Truth & Rumors > NHL

New enemies after weekend talks

Views
4335
Comments
37

08:20 AM ET 11.05 | Coming out of the weekend, a round of talks had NHL fans somewhat optimistic in seeing NHL hockey this season. [But] trouble looms from a couple of surprising groups on each side of the labour divide. ... One is a lot of NHL owners, many of whom were considered moderates, who are not happy that under this proposal they could no longer include on their payroll bonus money that would likely never be paid in order to get to the salary floor, which was $48.3-million in the 2011-12 season. This means they will have to pay real cash to get to the floor, a daunting prospect for clubs operating on razor-thin margins. The other unhappy group is all of the players in the AHL, who would effectively see their salaries capped at $105,000 under [Gary Bettman's] offer.

The Globe and Mail

Gary Bettman, Getty Images Gary Bettman, Getty Images
November 5, 2012  08:36 AM ET

New enemies after weekend talks

The Buttgoblin rides again.

November 5, 2012  09:17 AM ET

Here's a few of things discussed....

November 5, 2012  09:28 AM ET

Someone explain to me why they bother having a "floor" if teams can artificially reach it ???

November 5, 2012  09:43 AM ET

Floors? Caps?

Kill them all...

November 5, 2012  09:49 AM ET
QUOTE(#4):

Floors? Caps?Kill them all...

Folks may (very slowly) finally be starting to at least listen to you. I do think revenue-sharing has got be part of a new plan moving forward. Without it every CBA will be an adventure and there will be many reruns of Phoenix played out over and over again.

November 5, 2012  09:49 AM ET
QUOTE(#3):

Someone explain to me why they bother having a "floor" if teams can artificially reach it ???

This will always be very hard for you to understand Harry as most Albertans never have difficulty reaching the floor.

November 5, 2012  09:53 AM ET
QUOTE(#3):

Someone explain to me why they bother having a "floor" if teams can artificially reach it ???

I wish the Leafs didn't artificially reach it so often Harry. :-(

November 5, 2012  09:56 AM ET

I have been saying this since the lockout began that they should keep the Salary Cap but kill the salary floor. The salary floor handcuffs all the small market teams as they end up signing players they may not want just to meet the minimum payroll. The salary cap will keep the big market teams from hoarding all the key free agents, but eliminating the floor will keep salaries down on 3rd/4th line guys (even some 2nd line guys). I see so many mid level guys get outrageous contracts from small markets teams who are trying to meet the salary floor (Florida Panthers comes to mind), and it just pushes up everyone elses salary.

November 5, 2012  09:57 AM ET
QUOTE(#7):

I wish the Leafs didn't artificially reach it so often Harry. :-(

That extra mil that they give to Tucker each year helps. :-)

November 5, 2012  10:04 AM ET
QUOTE(#3):

Someone explain to me why they bother having a "floor" if teams can artificially reach it ???

'real cash' as opposed to what:)

November 5, 2012  10:06 AM ET
QUOTE(#6):

This will always be very hard for you to understand Harry as most Albertans never have difficulty reaching the floor.

Really, 'cause I heard after about 2 drinks....

Comment #12 has been removed
November 5, 2012  10:19 AM ET

As i suspected ths mess is all in the details and how you reach the big picture.

November 5, 2012  10:22 AM ET



......

November 5, 2012  10:40 AM ET
QUOTE(#5):

I do think revenue-sharing has got be part of a new plan moving forward. Without it every CBA will be an adventure and there will be many reruns of Phoenix played out over and over again.

Eliminate some of the teams that can't carry their own weight (attendance, ownership) and you won't have that problem anymore.

November 5, 2012  10:45 AM ET

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

It doesn't work. Try this.

http://www.downgoesbrown.com/

November 5, 2012  11:56 AM ET

I laughed at this as I was bored:)

November 5, 2012  11:58 AM ET
QUOTE(#3):

Someone explain to me why they bother having a "floor" if teams can artificially reach it ???

I think it's to keep teams from spending so little that they are completely uncompetitive.

 
November 5, 2012  11:59 AM ET
QUOTE(#5):

Folks may (very slowly) finally be starting to at least listen to you. I do think revenue-sharing has got be part of a new plan moving forward. Without it every CBA will be an adventure and there will be many reruns of Phoenix played out over and over again.

As much as I disagree with revenue sharing, I think you are correct. What should happen is teams moved to viable markets so revenue sharing isn't needed, but what is the chance of that happening?

Comment

Remember to keep your posts clean. Profanity will get filtered, and offensive comments will be removed.


Truth & Rumors

MOST POPULAR

  1. 1
    Kerr 'absolutely expects' Knicks offer
    Views
    1277
    Comments
    1385
  2. 2
    Bryant headed back to Germany
    Views
    4252
    Comments
    930
  3. 3
    Shakeup looms for White Sox
    Views
    5988
    Comments
    336
  4. 4
    Yankees, Mets, Red Sox among Hanrahan hopefuls
    Views
    1455
    Comments
    167
  5. 5
    Lightning may be swept aside
    Views
    1335
    Comments
    100

SI.com

SI Photos