Support NeoGAF

[bishoptl]

first things first...some nutbar puts a bounty on an opposing player's head....HEY DRENSCH WE BETTER SUE

Motor City Mechanics coach Steve Shannon was suspended by the United Hockey League for the rest of the season for offering his players $200 to take out Flint Generals forward Kevin Kerr. UHL commissioner Richard Brosal said Shannon never admitted to offering the money, but a league investigation found that he placed the bounty on Feb. 2 when the Mechanics played the Generals in Flint.

Before the game, Kerr criticized NHL players who had joined UHL teams, saying they were taking time from minor league players. Chris Chelios, Derian Hatcher and Kris Draper of the Detroit Red Wings joined the Mechanics on Feb. 1. Another Red Wings player, Jason Woolley, recently signed with the Generals. Brosal confirmed that the bounty was $200, but said the amount wasn't important.

"I don't care if it was $5. You do not put a bounty on another player's head," Brosal said

and Mark Cuban weighs in on the NHL debacle....wonder what side he's on! Let's guess.

It’s not easy to lose a billion dollars. It’s even harder for an individual to lose $1,000,000,000.00 Sure, there have been moves made by individuals that have cost more than a billion in stockmarket value, but how many can actually stand up and shout to the world that they let a BILLION DOLLARS in cash disappear into thin air? I couldn’t name one off the top of my head that has lost cash money of 1 billion dollars or more, until today.

Congratulations Bob Goodenow, President of the NHL Players Association. You turned down 30 teams paying what would probably average out to 35mm dollars in salary per team for this year. That’s more than $ 1,000,000,000.00 in cash that would have been paid to NHL players this year. That’s 1 Billion dollars that NHL players will never, ever, ever collect. Because of you. That puts you in rarified air. All you had to do was come off your high and mighty no salary cap horse in July rather than February. What’s ironic is that a Billion dollars is more than NHL teams will earn collectively over the next 25 years, under any deal.

The good news is that the NHL stuck to its guns. A strong financial foundation will make the league more viable in the short and long term. That will benefit NHL players far more than anything the NHLPA has done. Why was it so tough for Goodenow to realize that businesses that are at least breaking even can pay more money to more employees than businesses that are losing money?

 

[Alucard]

Shannon to his players (as Vader): "$200 shall go to whomever of you can take out Kevin Kerr. I WANT HIM SPOILED, BUT ALIVE."

Yeah, that's really not cool.

 

[Nerevar]

Cuban makes a good point. Why the hell was the NHLPA so adamant against a salary cap until basically a few days before the season was cancelled? It's a little mind-boggling to me.

 

[Rocket9]

Because they thought the owners would cave in the end like they always did. Winter is too boring without hockey but I think it was worth it just to see the players get burned like that :lol

We should get a pool going....how long until Goodenow gets fired? I say 16 days

 

[bishoptl]

If this is true....holy crap. 12% 12 fucking percent??! Good gravy, this league is run by imbeciles and droolers if they think that's gonna fly. No wonder Clarke was beaking off at Goodenow yesterday, look how much money the Flyers are going to gain if this goes through.

I have no love for the players, but any sympathy I had for the owners has been pissed away. What a circus.

The Post has obtained the heretofore confidential Feb. 9 NHL revenue sharing model, presented to the PA in Toronto as part of the league's "compromise trigger" proposal. And now that we've been able to review it ourselves, we completely understand all the secrecy.

Analysis of the plan reveals stunning avarice on the part of the NHL's wealthiest franchises — and explains why Commissioner Gary Bettman was able to essentially bribe the big markets into going along for the lockout ride but now faces an insurrection from those clubs as the Board of Governors prepares to meet today in Manhattan.

It also explains why the small markets remain so militantly opposed to unlocking the rinks until the league gains a punitive hard cap.

Based on reported revenues for 2003-04 and a cap plan under which the players would receive 54 percent of a $2.082 billion gross, with each club assigned a hypothetical payroll of $34 million, the league would mandate a total revenue-sharing pool of $88.9M, with only $42.9M flowing from the top 10 revenue producers to the bottom 15 — with the remaining $46M created by taxing playoff gate receipts, regardless of the financial status of the postseason participants.

Remarkably, this model would increase the percentage of overall league-wide revenue-sharing from 11 percent to just 12 percent — this to a great extent created by the NHL's projected $64.8M decline in television revenue. By comparison, the NFL shares 63 percent of its revenue; the NBA, 35 percent; and even Major League Baseball divvies up 26 percent.

The NHL's seven top revenue-generating franchises — Toronto, Dallas, Detroit, Colorado, Philadelphia, the Rangers and Montreal — produce $661 million. Under the league's revenue-sharing plan, these teams would contribute only $38.2 million to the pool — a paltry 5.78 percent of their combined gross earnings.

As a combined result of the meager revenue-sharing and an artificially low hard cap, these seven teams would reap windfall profits right out of the box under this proposed CBA. Assuming level revenue, the Maple Leafs project a profit of $38.8M; the Red Wings, a profit of $30M; the Avalanche, $26.1M; the Stars, $25.7M; the Flyers, $22.5M; the Canadiens, $20.4M; and, the Rangers a profit of $17.8M.

At the same time, the relatively small total that would flow to the 15 poorest teams — with the Islanders, Anaheim and Chicago excluded under the plan from receiving aid because they're located in TV markets with more than 2.5 million households — would be at best a Band-Aid fix for the NHL's neediest franchises.

Indeed, even upon implementation of the plan, the league projects that 11 teams would lose money in the first year. The Mighty Ducks are projected to lose $12.8M. The Islanders would lose $11.3M; the Blackhawks, $10.6M; Phoenix, $10.3M. Incredible. What happened to the pledge of "guaranteed profits for all"?

What's more, the NHL intends to eliminate revenue-sharing entirely — entirely — as league-wide revenues increase. The league assumes that the imposition of a cap will create greater parity and thus, automatically increase the gate receipts taken in by small-market franchises. This, of course ignores empirical evidence from places like Nashville, where, despite a franchise-best 91 points and first-ever playoff berth, the Predators' attendance declined last year for the fifth straight season.

It's clear that Bettman has made different promises to different, and indeed, competing constituencies within the Board. The large-market franchises want to stuff their pockets. The small-market clubs want to suppress payrolls. And so the players are forced to pay . . . and pay . . . and pay.

The players, that is . . . plus the thousands in the industry who have already lost their jobs . . . plus the game, itself.

It's been a shell game all along. The league's revenue sharing model simply proves it.

 

[Shinobi]

All I can say to this is, erm...duh.

I've known for almost a year that this whole CBA has nothing to do with creating 30 healthy franchises. It's about hanging Goodenow on the cross, and if they can cripple the NHLPA the same way the NFL murdered the PA in '87, then so much the better. The NHL has had no real designs on revenue sharing from minute one, and contrary to the idiot logic that most people cling to, revenue sharing would have a far, far, FAR greater effect on equalizing franchises and ensuring competitive balance then a low ball salary cap with no meaningful revene sharing in place. All I've heard from people who have their heads up the owners ass is "all the other leagues have salary caps, why shouldn't the NHL?". Well shit, all the other leagues have revenue sharing too...why not the NHL? But is anyone asking Bettman that question? Nope.

People in this town are complete idiots. All this deal is going to do is make a franchise that's already filthy rich even ricer, and unlike almost every other franchise in the league, they won't even need to drop their ticket prices by a single dollar when they return. (Ticket prices BTW are based on supply and demand, not team payroll. If you think it's all tied into payroll, then explain why Wolverine basketball tickets cost $30 to $80, or why Final Four ticket prices range from $400 to $4575. Nobody on those rosters are getting paid.) If the league is so interested in keeping 30 healthy teams, then the rich teams should be shelling out to help the poor teams. With the concessions the players have already made (and don't kid yourselves, they've made some major concessions), meaningful revenue sharing would be more then enough to help out the lower end clubs. Instead the rich teams refuse, which means the lower end teams want to bleed the players some more, while the rich teams sit back and realize this new deal will stuff their jeans with green. And people are okay with it. Whatever.

This is why I've sided with the players the entire time. Not because of their stance, but because the owners are simply full of shit. That they've managed to pull the wool over most people's eyes is only due to Bettman's gag order and the NHLPA's stunning inability to articulate even the most basic of arguments for themselves, which has seen the NHL win the PR war without even uttering a word. Bottom line is that if players should help to sacrifice for the good of the league, so should the rich clubs. And if they're not willing to, then fuck the bottom feeders...cause they're gonna be gone in two or three years anyway.