GDT: 2/3//05 NHL and PA meeting

[Bauer83]

I just dont see how something like 100% tax over $40m, 150% tax over $45m and a 200% tax over $50m wouldn't be ok for the league. I'm not the most knowledgable on this subject, so please feel free to shoot holes in this.

I have wondered that as well, and I can only come to the conclusion that allowing other teams to spend over the cap limit to sign the big name players, would cause other players asking for similar salaries. Someone in Edmonton or Calgary or Minnesota can't tell an arbitrator that the salary someone recieves in New york can't be compared to us, and hence the inflation begins again. Part of the reason for salary cap is to get the stars to all of the smaller markets, to hopefully grow the game. Whether or not this will fully work, who knows. But I know we cheered for a long time when Peter Nedved was in Edmonton, and he is barely even a star anymore. Whether it would have the same effect in the states, who knows. But that is the only reason why I cannot see a harsh luxury tax working, and that is just my take on the subject.

 

[crossxcheck]

I have wondered that as well, and I can only come to the conclusion that allowing other teams to spend over the cap limit to sign the big name players, would cause other players asking for similar salaries. Someone in Edmonton or Calgary or Minnesota can't tell an arbitrator that the salary someone recieves in New york can't be compared to us, and hence the inflation begins again. Part of the reason for salary cap is to get the stars to all of the smaller markets, to hopefully grow the game. Whether or not this will fully work, who knows. But I know we cheered for a long time when Peter Nedved was in Edmonton, and he is barely even a star anymore. Whether it would have the same effect in the states, who knows. But that is the only reason why I cannot see a harsh luxury tax working, and that is just my take on the subject.

I see your logic. there HAS to be some way to guarantee "cost certainity" without having a "hard cap."

 

[Jobu]

I have wondered that as well, and I can only come to the conclusion that allowing other teams to spend over the cap limit to sign the big name players, would cause other players asking for similar salaries. Someone in Edmonton or Calgary or Minnesota can't tell an arbitrator that the salary someone recieves in New york can't be compared to us, and hence the inflation begins again. Part of the reason for salary cap is to get the stars to all of the smaller markets, to hopefully grow the game. Whether or not this will fully work, who knows. But I know we cheered for a long time when Peter Nedved was in Edmonton, and he is barely even a star anymore. Whether it would have the same effect in the states, who knows. But that is the only reason why I cannot see a harsh luxury tax working, and that is just my take on the subject.

I think the argument is that, e.g., Detroit has $60m to spend, Edmonton $35m. No matter where the luxury tax level is, Detroit would spend $60m and Edmonton $35m. Now, with a punitive luxury tax, the actual player costs may not be overly materially different, but there is still a difference.

Having said this, I support a luxury tax together with a variety of the other concessions that the players have offered.

 

[crossxcheck]

I was talking to mom today and she told me her father was a president of a union and that it was always a tight rope that he walked asking for too much or not enough. He knew how to push the limits without ever exceeding them, but once he retired his plant closed down within months. Point being, we're probably not dealing with the wisest bargainers here in Bettman and Goodenow.

 

[Bauer83]

I think the argument is that, e.g., Detroit has $60m to spend, Edmonton $35m. No matter where the luxury tax level is, Detroit would spend $60m and Edmonton $35m. Now, with a punitive luxury tax, the actual player costs may not be overly materially different, but there is still a difference.

Having said this, I support a luxury tax together with a variety of the other concessions that the players have offered.

I can honestly say a luxury tax with some big teeth, and the money being redistributed properly, along with two-way arbitration would make me
extremely happy. I really liked the no hold-out clause the owners tried
to put in. Although this seems unfair to the players, it would prevent
the yashin and peca type holdouts. At the same time I figure it would
cause more bad then good.

 

[crossxcheck]

I can honestly say a luxury tax with some big teeth, and the money being redistributed properly, along with two-way arbitration would make me
extremely happy. I really liked the no hold-out clause the owners tried
to put in. Although this seems unfair to the players, it would prevent
the yashin and peca type holdouts. At the same time I figure it would
cause more bad then good.

the owners take a harsh luxury tax system, then they'll have more bargaining power on other issues such as arbitration and UFA age.

 

[Jobu]

I was talking to mom today and she told me her father was a president of a union and that it was always a tight rope that he walked asking for too much or not enough. He knew how to push the limits without ever exceeding them, but once he retired his plant closed down within months. Point being, we're probably not dealing with the wisest bargainers here in Bettman and Goodenow.

With all due respect, Goodenow is probably one of the most admired and successful labour-side bargainers in recent memory.

 

[Bauer83]

the owners take a harsh luxury tax system, then they'll have more bargaining power on other issues such as arbitration and UFA age.

Yup, as long as they make sure there are no loop holes this time around, it can be for the good of the game. Now I still consider a cap the best option for the health of 30 teams, and still really hope the league gets one. I am just stating that it would not be a complete disaster if it was a good and really tough luxury tax system. Linkage is still the best option if the league is to suceed very long term with 30 franchises. And if the league begins to suddenly grow to be a major 3 sport, then the money will be right back in the player's pockets, as there salary ranges would be tied to the money being brought in, plus the profit sharing.

 

[Ar-too]

With all due respect, Goodenow is probably one of the most admired and successful labour-side bargainers in recent memory.

In what circles? That may have been true 5 months ago, but he's costing the people he works for much more than he'll be able to get back for them, regardless of when the lockout ends.

 

[crossxcheck]

In what circles? That may have been true 5 months ago, but he's costing the people he works for much more than he'll be able to get back for them, regardless of when the lockout ends.

I'm with you. It almost seems he is doing this simply due to his own ego.

 

[i am dave]

I was talking to mom today and she told me her father was a president of a union and that it was always a tight rope that he walked asking for too much or not enough. He knew how to push the limits without ever exceeding them, but once he retired his plant closed down within months. Point being, we're probably not dealing with the wisest bargainers here in Bettman and Goodenow.

Or maybe they're both SO brilliant that they just BLEW YOUR MIND!

 

[Steve L*]

With all due respect, Goodenow is probably one of the most admired and successful labour-side bargainers in recent memory.

He wont be so admired and successful afters he lost the players billions in lost salary for nothing.

 

[Ar-too]

With all due respect, Goodenow is probably one of the most admired and successful labour-side bargainers in recent memory.

Richie Phillips was pretty well respected before the baseball umpires' strike in 2000 btw.

 

[crossxcheck]

Or maybe they're both SO brilliant that they just BLEW YOUR MIND!

you're probably right.

 

[Slats432]

With all due respect, Goodenow is probably one of the most admired and successful labour-side bargainers in recent memory.

Even as an owner supporter at the purest level, I admire the job that Bob Goodenow has done for his constituents.(Although those same constituents have no respect for the fact that Bettman has grown revenues to quadruple what they were.)

The problem with Goodenow is that right now, he doesn't see that his incredibly successful job has economically crippled the sport and in this bargaining he should be more cognizant of the necessity for a softer stance. His mandate for the last two years is to have negotiated the best deal for the players that he could have, rather than say "We will never play with a hard cap."

He should have said...."OK..you want a hard cap...fine. It is $60.00 million, with the luxury tax starting at $35 million." and negotiate the rest.

As someone in business, you win some, you lose some, you make mistakes. In this negotiation, I think Goodenow has made some errors.

 

[nomorekids]

Even as an owner supporter at the purest level, I admire the job that Bob Goodenow has done for his constituents.(Although those same constituents have no respect for the fact that Bettman has grown revenues to quadruple what they were.)

The problem with Goodenow is that right now, he doesn't see that his incredibly successful job has economically crippled the sport and in this bargaining he should be more cognizant of the necessity for a softer stance. His mandate for the last two years is to have negotiated the best deal for the players that he could have, rather than say "We will never play with a hard cap."

He should have said...."OK..you want a hard cap...fine. It is $60.00 million, with the luxury tax starting at $35 million." and negotiate the rest.

As someone in business, you win some, you lose some, you make mistakes. In this negotiation, I think Goodenow has made some errors.

Agreed, 100 percent.

 

[Jobu]

In what circles? That may have been true 5 months ago, but he's costing the people he works for much more than he'll be able to get back for them, regardless of when the lockout ends.

How do you know?

 

[crossxcheck]

Even as an owner supporter at the purest level, I admire the job that Bob Goodenow has done for his constituents.(Although those same constituents have no respect for the fact that Bettman has grown revenues to quadruple what they were.)

The problem with Goodenow is that right now, he doesn't see that his incredibly successful job has economically crippled the sport and in this bargaining he should be more cognizant of the necessity for a softer stance. His mandate for the last two years is to have negotiated the best deal for the players that he could have, rather than say "We will never play with a hard cap."

He should have said...."OK..you want a hard cap...fine. It is $60.00 million, with the luxury tax starting at $35 million." and negotiate the rest.

As someone in business, you win some, you lose some, you make mistakes. In this negotiation, I think Goodenow has made some errors.

well said, slats.

 

[c-carp]

I'm with you. It almost seems he is doing this simply due to his own ego.

Bettman has quite an ego also, I think both Ego's are a big problem here. As was said earlier I think both are more concerned about being percieved as the winner in this deal then doing what is right.

 

[Flames Draft Watcher]

bruins did in 97
tampa did in 98

Incorrect. San Jose (Florida's pick originally) actually won the lottery from the #3 position. But they had agreed to swap their picks if they won in a deal they made earlier that season (Marchment deal IIRC.) This meant San Jose leapfrogged ahead of Nashville (althought they swapped picks at the draft with Nashville coveting Legwand.)

What's funny about that whole situation is that the San Jose acquired that pick from Florida in the Viktor Kozlov deal. So Florida could have had Vinny Lecavalier instead of Kozlov. OUCH.

 

[Loki]

I have a feeling that the one that wins this battle for their ego (hard cap/no hard cap issue) will in effect lose the overall battle for their side because the amount of concessions they will be required to give up to have the other side agree would be crippling.

 

[Ar-too]

How do you know?

You'd be hard-pressed convincing even the biggest player-supporter here to believe that the pie to be split between the players and owners of even the richest teams will ever be as big as it was 5 months ago ever again.

 

[TonySCV]

Here I thought this was supposed to be a thread about the meeting today - not a catch all for a bunch of off topic crap. Can everyone keep their comments limited to the topic please?

 

[WickedBruinsGirl]

Any updates?

 

[Slats432]

Here I thought this was supposed to be a thread about the meeting today - not a catch all for a bunch of off topic crap. Can everyone keep their comments limited to the topic please?

We were talking about the negotiating abilities of the guys involved...that is on topic.