From Red Wings Flagship Station

Discussion in 'The Business of Hockey' started by Kukla, Jan 27, 2005.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Kukla

    Kukla Registered User

    Joined:
    Mar 16, 2003
    Messages:
    456
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Occupation:
    self employed
    Location:
    motown
    Home Page:
  2. Volcanologist

    Volcanologist Used Register

    Joined:
    Jan 14, 2003
    Messages:
    22,557
    Likes Received:
    356
    Trophy Points:
    199
    Location:
    Toronto
    The problem is, the suggested offer goes against basically everything Bettman has said.

    There is no cost certainty to be found in that arrangement.
     
  3. Egil

    Egil Registered User

    Joined:
    Mar 6, 2002
    Messages:
    8,836
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    36
    Home Page:
    If their is a hybrid luxury tax - cap system, the $50 mil hard cap figure would probably fly, but the Luxury tax HAS to kick in MUCH lower than $40 Million. A small tax would probably have to start around $32 Mil (say 50%), and a higher one at $40 mil (%100).

    Otherwise, the tax doesn't drag salaries correctly (every team at $40 mil US wouldn't work). The Tax needs to start BELOW the % of revenue the players should get (about 55%, or $36 or so Million), otherwise it doesn't really drag salaries.
     
  4. txpd

    txpd Registered User

    Joined:
    Jan 25, 2003
    Messages:
    53,208
    Likes Received:
    549
    Trophy Points:
    214
    Home Page:
    first question. do you think a luxury tax will keep NYR, Toronto, Detroit, Colorado, Philadelphia and Dallas from spending? Lets be realistic. It won't. What it will do is shut the Senators, Bruins, Islanders, and other middle of the payroll pack down at the luxury tax threshold. That gives more of an advantage to those teams in the spender class...not less.

    second question. with a $50m hard cap and an exemption for a franchise player a team like Colorado with a $60m payroll has to give up nothing and is free to keep paying players $10m as long as either Sakic or Forsberg is the franchise player.

    I think this rumored plan is a disaster.
     
  5. SENSible1*

    SENSible1* Guest

    If that is the deal then Bettman should be taken out back and shot.

    $50 M cap and an exemption for a "franchise" player????

    If the owners have caved that badly, then they deserve to lose money and franchises.
     
  6. MarkZackKarl

    MarkZackKarl Registered User

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2002
    Messages:
    2,976
    Likes Received:
    5
    Trophy Points:
    131
    Location:
    Ottawa
    Home Page:
    lol Egil, nice use of capitals.
     
  7. SPARTAKUS*

    SPARTAKUS* Guest

    The owners have decided that it's better to make that deal then to cancelled the season and not have hockey until oct. 2006. At least its an improvement from the last cba. No systeme is perfect.
     
  8. SENSible1*

    SENSible1* Guest

    It is not an improvement, it is status quo.
     
  9. Volcanologist

    Volcanologist Used Register

    Joined:
    Jan 14, 2003
    Messages:
    22,557
    Likes Received:
    356
    Trophy Points:
    199
    Location:
    Toronto
    Agreed 100%.

    But look on the bright side, at least Sens can keep all their players under this cap, if Melnyk's willing to pay for a $50 million payroll.

    Under the more restrictive system you've been supporting so ardently, your team would be royally screwed with all the players you have nearing RFA rights.
     
  10. SPARTAKUS*

    SPARTAKUS* Guest

    I don't recall having a soft and a hard cap in the last cba???
     
  11. MarkZackKarl

    MarkZackKarl Registered User

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2002
    Messages:
    2,976
    Likes Received:
    5
    Trophy Points:
    131
    Location:
    Ottawa
    Home Page:
    Dont use logic. You'll confuse him.
     
  12. nyr7andcounting

    nyr7andcounting Registered User

    Joined:
    Feb 24, 2004
    Messages:
    1,919
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    That's a false statement. Wrong.
     
  13. mtroads

    mtroads Registered User

    Joined:
    Sep 20, 2002
    Messages:
    70
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Toronto
    Home Page:
    The whole point of this lockout was to get cost certainty. This would give them cost certainty but it doesn't help any of the teams that are still losing money. If Edmonton is losing money with their current payroll, which is well under the $50 million, this system won't help them. If a franchise player is paid even just $10 million, combine that with the $50 million cap for a total for $60 million. That's not really any different than the current system that is in place, it just has a number fixed at the top. Factor in all of the lost revenues due to the lock out and there will be a few contracting teams. A CBA like this would drag the NHL back down to 20 or fewer teams.
     
  14. nyr7andcounting

    nyr7andcounting Registered User

    Joined:
    Feb 24, 2004
    Messages:
    1,919
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    You have forgotten that there will be a luxury tax which atleast in part, if not in whole, will go back to the smaller markets.
     
  15. The Fuhr*

    The Fuhr* Guest


    It doesn't matter that the hard cap is at 50 million with the player exception of 10 million. This is a gret deal the NHL owners get language into the CBA. If the owners get the hard cap written into the CBA it is a big, big step for the next CBA. If the Hard cap is too high it can be nagotiated down the next time around. AS long as the language is in the CBA its a win for the owners.
     
  16. Kukla

    Kukla Registered User

    Joined:
    Mar 16, 2003
    Messages:
    456
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Occupation:
    self employed
    Location:
    motown
    Home Page:
    I think this proposal would do the trick with some tweaking. Maybe allow the franchise player but cap that salary too and if over the cap, tax it.
    I read here teams will still lose money with this proposal, do you realize even the Wings lost $30 million last year because they gambled with high priced players and lost. But you do not hear Ilitch complaining about it.
    Why should teams be guaranteed an income if they make bad decisions. This proposal would work on both sides of the fence with some tweaking.
     
  17. mtroads

    mtroads Registered User

    Joined:
    Sep 20, 2002
    Messages:
    70
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Toronto
    Home Page:
    Does it matter if they get a hard cap that doesn't change the current level of salaries? Teams have been talking about surviving until the this CBA for so long that if they are forced to continue under the same financial strain, I don't think that they'll make it until the CBA comes up for negotation again. This proposal doesn't change anything. In light of the recent comments by Cal Nichols, this proposal would definitely cause the Oilers to move or fold.

    Also it would have to be an amazingly high luxury tax to generate the revenue needed to keep the smaller and weaker market teams around.
     
  18. If this proposal is going to **** over the small market teams, then **** it.
     
  19. hockeytown9321

    hockeytown9321 Registered User

    Joined:
    Jun 18, 2004
    Messages:
    2,358
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    they lost money the last two years, yes, but nowhere near $30 million.
     
  20. I think they lost 18 last year, and 14 the year before.
    So, yes, it is around $30 Million
     
  21. Epsilon

    Epsilon #TeamHolland

    Joined:
    Oct 26, 2002
    Messages:
    67,799
    Likes Received:
    15,024
    Trophy Points:
    231
    Location:
    South Cackalacky
    Which, as a Wings fan, I think is perfectly fair. Our team spent a bunch of money hoping to make big playoff pushes each year (which would have allowed them to make plenty of money), and by getting bounced early they ended up being on the losing end of things.
     
  22. hockeytown9321

    hockeytown9321 Registered User

    Joined:
    Jun 18, 2004
    Messages:
    2,358
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    he said they lost $30 million last year.
     
  23. The Fuhr*

    The Fuhr* Guest


    Small market teams will be making money off this deal, Especally with a dollar for dollar luxery tax at 40 million.

    Take for example the Avalanche who have a payroll of 60 million, that would be 20 million over the 40 million limit. So the Avs would have to pay 20 million dollars in luxery tax on top of there 60 million dollar payroll.

    So thats 20 million in the Pot, Now add the leafs, rangers, detroit, philly,dallas,and Stlouis. so thats another 120 million in luxary tax to add to the 20 million.

    So with those 7 teams you have 140 million dollars and then take into account all the teams like the devils,habs and sens who have a payroll in the 45-50 million dollar range and the luxury tax pot will be around the 200 million mark.

    Now if 10 teams are under the 40 million dollar luxuary tax that would be 20 million dollars going to each team. That seems like a pretty sweet deal to me.
     
  24. Volcanologist

    Volcanologist Used Register

    Joined:
    Jan 14, 2003
    Messages:
    22,557
    Likes Received:
    356
    Trophy Points:
    199
    Location:
    Toronto
    You forgot that there is a hard cap at 50 million.
     
  25. The Fuhr*

    The Fuhr* Guest


    I was assuming that the franchise tagged player would still be taxed.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page

monitoring_string = "358c248ada348a047a4b9bb27a146148"