|
Post by PitbulI on Jan 26, 2005 16:11:56 GMT -5
I can't believe that a city like Edmonton is telling the NHL that they'll fold if a new CBA is not in place.
They have enough fans because they sell out. They probably want top dollar, they have no talent and they're in the red? I don't think so.
If they're having these types of problems, something is wrong with money management. I understand teams that spend too much are in trouble, but Edmonton doesn't spend that much. I think they're just trying to play a PR game because they're thinking the NHL is going to cave on the salary cap.
I know I could be all wrong about this but I doubt Edmonton with that many owners are in that heap of trouble. It's just a bunch of penny pinchers if they're having these problems.
If this is how that many owners run a team then I hope just 1 or a few owners try for a Winnipeg franchise because we don't need this type of soap opera in Winnipeg if the Jets come back.
But we have to have a cap or some sort of cost certainty.
|
|
|
Post by blackthorne on Jan 26, 2005 16:14:23 GMT -5
Do you honestly see the NHL playing another game without this?
There WILL a salary cap or some form of "cost certainty" or else the NHL will never accept the NHLPA's offer.
It's going to happen, it just may take time.
|
|
|
Post by Yar on Jan 26, 2005 19:15:14 GMT -5
believe it! edmonton wont be the only team to be folding if there is no new cba that doesnt include a cap. there will be plenty of teams folding including edmonton, calgary, ottawa and a bunch of american teams(they'll go no matter what). there has to be a salary cap in the new cba for the nhl to prosper.
|
|
|
Post by joelzillmanwpg on Jan 27, 2005 2:59:15 GMT -5
The Oilers MADE $3 million US in the 2003-04 season. Correct. The owners are already winning the PR war, especially in Canada. Why would he shoot himself in the foot by making ficticious statements? They are ok for now. In the late 90's, they were in a heap of trouble. Since them, they have managed their money incredibly well. It was just one owner who came up with these stupid comments. It almost makes you want to sympathize with the NHLPA, but not quite.... Absolutely. We need cost certainty for franchises to become economically viable. Edmonton, Calgary, Vancouver, and Ottawa have been in trouble before because of the current CBA. Luck has been with the Oilers and Canucks the past few seasons, but how much longer can it last?
|
|
|
Post by hatrick007 on Jan 27, 2005 11:31:09 GMT -5
True, the Oilers have made 8 million over the past 6 seasons. Without the Cdn Dollar fund from the NHL, those 8 million in profits would have likely been about 20-30 million in losses instead.
|
|
|
Post by dreamcatcher on Jan 27, 2005 11:36:03 GMT -5
Agreed. The issue here is cost certainty period. The NHL could lose 8 franchises if they do not link revenues with player salaries. Can this be obtained without a hard cap? Of course. One way of doing this, is with a Luxury Tax based system, that penalizes any franchise for going over say, a $35 million dollar payroll $3 for every $1 spent. A team such as Toronto, would see there payroll of $90 million for example (not sure what their payroll is) increase to $200 million per season, with a whopping $165 million of this being re-distributed among those franchises that were at or below the threshold.
If in a 30 team league, Detroit and Toronto chose to defy the threshold, and their combined re-distribution totalled $330 million dollars, and lets say, that Philly, Colorado, Dallas, and the Rangers, were the only other teams over, and THEIR combined tax came to, say, an overage of an additional $300 million, you now have a grand overage of $630 million dollars to re-distribute among the remaining 24 clubs, which would amount to a whopping $26.25 million dollars per franchise. That, is alot of money per team. Alot. It almost approaches the actual payroll of some teams right now.
Now, I believe that Toronto is perhaps the most financially well off of all these franchises. Do you think that they will continue to allow their club to shell out $165 Million per year? Within 5 years, the Maple Leafs would be shelling out close to a BILLION DOLLARS!
Now how close is this to Revenue sharing? In fact, it IS revenue sharing, helped along by a Tax. This, in fact, would force down the payrolls of all NHL clubs, and what it REALLY would do, is force owners and club management to be far more fiscally responsible.
Now, if among the 30 NHL clubs by 2007, 5 sustained payrolls around $27-$30 million, 10 clubs hovered around $30-$33 million, and 11 clubs were in around the $33-$35 million dollar zone. This would leave 4 clubs over, and unless they are insane, they should be in around $45 to $55 million by then. There's alot of high priced NHL players that are at the ends of their careers anyway, and by 2007, I suspect they would be filtered out. Of these remaining 4, $180 million dollars is there, to distribute among the 26 clubs that have been responsible, STILL guaranteeing these clubs, $7 million dollars each.
Due to the fact that clubs pay their players in U.S Funds, the distribution of monies, should reflect this, whether U.S clubs like it or not, thus Canadian clubs would receive a larger piece of the pie.
Don't get me wrong though. I believe a Hard Cap is in Winnipegs interest. It is not, however, do or die. A system that works for Canadian markets, however, is. Edmonton may, or may not be bluffing. But if out of these meetings, something that works for Canadian clubs does not materialize, it will spell the end of the majority of those Canadian Franchises.
|
|
|
Post by whiteout on Jan 29, 2005 2:06:58 GMT -5
Yeah if a new and improved CBA doesnt come out (which it probably will, just a matter of time of when this happens) the Oilers, Calgary, Ottawa probably, and other teams in the NHL will fold or re-locate to probably some souther US city. At this stage, the NHL would more than likely be garbage anyway. (This is a worst case scenerio-the NHL needs a cap and by then hopefully Winnipeg should get a team back, like they should!)
Anyways, reading around other boards for a few CDN teams, most fans would hate to see the Oilers leave/want the Jets to return, but I've seen a few that dont care or say "good."
Whether you hate the Oilers or not, to say good or not care is rediculous! Same with people not wanting the Jets back. Come on, what Canadian wouldnt want more CDN teams, plus it creates a better rivalary.
|
|
|
Post by joelzillmanwpg on Jan 29, 2005 2:25:18 GMT -5
Yeah if a new and improved CBA doesnt come out (which it probably will, just a matter of time of when this happens) the Oilers, Calgary, Ottawa probably, and other teams in the NHL will fold or re-locate to probably some souther US city. I agree somewhat, but an improved CBA will come out because the NHLPA is exaggerating the impact of hockey in North America. Where else would they play besides the NHL? The new WHA was a joke that faded away. Europe plays the average player $200,000, a far cry from the $1.8 mill the players are currently making. The AHL doesn't pay peanuts. There is nowhere else to go. I think we will see what happened in the late 70's in the NHL, when the "new teams' like Kansas City, Atlanta, and Oakland lost teams, and the more hockey friendly cities of Edmonton, Winnipeg, Quebec, Hartford, and Calgary purchased teams. The NHL will be going back to it's roots very shortly. It's not too long before we will here: "PLEASE WELCOME YOURRRR WINNIPEG JETS!!!!!!!I would say it would almost be a complette majority, except for the few "a$$holes" with attitude problems..
|
|
|
Post by jetblood on Feb 13, 2005 17:05:05 GMT -5
I cant see the owners saying this when they clearly made a statment saying they have generated a profit of 8 million dollors over the course of the last 2 years.
|
|