Bettman's Presser

Status
Not open for further replies.

Legolas

Registered User
Apr 11, 2004
770
0
Toronto, Canada
Another thing is that the salary cap and luxury tax policies of other leagues are far from the cure-all's that people are suggesting. The NBA and MLB luxury taxes do keep payrolls in line to a certain extent, but their impact on competitive balance is another story altogether. The NFL salary cap meanwhile, is heavily slanted towards the owners, particularly in combination with the NFL's non-guaranteed contracts.
 

Legolas

Registered User
Apr 11, 2004
770
0
Toronto, Canada
Winger98 said:
I think nearly everyone will agree that a luxury tax set at that level would be useless. I (and I think others) have a hard time seeing how any luxury tax system would be useless, though.

With the players clearly more willing to work on a luxury tax system than a cap, why aren't the owners looking to find a way to make the luxury tax system work for them? Now I've seen people point to baseball's system as being a failure, but I don't think that system was viewed positively the moment it was created. Everyone doubted it would work real well, and it hasn't (at least where the Yankees are concerned, but I think league spending overall has dropped).

I'm not for either side, and neither side has appeared too anxious to save the season. But, so far, I think the owners appear to want to break the union rather than get a CBA done.

I agree 100%. The owners supposedly save money if there's no season. Obviously the same is not true for the players. Players obviously want to play. The owners as far as I can tell look at this as an opportunity to help themselves out. I have not heard anything about how more cost certainty will translate into savings for fans or improvements to the game.
 

MS

1%er
Mar 18, 2002
53,362
83,418
Vancouver, BC
Chelios said:
Radically different eh? 20 cents on the dollar over 50 million, 30 cents on the dollar over 60 million. What a joke.

It's a starting point, and it's a significant concession. If they're offering that now, they'll certainly move downward in the future ... it wouldn't be any stretch at all to think they could be negotiated to, say, 30 cents on the dollar over $40 million and 50 cents over $50 million, and that'd be a pretty damn big drag on salaries. And I'd suspect they'd probably go lower yet than that.

At least the PA is putting stuff out there. The NHL is just sitting on their ridiculous tiny cap and saying they'll never accept anything else. If the league makes no concessions when the players make a few, you can't expect the players to then run and make even more concessions while the league just does nothing.

If the league was proposing something like the Burke suggestion which, while seeing the players make huge concessions, was at least somewhat realistic and showed some willingness to negotiate, I'd be firmly in their corner. As it stands, right now I find the players' position far more reasonable.
 

MS

1%er
Mar 18, 2002
53,362
83,418
Vancouver, BC
Winger98 said:
I think nearly everyone will agree that a luxury tax set at that level would be useless. I (and I think others) have a hard time seeing how any luxury tax system would be useless, though.

With the players clearly more willing to work on a luxury tax system than a cap, why aren't the owners looking to find a way to make the luxury tax system work for them? Now I've seen people point to baseball's system as being a failure, but I don't think that system was viewed positively the moment it was created. Everyone doubted it would work real well, and it hasn't (at least where the Yankees are concerned, but I think league spending overall has dropped).

I'm not for either side, and neither side has appeared too anxious to save the season. But, so far, I think the owners appear to want to break the union rather than get a CBA done.

Exactly.

The PA is willing to discuss a luxury tax. It's easily possible to hammer down the league average salary with a tax (see Burke's proposal), and create a more equatable system for the owners. Therefore, logic would seem to say that the two sides should be looking at constructive ways to develop a tax that works for everyone. Instead the owners are sitting in this stupid firm position and screaming for a cap or nothing.

Even if the owners proposed the most ridiculous luxury tax imaginable - ie 300% tax on every dollar over $31 million - it would represent a start in negotiations and a search for common ground. However, the NHL seems to have no interest in this whatsoever.
 

Seachd

Registered User
Mar 16, 2002
24,937
8,946
MS said:
Exactly.

The PA is willing to discuss a luxury tax. It's easily possible to hammer down the league average salary with a tax (see Burke's proposal), and create a more equatable system for the owners. Therefore, logic would seem to say that the two sides should be looking at constructive ways to develop a tax that works for everyone. Instead the owners are sitting in this stupid firm position and screaming for a cap or nothing.

Even if the owners proposed the most ridiculous luxury tax imaginable - ie 300% tax on every dollar over $31 million - it would represent a start in negotiations and a search for common ground. However, the NHL seems to have no interest in this whatsoever.
Bettman said over and over again. They had 6 proposals and would look at others. Only the NHLPA seems to think they're salary caps. You think bringing the average salary down only $500,000 isn't a compromise?
 

Guest

Registered User
Feb 12, 2003
5,599
39
It is pretty amazing that you have owners out their crying about how much money they lose when they are determining how much money they spend.

Hire me as a GM, tell me my budget, if I don't make the budget you fire me and hire someone who can. Simple as that, it's not the GM's fault, it's the owners.

The owners will say they have to spend beyond their means to remain competitive, which is probably true in many cases, but if half the league is doing it, then it's one part the owners and one part the owners who are able to spend twice as much.

Divide the league into two leagues/conferences/divisions, one for the owners who have more free spending available, and one for the owners who have a tighter budget to follow. I've talked about it before, and for the life of me I can't figure out why no one even comments on it.

The major weakness I see in that arguement is that you are cutting off some games versus the bigger draws in the league. If you are a budget conscious team you would only see Detroit or New York once a season at home, where as you might see them 2-4 times at home in the current situation.

If you had one league operating an average of a $60 million payroll and one league operating an average of a $30 million payroll, you'd think the lower end payroll teams could afford cheaper tickets as an incentive to attract fans, as well as possible other benefits.

It also allows the big market teams to say "Screw the small market teams" as the Caps owner said a decade ago. Two seperate leagues coming down to a final for the Cup.

Many more thoughts on the subject in this thread.
 

Seachd

Registered User
Mar 16, 2002
24,937
8,946
GoCoyotes said:
It is pretty amazing that you have owners out their crying about how much money they lose when they are determining how much money they spend.

I find it hard to believe that players aren't negociating for and/or demanding higher salaries, or threatening to hold out if they don't get those salaries, and the owners are gift wrapping these offers with a card that says "All the best - There's more where that came from."

The players are getting an amazing lack of credit for the way salaries are today.
 

windowlicker

Registered User
Jun 17, 2003
2,202
0
Murky Wisconsin
Visit site
Personally, I love the hard stance the NHL is taking. Its not entirely fair to the players (which is a good thing), and I dont think this situation will end with a hard cap, but I love the way management seems to be 100% united. The current system needs a major overhaul, and rather than accepting a half-assed proposal at the last second (Luxury tax, salary rollback?), Bettman and the Crew are going all out, knowing full well that a half-effort (like in '94) will not do this time. The system needs to be shaken to the very core, and Im hoping from this rubble will rise the new NHL.
 

Legolas

Registered User
Apr 11, 2004
770
0
Toronto, Canada
I think the bottom line that the NHL and NHLPA are trying to avoid talking about is that hockey just does not sell in all 30 markets of the NHL no matter what you do. So, they're trying to put in a cost structure that at least allows the rich teams to subsidize the small teams to the point they can still keep playing and not lose money. That's what it comes down to. As far as I remember, Nashville and Columbus have payrolls lower than $30 million anyway, so how does a salary cap help them?

Bettman promised these expansion teams that the value of their franchises would go up and that has not happened. So, you lockout the players, hopefully get a new CBA in place where small market teams get some revenue sharing, have a salary cap and hopefully create a situation where the teams are attractive enough to increase in value again. A new CBA is not going to improve the quality of the product and I fail to see how a new CBA will improve the popularity of the game either.
 

Legolas

Registered User
Apr 11, 2004
770
0
Toronto, Canada
Seachd said:
I find it hard to believe that players aren't negociating for and/or demanding higher salaries, or threatening to hold out if they don't get those salaries, and the owners are gift wrapping these offers with a card that says "All the best - There's more where that came from."

The players are getting an amazing lack of credit for the way salaries are today.

The owners are still responsible for paying the players and giving into the demands of agents. Look at the NFL and NBA. Holding out hardly ever works. More importantly, it's obvious that coaching and managing salaries is the way to a championship, not stocking your team with high priced superstars. The players certainly try and increase salaries, but it's the few high spending owners that have gotten the NHL into the situation they're in today, and all the players did was take advantage of that, and you can't blame players for that.
 

Seachd

Registered User
Mar 16, 2002
24,937
8,946
Legolas said:
The owners are still responsible for paying the players and giving into the demands of agents. Look at the NFL and NBA. Holding out hardly ever works. More importantly, it's obvious that coaching and managing salaries is the way to a championship, not stocking your team with high priced superstars. The players certainly try and increase salaries, but it's the few high spending owners that have gotten the NHL into the situation they're in today, and all the players did was take advantage of that, and you can't blame players for that.
And you can't blame the owners for wanting it to stop.
 

MS

1%er
Mar 18, 2002
53,362
83,418
Vancouver, BC
Seachd said:
Bettman said over and over again. They had 6 proposals and would look at others. Only the NHLPA seems to think they're salary caps. You think bringing the average salary down only $500,000 isn't a compromise?

Those other 5 proposals were just flat-out Pejorative Slured and make a $31 million hard cap look like a utopia for the players. League-centered negotiations?

Cutting the average salary by almost 40% and team average payrolls by $13 million is a compromise? If that league proposal were put into place, pretty much every team in the league would be raking in money hand over fist.

The league has 5 or 6 crap organizations which lose a ton of money, and not because of the CBA - they lose it because of poor management, rotten arena deals, or from being in poor hockey markets. 24 teams are either making a profit or are within about $5 million of making a profit. To correct the league's salary structure so that 80%+ of teams are making a profit, you don't need a hard cap, and you don't need to cut salaries by almost 40%. Average team payroll should be about $37-38 million and average salary should be about $1.6 million, and that's easily achievable with a luxury tax.
 

Seachd

Registered User
Mar 16, 2002
24,937
8,946
MS said:
Cutting the average salary by almost 40% and team average payrolls by $13 million is a compromise?

A 5% cut in salaries is? Or a joke of a luxury tax that doesn't do anything? $0.20 per dollar over $50 million. Is that a compromise? No.
 

Chelios

Registered User
Jan 1, 2004
4,605
1,041
Visit site
The owner`s are insisting on a cap because the players have no leverage. This is a league that is barely even considered a major league in the US anymore, the league is financially in shambles, two other more profitable and much more popular leagues (NFL and NBA) have some sort of cap in place and all polls done thus far indicate that the fans support the owners. What leverage do the NHLPA have? Add to all this the fact that Bettman (like him or not) delivered an excellent speech today only to be countered by an absolutely brutal response by Goodenough and I don`t see how the players can honestly think they are going to win this battle.

Let`s get one thing strait: the league is indeed in financial troubles. All the NHL is looking to do is create some sort of link between revenues and player costs, which any good business should do. Once the league straitens itself out and revenues start to increase, the salary cap will increase and the players will profit. I, for one don`t think this is unreasonable by any stretch of the imagination.
 

hockeytown9321

Registered User
Jun 18, 2004
2,358
0
Seachd said:
A 5% cut in salaries is? Or a joke of a luxury tax that doesn't do anything? $0.20 per dollar over $50 million. Is that a compromise? No.

Whats 5% of 1.5 billion? Its over 33% of the league's supposed losses from last year.
 

hockeytown9321

Registered User
Jun 18, 2004
2,358
0
Chelios said:
66% will still be lost.

Except the 33% only accounts for the 5% rollback. After a year or two, most teams will be under the luxury tax. If payrolls average out around $40 million under a tax (which they would), then payroll is roughly $300 million less than it was last year. So total savings to the league is about $375 million.
 

A Good Flying Bird*

Guest
Seachd said:
Okay, so if somehow GMs started being more careful, and salaries across the league dropped 35%, all the players would be happy?

No. The players would not be happy.
Who cares?
That's not the point.
If the NHL owners in New York and Detroit and Toronto and Colorado etc want to slit their fellow owner's throats with ridiculous contracts, that's the owners' problem.
Why should the players lose the ability to test the market place?


There are so many half-truths and lies being told by both the owners and the union.

Here's what we know. The union offered a 5 percent roll back plus some weak luxury tax and revenue sharing proposal.
So the players are giving something up here.

From what I understand, the owners are proposing a cap of $31 Million a team.
That would, in one big swoop, lop off about 33 percent of player costs.

That is bloody well ridiculous.
The owners run around like coke binging blowhards, throwing money at players left and right.
Now all of the sudden the players are supposed to just give up one third of their money?

No way in hell should they agree.

IMO, the players are bargainning in good faith.
They're giving something up.
And they'd probably give up some more if the owners were actually negotiating.
IMO, the owners MUST move from the salary cap.
They've got to work with the players proposal.

Maybe they could win an 8 percent salary rollback (nothing to sneeze at) plus a stiffer luxury tax plan that drags salaries a bit.

And, of course, there must be revenue sharing.
If the rich owners aren't willing to help the small owners, well then this league might as well go to hell.
There's no way in hell that this freakin mess the owners created is going to be solved soley on the shoulders of the players.
 

A Good Flying Bird*

Guest
Winger98 said:
With the players clearly more willing to work on a luxury tax system than a cap, why aren't the owners looking to find a way to make the luxury tax system work for them?

Bingo.
That's the question.

The players are willing to move in a direction that could at least BEGIN to straighten out the NHL.

The owners are stuck on a cap.
Why?

Are things so dire that the league must radically change at this very instant?

If so, what does that say about Bettman's leadership?
And what does that say about the current crop of owners as stewards of the league?

If guys like Mike Illitch and other free-spending owners are suddenly hawkish on this issue, than they need to get front and center and apologize to the fans for their ridiculous behaviour that brought us to this moment.

They also need to promise a corresponding reduction in ticket sales.

The rich owners also need to explain why, if things are really so dire, they haven't started a reasonable revenue sharing plan to help the small markets.

But this ain't gonna happen.

So I'm sticking with the players and the idea of a free market place.
 

Other Dave

Registered User
Jan 7, 2003
2,025
0
New and improved in TO
Visit site
Newsguyone said:
If the NHL owners in New York and Detroit and Toronto and Colorado etc want to slit their fellow owner's throats with ridiculous contracts, that's the owners' problem.

I'm interested to know how you are able to lump these four teams together, when their circumstances are in no way comparable. (I'm also interested in knowing what teams you mean by 'etc').

Specifically, I'm keen on hearing how Denver, in particular, has managed to 'slit the other owners' throats'.
 

Lobstertainment

Oh no, my brains.
Nov 26, 2003
11,785
1
Toronto
Other Dave said:
I'm interested to know how you are able to lump these four teams together, when their circumstances are in no way comparable. (I'm also interested in knowing what teams you mean by 'etc').

Specifically, I'm keen on hearing how Denver, in particular, has managed to 'slit the other owners' throats'.

to go off that if these 4 owners don't care about the other 26 owners why did they too vote for a work stopage?

supporting someone to hurt them? :dunno:
 

Licentia

Registered User
Jun 29, 2004
1,832
655
Seachd said:
Okay, so if somehow GMs started being more careful, and salaries across the league dropped 35%, all the players would be happy?

Yeah, such bologne eh? Of course they wouldn't be happy!! The NHLPA knows damn well that the salaries will balloon again if the owners accept their proposal.
 
Last edited:

two out of three*

Guest
I in the Eye said:
Or play an ultra-tight, clutch-and-grab, trap system... No risk - No creativity... No fun to watch... But eh, your team has a better chance to make the playoffs... You have a better chance to live to see a scrum another day...

I hate the trap too, but if it can get my team to the playoffs, then so be it. I personally don't care if nobody else watches. I will.
 

Licentia

Registered User
Jun 29, 2004
1,832
655
Seachd said:
I hate to be the one to break this to you, but that's what creates these work stoppages - one side is unhappy.

If the "free market system" (even though that's not what the league has), decides that the players' salaries all go down, they'd still be whining.

They want to maintain things the way they are, which not only pays them ridiculously generous salaries, but also leaves the door open to more exponential growth.

100% correct.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad

-->