Thread: The Official CBA Negotiations/Lockout Super Thread

Originally Posted by ILikeTheKings

Well you should care (at least a little bit). The point is the system is flawed. If alot of the owners are losing money or aren't making enough to justify operating costs they will obviously try to fix the issues and if they are not able to do that, there wouldn't even be a league for the Kings to be a part of.

The system needs to be tweaked, for certain. The way I see it, contract 3-4 teams and the league as a whole will be much healthier. Re-work the revenue sharing program and the league will be much healthier. Re-define HRR to include all actual hockey related revenue and gradually lower the player's guaranteed percentage of that HRR and the league will be much healthier.

Why is the NHL's main goal of the next CBA to just cut player's salaries? There are so many more problems beyond that 57% but none of that seems to be addressed by the NHL. Why?

Originally Posted by Kubrick

The system needs to be tweaked, for certain.

I agree. The Underpants Gnomes are gerat at making money!

Could someone please forward this link to the NHL and NHLPA offices?

The Official CBA Negotiations/Lockout Super Thread

Originally Posted by Kubrick

The owners aren't making money? Do you have any proof to back up that claim?

If the owners can't make money will bringing in record setting revenue for 7 straight years, then maybe their revenue sharing system is broken.

I don't think there's anyone denying that the revenue sharing system needs work. But record setting revenue league wide doesn't mean profits for every team. A few markets can drive revenues up for the league but that doesn't mean every team is turning a profit. Look at the Jets move to Winnipeg. They probably sold a ton of merchandise as well as more season tickets at a higher cost per ticket than they were getting in Atlanta. Definite increase in revenue for the league as a whole. That doesn't help the New York Islanders move towards turning a profit.

Just because revenues increase doesn't mean spending hasn't increased as well. The PA was telling the owners to cut their spending as a way to control losses and then comes out and asks for individual rooms on the road, something that could easily add $100,000 or more to a team like the Kings travel budget.

The Cap is tied to league revenues as a whole but the cap floor is probably at a point where teams have to spend that much but aren't making near that much money. A floor of $50 mil is going to make it hard for teams like Phoenix, the Isles (old arena and I believe they can't qualify for revenue sharing because they're in a major media market) to profit. Other teams like Florida, Anaheim, Nashville are spending right about at that point where they might not lose a ton, but they're not going to be making money unless they go deep in the playoffs.

Originally Posted by Dana

I don't think there's anyone denying that the revenue sharing system needs work. But record setting revenue league wide doesn't mean profits for every team. A few markets can drive revenues up for the league but that doesn't mean every team is turning a profit. Look at the Jets move to Winnipeg. They probably sold a ton of merchandise as well as more season tickets at a higher cost per ticket than they were getting in Atlanta. Definite increase in revenue for the league as a whole. That doesn't help the New York Islanders move towards turning a profit.

Just because revenues increase doesn't mean spending hasn't increased as well. The PA was telling the owners to cut their spending as a way to control losses and then comes out and asks for individual rooms on the road, something that could easily add $100,000 or more to a team like the Kings travel budget.

The Cap is tied to league revenues as a whole but the cap floor is probably at a point where teams have to spend that much but aren't making near that much money. A floor of $50 mil is going to make it hard for teams like Phoenix, the Isles (old arena and I believe they can't qualify for revenue sharing because they're in a major media market) to profit. Other teams like Florida, Anaheim, Nashville are spending right about at that point where they might not lose a ton, but they're not going to be making money unless they go deep in the playoffs.

This is why I'm a proponent of contraction. I fully believe the league expanded too quickly. The markets in Phoenix, Miami, Tampa and Columbus are like an anchor around the neck of the other 26 owner's profit margins. Or if the PA and the NHL don't want contraction, move two of the damn teams to stronger markets. Phoenix/Glendale has no business supporting a team. Move them to Ontario or Quebec.

There are alternatives out there to a straight 20+% salary roll back.

Originally Posted by Kubrick

The owners aren't making money? Do you have any proof to back up that claim?

If the owners can't make money will bringing in record setting revenue for 7 straight years, then maybe their revenue sharing system is broken.

because it seems most people don't understand that revenue (even record revenue) doesn't necessarily = profit.

Originally Posted by nosoupforyou

because it seems most people don't understand that revenue (even record revenue) doesn't necessarily = profit.

True, the Kings for example laid out a lot of cash paying for all the Stanley Cup Celebrations. As fun as they are, they do not pay for themselves.

Still, the owner really do need to hire the underpants gnomes as consultants. They're all about PROFIT!

Originally Posted by Kubrick

This is why I'm a proponent of contraction. I fully believe the league expanded too quickly. The markets in Phoenix, Miami, Tampa and Columbus are like an anchor around the neck of the other 26 owner's profit margins. Or if the PA and the NHL don't want contraction, move two of the damn teams to stronger markets. Phoenix/Glendale has no business supporting a team. Move them to Ontario or Quebec.

There are alternatives out there to a straight 20+% salary roll back.

And how do you get the PA to agree to a reduction in 90 jobs? Contraction might not be the best way, relocation might. The Coyotes would turn a profit in a different market. It might be easier for Florida in a different market as well. I don't think Tampa's been a problem and I think a winning team in Columbus would do a lot to make that franchise healthier. Contraction/relocation doesn't solve all the problems. It doesn't get the Islanders a new arena, the Oilers want a new building, etc

Originally Posted by pete

Bettman , Daly and the owners just do not get it. It's the players that we like watch bring us to the games. We also like to buy all our favorite player or team products. All the owners do is keep ticket and parking prices going up. What the owners need to do is fire Bettman and Daly now

pete

It's not so much the players... it's the team we love. Every player could be dumped in a second for new ones if it resulted in a stanley cup final every year.