Bill Watters said...

[Charge_Seven]

Don't know if anyones mentioned this, but Watters was saying that he believes the two will eventually settle on a compromise...(get ready for this pro-management guys...) of a very stiff luxury tax.

Now, to be fair, he did not have a source on that, and was simply stating what he figured had to happen to get a deal done.

Click to read more...

 

[Crows*]

Very odd.

Waters has been so attamently saying there was no hope for a nsettlement for a long time.

 

[Brewleaguer]

Don't know if anyones mentioned this, but Watters was saying that he believes the two will eventually settle on a compromise...(get ready for this pro-management guys...) of a very stiff luxury tax.

Now, to be fair, he did not have a source on that, and was simply stating what he figured had to happen to get a deal done.

Going on 7 hours you would think something possitive was happen behind those doors.

 

[Charge_Seven]

Going on 7 hours you would think something possitive was happen behind those doors.

Agreed.

 

[oil slick]

Don't know if anyones mentioned this, but Watters was saying that he believes the two will eventually settle on a compromise...(get ready for this pro-management guys...) of a very stiff luxury tax.

Now, to be fair, he did not have a source on that, and was simply stating what he figured had to happen to get a deal done.

I'm a pro-management guy, and I've thought for a while that a stiff tax is the way to go. I look at it this way. An extremely high luxury tax is effectively a cap. As you begin lowering it, at some point it stops being a cap, and starts being a dissuading force for increased spending, until you go down to the farcicle 20% (which does very little) proposed by the Union. There must be some point which is a not a complete non-starter to both parties.

 

[Bruwinz37]

I am pro management (only because of the fiscal ruins the game is in) but I would be for a stiff tax. I think the league would be fine with a hard cap at 50m and I think the teams could live with that too. Basically you are just trying to stop the top 5 teams from spending a ridiculous amount of money. If no team could spend more than 50m dollars contracts would still come down but it would give some teams leeway to spend a bit more if they need to.

I stiff luxury tax starting at 40m would also work because (if for example it was dollar for dollar) a team would think twice about offering an UFA 6m per year if they are over the cap because it would be like playing that player 12m per year. We all know there are no hockey players worth that much.

 

[Charge_Seven]

I'm a pro-management guy, and I've thought for a while that a stiff tax is the way to go. I look at it this way. An extremely high luxury tax is effectively a cap. As you begin lowering it, at some point it stops being a cap, and starts being a dissuading force for increased spending, until you go down to the farcicle 20% (which does very little) proposed by the Union. There must be some point which is a not a complete non-starter to both parties.

Exactly. I'm a pro-PA guy and have always thought a stiff tax was the way to go too.

37 million: $0.25 per dollar over
42 million: $1.00 per dollar
45 million: $1.50 per dollar
47 million: $2.00 per dollar
50 million+: $4.00 per dollar

Essentially that's a hard cap at 47. If a team goes over, then it only benefits those teams under the soft cap. Now, I don't want those numbers, but that's workablem there's no way anyone can argue otherwise. Most teams would stay under the 42,000,000. A few would venture over the 45, and maybe one a year would top 47...50 would be unthinkable...

 

[mudcrutch79]

How many BoG members does it take to approve a deal?

 

[Cole Caulifield]

At that point it becomes semantics. The NHLPA has already said that a stiff luxury tax was the same thing as a hard cap.

People have got to realize that what the NHLPA want is to keep being able to play the owners against themselves. They don't care about a system that would work economically.

 

[speeds]

Exactly. I'm a pro-PA guy and have always thought a stiff tax was the way to go too.

37 million: $0.25 per dollar over
42 million: $1.00 per dollar
45 million: $1.50 per dollar
47 million: $2.00 per dollar
50 million+: $4.00 per dollar

Essentially that's a hard cap at 47. If a team goes over, then it only benefits those teams under the soft cap. Now, I don't want those numbers, but that's workablem there's no way anyone can argue otherwise. Most teams would stay under the 42,000,000. A few would venture over the 45, and maybe one a year would top 47...50 would be unthinkable...

I like the idea, but think the owners would like to have the tax levels tied to revenue so that if league wide revenue drops, so will the thresholds correspondingly. And of course the reverse would be true for players, if revenue increses the tax levels increase.

Something like I suggested in the below thread, post 4.

http://hfboards.com/showthread.php?t=127407&page=1

I have it with an eventual hard cap, but ultimately that wouldn't be required, you could just throw as you have a 4:1 LT (or whatever you think is punitive enough to stop anyone from going over) at whatever you consider the approporiate level.

I think it works better that way because it allows the NHL to say they have linkage (though there is no actual linkage, only a linkage between revenue and the LT thresholds) and allows the NHLPA to say there's no hard cap (though implicitly there would be because the 4:1 LT at the high end would act as a defacto cap).

Both win by claiming they got what they want when neither gets exactly what they want (or at least, what they say they want).

 

[Charge_Seven]

At that point it becomes semantics. The NHLPA has already said that a stiff luxury tax was the same thing as a hard cap.

People have got to realize that what the NHLPA want is to keep being able to play the owners against themselves. They don't care about a system that would work economically.

Unless they came out and defined what a stiff tax is, they can still get away with accepting one and saying it wasn't what they originally meant as stiff.

 

[hockeytown9321]

How many BoG members does it take to approve a deal?

If Bettman approves of the deal, it takes a simple majority to ratify(16) If he disapproves, there needs to be a 75% majority(23). Essentially, Bettman has 8 BOG votes.

 

[Cole Caulifield]

Unless they came out and defined what a stiff tax is, they can still get away with accepting one and saying it wasn't what they originally meant as stiff.

That's if you believe the players are ready to cave and are only looking to save face.

 

[Charge_Seven]

That's if you believe the players are ready to cave and are only looking to save face.

Yes, however we all know that if the owners accept the soft cap/lux tax that they are th eones who caved

 

[RangerBoy]

Watters has been saying on his radio show that there would be a season

 

[mudcrutch79]

If Bettman approves of the deal, it takes a simple majority to ratify(16) If he disapproves, there needs to be a 75% majority(23). Essentially, Bettman has 8 BOG votes.

A majority may well jump at something like a true stiff luxury tax, providing that the revenue was redistributed. It's a complete screw job for the big markets though; they're better off with a hard cap, or no cap at all.

Interestingly, for Bettman himself, a stiff luxury tax is probably just fine; it will ensure the survival of a lot of the markets that he's responsible for bringing into the league.

 

[me2]

Exactly. I'm a pro-PA guy and have always thought a stiff tax was the way to go too.

37 million: $0.25 per dollar over
42 million: $1.00 per dollar
45 million: $1.50 per dollar
47 million: $2.00 per dollar
50 million+: $4.00 per dollar

Essentially that's a hard cap at 47. If a team goes over, then it only benefits those teams under the soft cap. Now, I don't want those numbers, but that's workablem there's no way anyone can argue otherwise. Most teams would stay under the 42,000,000. A few would venture over the 45, and maybe one a year would top 47...50 would be unthinkable...

24% rollback + your defacto cap at 47m.


Its a major win for the owners, with out the extras they will want such are lower rookie salaries and symetric arbitration. Both of which they'd push for and probably get. QO reduced to 100% (or lower). And no linkage/no hard cap means no salary floor.

24% rollback
symetric arbitration
your luxury tax system
no team salary floor
lower rookie salaries
QO reduced to 100% or lower


Looks good.

 

[Cole Caulifield]

Yes, however we all know that if the owners accept the soft cap/lux tax that they are th eones who caved

"If you caress a circle long enough, it becomes vicious" -Eugène Ionesco

 

[nyr7andcounting]

Yes, however we all know that if the owners accept the soft cap/lux tax that they are th eones who caved

Don't think of it as a winner and a loser. If they get a deal, it's not going to be either sides philosophy, it'll be somewhere in the middle. If they do something to save the season, they are both winners. I mean they suck, big time, but really they would both will have won. I think that a stiff luxury tax, that works as it intended to do, it something that majority can live with, wether you are pro-pa or management.

 

[Charge_Seven]

Don't think of it as a winner and a loser. If they get a deal, it's not going to be either sides philosophy, it'll be somewhere in the middle. If they do something to save the season, they are both winners. I mean they suck, big time, but really they would both will have won. I think that a stiff luxury tax, that works as it intended to do, it something that majority can live with, wether you are pro-pa or management.

I've said that before, and I agree. I just didn't want this thread to take some nasty "the players are caving" turn...

 

[Morbo]

I think for once Billy might be right.

It won't be in time to save this season, but the owners are going to have to figure out another model to get their cost controls.

 

[Crazy Lunatic]

Exactly. I'm a pro-PA guy and have always thought a stiff tax was the way to go too.

37 million: $0.25 per dollar over
42 million: $1.00 per dollar
45 million: $1.50 per dollar
47 million: $2.00 per dollar
50 million+: $4.00 per dollar

Essentially that's a hard cap at 47. If a team goes over, then it only benefits those teams under the soft cap. Now, I don't want those numbers, but that's workablem there's no way anyone can argue otherwise. Most teams would stay under the 42,000,000. A few would venture over the 45, and maybe one a year would top 47...50 would be unthinkable...

I'm 100% pro management, but those numbers are way too stiff. 4 dollars on the dollar at 50 million? Dollar for dollar at 42 is good enough, anything above that isn't necessary.

 

[mudcrutch79]

I'm 100% pro management, but those numbers are way too stiff. 4 dollars on the dollar at 50 million? Dollar for dollar at 42 is good enough, anything above that isn't necessary.

What makes you think dollar for dollar is a more proper response to the NHL's financial situation?

 

[PecaFan]

If Bettman approves of the deal, it takes a simple majority to ratify(16) If he disapproves, there needs to be a 75% majority(23). Essentially, Bettman has 8 BOG votes.

You got a cite for that? It goes against everything I've ever heard.

The last deal got pushed through with barely over 50%. That's the whole reason it was changed, to make sure that 75% of the league agrees to the new system.

I don't think Bettman has a vote. It takes 75% either way.

 

[mudcrutch79]

You got a cite for that? It goes against everything I've ever heard.

The last deal got pushed through with barely over 50%. That's the whole reason it was changed, to make sure that 75% of the league agrees to the new system.

I don't think Bettman has a vote. It takes 75% either way.

Everything I've read says that to approve a deal not approved by Bettman, it takes 23 votes. That'd be meaningless if it took the same to approve a deal he supports.