Daly already states opposition to luxury tax

[FlyersFan10*]

http://www.tsn.ca/nhl/news_story.asp?id=106361

Well, the league has made it clear that they will not discuss or negotiate anything that has a luxury tax in it. So, rather than work towards a solution, they insist on keeping a cap, which is creating a problem.

I'm pretty sure most people on here know I'm pro union and that I think an offer of a stiff luxury tax (70 to 80 cents on the dollar) and a threshold of $40 million in more than sufficient to keep a drag on salaries.

I've seen people on here state that there would be teams that would pull a New York Yankees, but let's be honest. Baseball's luxury tax is nothing near the 70 to 80 cents on the dollar over the threshold that they have. If it were, I don't think Mr.Steinbrenner would pay an additonal 80 million in taxes if that be the case. (I believe the MLB threshold is like 80 million).

If the NHLPA's offer of a stiff luxury and a low threshold of $40 million, then the offer is more than fair and that is clear that the owner's position is salary cap or bust.

Bill Daly talks about how they are willing to negotiate other items, but this one item seems to be a no go. And one other thing. Why is it that Daly is the mouth piece for the NHL? I thought Bettman was the mouthpiece. See, even the NHL can't get it right. I'd like to hear from the rest of the owner's group to see what their thoughts are.

One last thing. Who is on the owner's team with regards to negotiations?

Click to read more...

 

[Dave is a killer]

http://www.tsn.ca/nhl/news_story.asp?id=106361

Well, the league has made it clear that they will not discuss or negotiate anything that has a luxury tax in it. So, rather than work towards a solution, they insist on keeping a cap, which is creating a problem.

I'm pretty sure most people on here know I'm pro union and that I think an offer of a stiff luxury tax (70 to 80 cents on the dollar) and a threshold of $40 million in more than sufficient to keep a drag on salaries.

I've seen people on here state that there would be teams that would pull a New York Yankees, but let's be honest. Baseball's luxury tax is nothing near the 70 to 80 cents on the dollar over the threshold that they have. If it were, I don't think Mr.Steinbrenner would pay an additonal 80 million in taxes if that be the case. (I believe the MLB threshold is like 80 million).

If the NHLPA's offer of a stiff luxury and a low threshold of $40 million, then the offer is more than fair and that is clear that the owner's position is salary cap or bust.

Bill Daly talks about how they are willing to negotiate other items, but this one item seems to be a no go. And one other thing. Why is it that Daly is the mouth piece for the NHL? I thought Bettman was the mouthpiece. See, even the NHL can't get it right. I'd like to hear from the rest of the owner's group to see what their thoughts are.

One last thing. Who is on the owner's team with regards to negotiations?

If they're going to do a luxury tax, lets pull up Brian Burke's proposal again ... and 40 mil per team is not enough to make money for the teams/players/league to stay in business

 

[membleypeg]

http://www.tsn.ca/nhl/news_story.asp?id=106361
One last thing. Who is on the owner's team with regards to negotiations?

The last poll I saw in Canada indicated that the NHL and its owners had about 85% popularity in this dispute.

 

[Digger12]

http://www.tsn.ca/nhl/news_story.asp?id=106361

Well, the league has made it clear that they will not discuss or negotiate anything that has a luxury tax in it. So, rather than work towards a solution, they insist on keeping a cap, which is creating a problem.

I'm pretty sure most people on here know I'm pro union and that I think an offer of a stiff luxury tax (70 to 80 cents on the dollar) and a threshold of $40 million in more than sufficient to keep a drag on salaries.

I've seen people on here state that there would be teams that would pull a New York Yankees, but let's be honest. Baseball's luxury tax is nothing near the 70 to 80 cents on the dollar over the threshold that they have. If it were, I don't think Mr.Steinbrenner would pay an additonal 80 million in taxes if that be the case. (I believe the MLB threshold is like 80 million).

If the NHLPA's offer of a stiff luxury and a low threshold of $40 million, then the offer is more than fair and that is clear that the owner's position is salary cap or bust.

Bill Daly talks about how they are willing to negotiate other items, but this one item seems to be a no go. And one other thing. Why is it that Daly is the mouth piece for the NHL? I thought Bettman was the mouthpiece. See, even the NHL can't get it right. I'd like to hear from the rest of the owner's group to see what their thoughts are.

One last thing. Who is on the owner's team with regards to negotiations?

Daly talks it, but we'll see if he walks it in the next couple of weeks.

The union swears up and down that they're not working on a new proposal...but numerous reports and quotes seem to indicate otherwise. Perhaps there's some telling smoke here as well.

Daly has to put up a tough front, he should be fired if he doesn't.

I think if the PA really does come up with a stiffer luxury tax in addition to other concessions, the NHL will at least entertain the possibilities.

 

[FlyersFan10*]

If they're going to do a luxury tax, lets pull up Brian Burke's proposal again ... and 40 mil per team is not enough to make money for the teams/players/league to stay in business

Ok, once again, basic math. If there is 2.1 billion in total revenue and we have an average payroll of 40 million, and there's thirty teams, that's 1.2 billion in salary. 2.1 billion minus 1.2 billion equals 900 million. Divide that by 30 teams and that's 30 million, once again, 30 million per team. I'd like to think that that is more than enough. And you can guarantee no team is going to want to lose that piece of 30 million income by running a salary over the 40 million threshold. You can also bet that there will be your normal skin flint teams who will always do things on the cheap and not even come near the 40 million threshold, once again, pocketing even more money. So yeah, 40 million is more than fair.

 

[Riddarn]

Well we all knew this already. The league don't want a tax, the players don't want a cap. Any serious tax-system would have the same effect a hard cap has anyway so I'm sure the players wouldn't want that.

 

[SENSible1*]

Daly just doing his job.

Daly has to reject a luxury tax based system at this point. If he didn't he'd be giving away the farm. Far more telling, than this restatement of the league's basic position, was the conciliatory tone he took towards the prospect of a player's proposal. The message was clear for those reading between the lines. Give us something worthwhile to work with and we'll start negotiating.

 

[darth5]

There is a section in this article which gives some actual info on the 6 proposals the NHLPA said were all just a 'salary cap'
http://nhlcbanews.com/dalymail/daly_mailbag111504.html
I thought some of these proposals were interesting and I wonder why the NHLPA cannot use one of them as a basis and tweak it for a counter offer. Yes, clearly they would provide the league a way to provide a 'budget' for salaries, but I fail to see what prevents some clauses being added to share risk and reward with the players. Unless the players position is essentially the owners have to bear all the risk-- which would show them for being just selfish millionaires-- in which case we are all screwed.

 

[Cawz]

There is a section in this article which gives some actual info on the 6 proposals the NHLPA said were all just a 'salary cap'
http://nhlcbanews.com/dalymail/daly_mailbag111504.html
I thought some of these proposals were interesting and I wonder why the NHLPA cannot use one of them as a basis and tweak it for a counter offer. Yes, clearly they would provide the league a way to provide a 'budget' for salaries, but I fail to see what prevents some clauses being added to share risk and reward with the players. Unless the players position is essentially the owners have to bear all the risk-- which would show them for being just selfish millionaires-- in which case we are all screwed.

I agree.

I havent seen those details before. Thanks for the link.

I'd like to see the PAs rebuttal on each proposal, and not just dismiss them all with a blanket statement.

 

[regdunlap7]

Ok, once again, basic math. If there is 2.1 billion in total revenue and we have an average payroll of 40 million, and there's thirty teams, that's 1.2 billion in salary. 2.1 billion minus 1.2 billion equals 900 million. Divide that by 30 teams and that's 30 million, once again, 30 million per team. I'd like to think that that is more than enough. And you can guarantee no team is going to want to lose that piece of 30 million income by running a salary over the 40 million threshold.

I have to believe there are other expenses teams have other than just players' salaries. Ok, they have 2.1 in REVENUES but that isn't the same as 2.1 billion in PROFITS. From that 30 million you still have to pay front office personnel, advertising, operating expenses, office and possibly arena rent, player travel, player per diems etc.

 

[CarlRacki]

I have to believe there are other expenses teams have other than just players' salaries. Ok, they have 2.1 in REVENUES but that isn't the same as 2.1 billion in PROFITS. From that 30 million you still have to pay front office personnel, advertising, operating expenses, office and possibly arena rent, player travel, player per diems etc.

Correct. And let's forget equipment costs, medical costs, insurance, scouting, arena security, player development costs, etc. Those are just expenses incurred by individual teams. Now consider league costs, i.e. administrators' salaries, officiating salaries, advertising, etc. There's a lot more to running a franchise/league than just paying the players.

 

[shveik]

... and 40 mil per team is not enough to make money for the teams/players/league to stay in business

Are we talking about the cap being used to save incompetent GMs from themselves, or to restrict the few super-rich teams from unbalancing the market? I can see how 40 mil is too much in the first case, but not in the second. (by the way, I do not think either way it makes sense, but whatever )