NHL talks reaching a breakthrough?

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

They are also the ones who only recently gathered the balls to fight for a good CBA.

Your point?

Just because the owners pay the checks doesn't mean they make the best decisions or are 'experts' in deciding what is best for the sport. The owners are just as guilty (perhaps more!) for the mess the game is in than the players.

No, but the fact that it is their money and they take the risks makes it their call on how it is managed, yes?

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

They have welcomed it, Imran. they have received cash from the league for the last several seasons. Really, you have to pay more attention.

It's a pittance... that isn't really revenue sharing, just as baseball 'luxury tax' isn't really revenue sharing. And NFL style revenue sharing is needed to secure the health of those teams. Slowing the upwards pressure on salaries will do jack for a team if it is losing incredible gobs of money while being a low payroll team.

The point, Imran, is that if you have a payroll of 30 million, it is better that the top teams be limited to 40 million so that they cannot go to 60 and constantly come along cherry picking all the best players that your franchise has developed.

Understand?

[Imran Siddiqui]

No, but the fact that it is their money and they take the risks makes it their call on how it is managed, yes?

So what? You said since they write the checks they are experts and thus they know what they are doing. Frankly, seeing what they've done with expansion and revenue sharing, it doesn't seem they know what they are doing at all. I wonder why the NFL is only sports league that has sane owners?

[notyoueither]

The Oilers owners are sane. They have said that the Oilers need a rational CBA for hockey to stay here. They are unwilling to continue writing cheques to fund the team.

That is sane, in my book.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by notyoueither
The point, Imran, is that if you have a payroll of 30 million, it is better that the top teams be limited to 40 million so that they cannot go to 60 and constantly come along cherry picking all the best players that your franchise has developed.

Understand?

But if you are already losing gobs of money, those players will be lost anyway! The big teams will find a way to shift money around and get those players through trades. Or the struggling teams will just have to let them go on Free Agency. If you are losing a ton of money currently, moving the top salary ceiling down won't alleiviate you of that! You need more!

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by notyoueither
The Oilers owners are sane. They have said that the Oilers need a rational CBA for hockey to stay here. They are unwilling to continue writing cheques to fund the team.

That is same, in my book.

Have they also pushed for a comprehensive revenue sharing plan (ie, 50% goes to the team, 50% in a pot equally distributed to all teams in the league or something like that)? If not, then they'll find that the salary cap isn't going to be a panacea to all their problems as they think it will.

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui





But if you are already losing gobs of money, those players will be lost anyway! The big teams will find a way to shift money around and get those players through trades. Or the struggling teams will just have to let them go on Free Agency. If you are losing a ton of money currently, moving the top salary ceiling down won't alleiviate you of that! You need more!

Go ahead and bang, Imran. If you can't tell the difference between the competition from 8 40 million dollar teams and 8 50 or 60 million dollar ones, you really have hit your head a bit too much.

Of course the Oilers hope that a reasonable team can be put on the ice for less money. Duh!

[Asher]

HOCKEY RULES!

Shush.

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui


Have they also pushed for a comprehensive revenue sharing plan (ie, 50% goes to the team, 50% in a pot equally distributed to all teams in the league or something like that)? If not, then they'll find that the salary cap isn't going to be a panacea to all their problems as they think it will.

No ****, Sherlock. It will still take careful management to be able to bring championships home.

However, what has been happening is the NHL has been progressively pricing itself out of most Canadian (and some American) markets.

What is sought is a CBA that can see competitive teams in all of the current NHL cities. Throw in Winnipeg and it would be a rousing success.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by notyoueither
Go ahead and bang, Imran. If you can't tell the difference between the competition from 8 40 million dollar teams and 8 50 or 60 million dollar ones, you really have hit your head a bit too much.

Of course the Oilers hope that a reasonable team can be put on the ice for less money. Duh!

When you are losing tons of money, it doesn't matter. The average salary will not go down that much. Perhaps they have a better chance at the postseason, though they have been fairly competitive the last few years (in that 8, 9 spot). That hasn't helped with their cash flow problems though. The salary cap will not magically make everything better. The players at the top end will have their salaries reduced, but the middle tier guys will make the same, and if other sports are any guide, get cut when they make too much (to the benefit of the young player).

[Imran Siddiqui]

However, what has been happening is the NHL has been progressively pricing itself out of most Canadian (and some American) markets.

Was Quebec, Winnipeg, Hartford, Minnesota (the North Stars, of course) etc really losing that much money, or did they find regions where they thought they could make more? So was it really pricing itself out or rather leaving for greener pastures?

[Fake Boris]

Imran, I think that the Nordiques weren't exactly losing money, but they knew they couldn't go on with the new contracts that their young and talented players would ask, and they had no money to build a new stadium (the Colisée had only room for 14,000),

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui


When you are losing tons of money, it doesn't matter. The average salary will not go down that much. Perhaps they have a better chance at the postseason, though they have been fairly competitive the last few years (in that 8, 9 spot). That hasn't helped with their cash flow problems though. The salary cap will not magically make everything better. The players at the top end will have their salaries reduced, but the middle tier guys will make the same, and if other sports are any guide, get cut when they make too much (to the benefit of the young player).

That's the point, Imran. Keeping the Gerome Iginla's and Mark Messier's here, let alone seeing the Jeff Beukebooms go elsewhere because even they can command a stupid level of salary.

[Imran Siddiqui]

That's the point, Imran. Keeping the Gerome Iginla's and Mark Messier's here, let alone seeing the Jeff Beukebooms go elsewhere because even they can command a stupid level of salary.

Like I said, Mess leaves anyway because the Oilers are losing money hand over fist and decide they can't keep him and pay him the (LESSER) salary he'd command. He'd still be gone without comprehensive revenue sharing.

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

However, what has been happening is the NHL has been progressively pricing itself out of most Canadian (and some American) markets.

Was Quebec, Winnipeg, Hartford, Minnesota (the North Stars, of course) etc really losing that much money, or did they find regions where they thought they could make more? So was it really pricing itself out or rather leaving for greener pastures?

Most of these teams moved since they couldn't make a go of it where they were.

If they were just going for the lush fields, why would the league allow the moves and deprive themselves of the expantion money?