Daly already states opposition to luxury tax

Discussion in 'The Business of Hockey' started by FlyersFan10*, Nov 29, 2004.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. FlyersFan10*

    FlyersFan10* Guest

    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?
     
  2. Dave is a killer

    Dave is a killer Dave's a Mess

    Joined:
    Oct 17, 2002
    Messages:
    26,461
    Likes Received:
    3
    Trophy Points:
    171
    Location:
    Mount Juliet
    Home Page:
    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
     
  3. membleypeg

    membleypeg Registered User

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2002
    Messages:
    569
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Occupation:
    Chemical Engineer
    Home Page:
    The last poll I saw in Canada indicated that the NHL and its owners had about 85% popularity in this dispute.
     
  4. Digger12

    Digger12 Gold Fever

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2002
    Messages:
    17,698
    Likes Received:
    363
    Trophy Points:
    199
    Gender:
    Male
    Occupation:
    Technical Analyst
    Location:
    Back o' beyond
    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. :dunno:

    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.
     
  5. FlyersFan10*

    FlyersFan10* Guest

    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.
     
  6. Riddarn

    Riddarn 1980-2011

    Joined:
    Aug 2, 2003
    Messages:
    9,164
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    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.
     
  7. SENSible1*

    SENSible1* Guest

    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.
     
  8. darth5

    darth5 No!

    Joined:
    Mar 28, 2002
    Messages:
    2,528
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    139
    Location:
    Smashville, TN
    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.
     
  9. Cawz

    Cawz Registered User

    Joined:
    Sep 18, 2003
    Messages:
    14,372
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    36
    Location:
    Oiler fan in Calgary
    Home Page:
    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.
     
  10. regdunlap7

    regdunlap7 Registered User

    Joined:
    Sep 28, 2003
    Messages:
    151
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    lowell, ma
    Home Page:
    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.
     
  11. CarlRacki

    CarlRacki Registered User

    Joined:
    Feb 9, 2004
    Messages:
    1,438
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    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.
     
  12. shveik

    shveik Registered User

    Joined:
    Jul 6, 2002
    Messages:
    2,852
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Occupation:
    Inspired dilettante
    Home Page:
    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 :dunno: )
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page

monitoring_string = "358c248ada348a047a4b9bb27a146148"