wings don’t just spend everyone to death (this from a flyers fan), and there has to be a floor because a few teams will pull a KC Royals\Pitt Pirates and spend as little as possible.

Without going into too much details, I’d think the best way would be some form of limited revenue sharing. Let teams run and profit off their own tv/radio deals, and make them go into a pool with ticket sales/merchandise. Obviously taht wouldn’t work exactly, because a ticket for some of the teams I mentioned costs more than some of the bad teams, but something along those lines

By: hockeyflow33

hockeyflow33 — Sun, 22 Jul 2012 19:19:39 +0000

The NFL is a poor comparison because they have such a short season. The cap has worked out pretty well so far

By: greatminnesotasportsmind

greatminnesotasportsmind — Sun, 22 Jul 2012 19:09:34 +0000

Salary caps don’t work? Go ask the NFL if their salary cap doesn’t work. You know, the same NFL that is the high generating revenue sport. Baseball doesn’t have one which why New York and Boston always (almost) wins the East and wild card.

Salary cap with a luxury tax doesn’t work. That is why it’s always San Antonio, Miami, LA, or Boston who wins the Finals.

By: mclovinhockey

mclovinhockey — Sun, 22 Jul 2012 19:08:04 +0000

Leave the cap at 70…. Lower the floor for other teams… Its a business you have to spend money to make money and with that it’s also a sport so if you don’t spend what you can to maximize your team then your team will suck and your fans will be pissed.

If the owner does not want to spend money why the hell should he make money.