|
Post by TytotheG on Feb 15, 2005 18:03:50 GMT -5
What do u think will work for our fair city.
|
|
|
Post by icecoldian on Feb 15, 2005 18:51:26 GMT -5
With a 30 Million cap, NHL is Winnipeg WILL WORK! 100%. With a 40 Million cap, Winnipeg can do it, but it would havea slight risk involved. A 50 Million dollar cap will be risky, but possible. Why? Because right now there isn't a cap, and Florida has a low 20's million dollar pay roll. Just because the cap is set at 40 or 50 million doesn't mean thats what your pay roll is, it means your payroll can't go over that.
The only problem i see, is this doesn't prevent any greedy hands. Players can continue to ask for more, and if you give them a 'no' with a valid reason, they dont give a rats 'rear end'. They will talk to their agent and hold out, request a trade, or sign somewhere else. Simple as that. Places like Detriot, and NY will all open their cheque books and say come on down... Sure it puts Winnipeg at a slight disadvantage, but if having NHL here means we are put at a disadvantage, so-be-it. With the crowd we will have here, its going to be like being on a perma power play, and thats all we need...
I say 'no' to the 50, and a reluctant 'yes' to the 40. I still say hold out until next year and scab it, introduce a 32 million cap... If they dont do that, and agree to the 40 million, NHL will still work.
|
|
|
Post by joelzillmanwpg on Feb 15, 2005 19:31:02 GMT -5
35 million.
30 million was unrealistic, and 40 million may be a little too pricey for the city. 42.5 million would make the odds against Winnipeg getting an NHL team great.
|
|
|
Post by jetblood on Feb 15, 2005 19:37:11 GMT -5
42.5 Million is the final offer by the nhl.
|
|
|
Post by The Flash on Feb 15, 2005 19:37:17 GMT -5
Like I said in another thrread it doesn t mean that teams are going out and paying players that much money.Common sense dictates that you don t go out and spend your all your marbles ya need some to fall back on!
|
|
|
Post by jetblood on Feb 15, 2005 19:41:25 GMT -5
Dont forget thats the most you can spend up to is the 42 million so why cant we spend 30 or 35 mill? well be just fine. Just let the chips fall were the may and will get our Jets back as long as the nhl dosent up the cap past the 42 million
|
|
|
Post by Yar on Feb 15, 2005 19:41:52 GMT -5
very well said ian. obviously the $30 million cap would be ideal. but there is no way the greedy nhlpa will agree to that. the $40 million cap is still doable and like ian said, its still risky but still doable. there is no way we can get a team back under a $50 million cap but then again, neither can most nhl teams. that is exactly why the nhl wont agree on it. i have said it many times before and i will say it again. cancel the season, force a hard cap on them using scabs, filter out the non traditional markets and make this league a way better league. remember, we are not the only city that is dependant on a good cba. edmonton, calgary, ottawa are in the same position only they are at risk of losing their beloved teams. we know what that feels like all too well. if the owners are smart they will not accept a new cba to save this so called 28 game "season".
|
|
|
Post by The Flash on Feb 15, 2005 19:44:55 GMT -5
well put.and i agree still cancel the season if the cba is accepted by the nhlpa.Save it for next year
|
|
|
Post by Charon2000 on Feb 15, 2005 21:05:27 GMT -5
$40 mil would work if we had to take it.
I agree with Yar's comments above...dump the season and forget about trying to save a 28 game season...
I believe the longer the league holds out, the better bargaining position they'll have. The owners can afford to sit out more than the players. See what kind of a deal you can strike next year.
The League has to think of the long term situation...even if it means sacrificing one or two seasons, they'll still come out ahead in the long run.
|
|
|
Post by hatrick007 on Feb 16, 2005 1:48:52 GMT -5
The current revenue disparities is a 3.7:1 ratio. The highest payroll in the league is $78M USD, while the lowest is 21M USD. That is where I got the 3.7:1 ratio. If that salary ratio is even half of what it was, the lowest payroll will be around the 18-20M mark, which is DEFINITELY affordable for Winnipeg.
|
|
|
Post by jets4ever on Feb 16, 2005 1:51:27 GMT -5
Somewhere between 30-40M would be just fine.
|
|
|
Post by JETStender on Feb 16, 2005 21:48:10 GMT -5
It's just a Cap! Meaning you could still spend 20Mil if you wanted. What we really need is revenue sharing, then 40-50 Mil in salleries could work.
|
|
|
Post by TytotheG on Feb 16, 2005 23:14:56 GMT -5
Bettman is right, the cap wll act as a magnet. The lower the cap the better it is for all teams.
|
|
|
Post by The Unknown Poster on Feb 16, 2005 23:23:36 GMT -5
The Toronto owner said it best - the players just do not understand dollars and cents and are only repeating what they are told by Union management.
WHy on earth would the league agree to a cap that only restricts the spending of five teams (five or so who are over that proposed cap)? How the hell is that supposed to stop the problems in the NHL?
The players are idiots. They keep talking about how much they've given back. Pfffft. The $50+ million cap might as well be $100 million.
When Chris Pronger (who I believe is the highest paid player in the league) sabatages his own Union to try to bring in a cap and make a deal, then you know these idiot players are just playing 'follow the leader'. Hey guys, read the Levitt report yourself. And then maybe go to the bank and withdraw $1.3 million in $20 bills and ask yourself if that is not enough to live on in a year.
And what;s worst - the Union should not only support linkage, they should demand it. If they had taken the NHL up on their offer to audit their books or even read the Levitt report, they would see that what the NHL says is true. And if they cared, they'd accept a joint audit system to determine revenue. because if the players care about the game and believe the game will grow (which they say they do or else they are just in this for a quick payday), then their cap will only increase drastically in years to come.
Ask the NFL. I can just see the idiot players now. They will finally cave and take a $35 million cap, but insist on no linkage. In ten years, the league revenue will have grown substantially and the players will be crying about how they deserve a 'share' of that pie...or 'linkage'. lol Losers...
|
|
|
Post by blackthorne on Feb 18, 2005 17:20:10 GMT -5
Give Winnipeg more credit you guys!
If we take advantage of my "Revenue stream" ideas, we could make even more money than the Oilers and the Flames.
Too ambitious? I think not.
|
|
|
Post by joelzillmanwpg on Jan 5, 2006 14:50:50 GMT -5
BUMP!
|
|