Sportsnet: NHL includes stiff luxury tax in latest proposal

[kdb209]

Originally Posted by kdb209
No it's more like the league putting out a big "Speed Zone Ahead" sign that Philly, Detroit, Dallas, etc ignored and blew past (by signing contracts that went past the expiration of the current CBA) and now suddenly are getting their speeding tickets for violating the speed limits they were told were coming.

No, they needed to to both. Play to win, but keep in mind the impact of signing contracts that extended past the last CBA and into a likely salary cap period. They could have signed shorter contracts or front-loaded them. It's not like they didn't know it was coming. I have no sympathy for them, just like I have no symapthy for teams like the 49ers who abused the salary cap and got what they had coming (in terms of dead cap space, etc).

It is better to penalize them than the responsible teams who knew what was coming and prepared for it.

Oh? When did the early announcement of a hard cap at $35M come out? I and a couple of GMs must have missed it.

It's been pretty obvious for at least two years going into the lockout that GB and the league was looking at a Salary Cap - they're were many public statements by GB and other owners.

Don't give us the BS that the owners didn't know what was coming. It's not like GB surprised them with the leagues salary cap offers - unlike BG's WTF surprises over the 24% rollback and cap acceptances.

 

[norrisnick]

Well if Detroit does continue to MARKET THE HELL out of its hockey team, it will pay off even more - to the tune of an extra $30M a year profit into Illich's pocket. When salries drop from $75M to $45M do you really expect them to lower ticket prices for the "hottest tickets in town" - ka-ching, ka-ching, ka-ching.

Who cares? I'm not an Ilitch's bank statement fan.

 

[kdb209]

Originally Posted by kdb209
Well if Detroit does continue to MARKET THE HELL out of its hockey team, it will pay off even more - to the tune of an extra $30M a year profit into Illich's pocket. When salries drop from $75M to $45M do you really expect them to lower ticket prices for the "hottest tickets in town" - ka-ching, ka-ching, ka-ching.

So when Bettman said lower ticket prices was one of the goals of this agreement, he was full of it?

Unless he thinks he has very stupid owners, yes he was - although I've never seen him make that claim. I've seen pro-owner posters make that claim, but not GB or any owner.

High player salaries do not cause high ticket prices. Actually its the opposite - it's high ticket prices (and fan's willingness to pay them) that give the expected revenue to allow a team to pay more in salary.

Ticket prices are pretty much set by supply and demand - just like any other commodity. If an owner knows that fans are willing to pay X dollars for a ticket, why the hell would he ever charge less.

 

[Weary]

Who cares? I'm not an Ilitch's bank statement fan.

Maybe if they can't get back to playing hockey, the owners can try to make a sport of dueling bank accounts.

 

[norrisnick]

It's been pretty obvious for at least two years going into the lockout that GB and the league was looking at a Salary Cap - they're were many public statements by GB and other owners.

Don't give us the BS that the owners didn't know what was coming. It's not like GB surprised them with the leagues salary cap offers - unlike BG's WTF surprises over the 24% rollback and cap acceptances.

Cost certainty not a low to mid 30's hard cap.

 

[kdb209]

Originally Posted by kdb209
Well if Detroit does continue to MARKET THE HELL out of its hockey team, it will pay off even more - to the tune of an extra $30M a year profit into Illich's pocket. When salries drop from $75M to $45M do you really expect them to lower ticket prices for the "hottest tickets in town" - ka-ching, ka-ching, ka-ching.

Who cares? I'm not an Ilitch's bank statement fan.

But it goes to the point that many try to make, that the big market teams oppose the cap, when they are actually it's biggest beneficiaries, and to the PA's justifiable claim that without revenue sharing a salary cap is just a liscence for Detroit and Toronto to print money - all at their expense.

 

[Morbo]

The People VS. Pro-owner hockey "fans"
The Charge: Fraud

The people contend the pro-owner hockey fans have misrepresented their position that a salary cap will improve the game. In fact, we will demonstrate that these fans, pathetic and miserable after years of supporting horsepuckey teams like Boston, Chicago, and Carolina, have no interest in bettering the game. They only seek to take a pound out of the hide of the successful teams and their fans.

 

[norrisnick]

But it goes to the point that many try to make, that the big market teams oppose the cap, when they are actually it's biggest beneficiaries, and to the PA's justifiable claim that without revenue sharing a salary cap is just a liscence for Detroit and Toronto to print money - all at their expense.

Like I said earlier. Most of these guys aren't Wirtz or Jacobs. Or Karmanos, Leonsis, or one of the other guys who thought they bought a toy and then it got too expensive for them.

The big boys of Toronto, Detroit, Philly, Colorado, Rangers are in it to win. Sure they make more money, but really they want to win which is why they've gambled with huge payrolls during the past CBA.

 

[kdb209]

Originally Posted by kdb209
It's been pretty obvious for at least two years going into the lockout that GB and the league was looking at a Salary Cap - they're were many public statements by GB and other owners.

Don't give us the BS that the owners didn't know what was coming. It's not like GB surprised them with the leagues salary cap offers - unlike BG's WTF surprises over the 24% rollback and cap acceptances.

Cost certainty not a low to mid 30's hard cap.

Actually, the leagues intial offers were a low to mid 30's hard cap. The Leagues Dec 14th offer increased the cap to a range of $34.6M-$38.6M total compensation ($32.4M-$36.4M salary).

 

[norrisnick]

Actually, the leagues intial offers were a low to mid 30's hard cap. The Leagues Dec 14th offer increased the cap to a range of $34.6M-$38.6M total compensation ($32.4M-$36.4M salary).

They've had a bunch of different ideas floating around. A hard cap wasn't the be all end all until the players decided to accept one.

 

[Brent Burns Beard]

I'm pretty sure he's referring to the fact that some of these free spending teams having to cough up some of their players is the same as when they were stealing players away from other teams by out spending them. It's getting a dose of your own medicine.

Ottawa was not mentioned in the discussion, not sure why you are bringing them up.

when has anyone ever stolen a player ? is it not that players human right to choose where he wants to play once he has fulfilled his contractual obligations ?

dr

 

[kdb209]

Originally Posted by kdb209
Actually, the leagues intial offers were a low to mid 30's hard cap. The Leagues Dec 14th offer increased the cap to a range of $34.6M-$38.6M total compensation ($32.4M-$36.4M salary).

They've had a bunch of different ideas floating around. A hard cap wasn't the be all end all until the players decided to accept one.

A hard cap by any other name, ...

Three of the six "concepts" presented back in the July 21 meeting were effectively hard caps and none of the others allowed for open ended salaries.

The leagues demand for a 54% linkage (Dec 14 - an increase from initial offers) gives you a $34M average team payroll.

Back in June (and the previous October), Bettman was talking about a $31M hard cap (or a $31M average payroll, depending upon whether you beleive the league or PA).

Hard caps in the $40M's came very late to the negotiating scene.

It's inconceivable that the big market teams did not know what Bettman's (and the league's) goals and expectations were going into the lockout.

 

[norrisnick]

It's inconceivable that the big market teams did not know what Bettman's (and the league's) goals and expectations were going into the lockout.

As it is inconceivable that an owner/GM would knowingly cripple his team for the future. I'm not talking about Jagr, Yashin, Guerin, Holik here, those are bad at any point. I'm talking about the contracts signed in the last year and half (the '03 and '04 FA seasons). There is no way GMs give out those contracts if they knew they'd destroy their teams' futures.

 

[Wetcoaster]

when has anyone ever stolen a player ? is it not that players human right to choose where he wants to play once he has fulfilled his contractual obligations ?

dr

No, not until he becomes an unrestricted free agent.

 

[kdb209]

Originally Posted by kdb209
It's inconceivable that the big market teams did not know what Bettman's (and the league's) goals and expectations were going into the lockout.

As it is inconceivable that an owner/GM would knowingly cripple his team for the future. I'm not talking about Jagr, Yashin, Guerin, Holik here, those are bad at any point. I'm talking about the contracts signed in the last year and half (the '03 and '04 FA seasons). There is no way GMs give out those contracts if they knew they'd destroy their teams' futures.

It's not as inconceivable as you think. There have been several examples in the NFL (the 9ers being the most egregious) where it was quite obvious that an owner/GM was doing things that would cripple his team in the future in order to satisfy the demands of winning now.

Many teams had blanket policies (with a few exceptions - San Jose and Owen Nolan) of not signing any contracts that extended into the lockout.

The big team owners knew all that, and that 16 of their lower spending bretheren could force a CBA on them that they didn't like, and they still went out and spent like drunken sailors up to the edge of oblivion. They deserve what they get.

 

[norrisnick]

It's not as inconceivable as you think. There have been several examples in the NFL (the 9ers being the most egregious) where it was quite obvious that an owner/GM was doing things that would cripple his team in the future in order to satisfy the demands of winning now.

Many teams had blanket policies (with a few exceptions - San Jose and Owen Nolan) of not signing any contracts that extended into the lockout.

The big team owners knew all that, and that 16 of their lower spending bretheren could force a CBA on them that they didn't like, and they still went out and spent like drunken sailors up to the edge of oblivion. They deserve what they get.

Is that why every team has several contracts that extend into the lockout?

Is that why 20 teams had payrolls of incomplete rosters at $30M+ for the '04-'05 season?

Is that why 7-8 teams had even more incomplete rosters at $30M+ for the '05-'06 season?

With complete rosters the number of teams, particularly for the '05-'06 season, go up. This wasn't a couple of reckless teams unprepared for a low 30's cap. It's over half the league.

A reasonable rollback makes this whole issue go away. Without it, there is mayhem for both teams and players. The 'PA is going to throw a fit when half of highend UFAs don't get what they want.

 

[Drury_Sakic]

Peca's point was that some teams failed to prepare for the lockout and signed contracts before the last CBA expired. They should not be rewarded for that behavior.

This is not ment to be there to forgive teams for mistakes....

It is ment to be a bone to the players.. and a method by which the rest of the NHL can get the big markets to give into better revenue sharing...

Players make a gain by not giving a rollback... but the same effect of that rollback is felt in arbitration and other such areas...

Yes, the bigger markets might gain.... but you cannot let the Leafs be crippled for the next 2-3 seasons... its bad for hockey..if you hurt the big markets... its bad for hockey...... And it really does not give those clubs a leg up much past a season or two..I mean.. Colorado's big contracts end in a season or two anyways... ALL of them... so after that, they do not have any advantage over the other teams.. it works into the system...?

Seriously.. How much does Colorado, Toronto, Detroit, and company have locked up past 2 years? If there is a worry that it will be exploited for long term, make it a 2 year adjustment period.. and that after 2 seasons all those contracts left from the Pre-Lockout era will count once again at 100%...

If the NHL wants a negotiated cap at a level they like.. they will HAVE to give something to the players... this could be a mesure that makes both the players AND the big market owners happy in one move..

You cannot go to a new CBA without making some kind of adjustment..

 

[Brent Burns Beard]

No, not until he becomes an unrestricted free agent.

well, i disagree ...

If Joe Thornton doesnt want to sign anywhere except TOR or COL, thats his right.

whether those teams can sign him or not is another issue.

However, my point was more that most the guys who are signed away from other teams are UFA. So how is that stealing ?

dr

 

[Motown Beatdown]

Maybe if they can't get back to playing hockey, the owners can try to make a sport of dueling bank accounts.

That and ego are the main reason were in this mess. Old Mike got under the skin of a couple of owners and they turned into idiots. Yet it's the big markets that need to be reigned in.

 

[King_Brown]

Glad that they are talking linkage finally, like Burke has said there needs to be linkage. I don't understand the salary tax idea though, why? Once they can hammer numbers out, there is still a load of issues to sort through. RFA, bonuses, arbitration, qualyfying offers etc.

 

[PecaFan]

No it's more like the league putting out a big "Speed Zone Ahead" sign that Philly, Detroit, Dallas, etc ignored and blew past (by signing contracts that went past the expiration of the current CBA) and now suddenly are getting their speeding tickets for violating the speed limits they were told were coming.

Good analogy. And to finish it off, we implement the proposal:

All the teams that slowed down have to continue at the speed limit, 100%.

However, the teams that blew by not only do not get tickets, since their prior speed only counts as 76%, they now get to travel at 124%, exceeding the speed limit.

 

[nyrmessier011]

First of all, why should they honour any request? "Gee Gary, we'd prefer it if you'd stock the negotiating committee with softy marshmallow types, who will give us everything we want, ok?"

And where does it say that they even requested Jacobs not be there?

Do you people need things in exact print and quotes...Just because Goodenow didn't come out and say to the public "we would prefer jeremy not be involved int he talks"...It is obvious that the players don't want him involved in the talks by what happened on April 19. The only marshmallow is the one inside of your skull for saying he should be involved in the talks.

 

[R0CKET]

I know full well why there is a lockout. I just don't think the resolution thereof should cripple a handful of teams because they operated, as they were supposed to operate, under the old CBA.

Some measure of rollback, grandfathering, contract restructuring, etc... needs to be factored into the new CBA otherwise this whole lockout was for nothing. Rather than creating parity you just flip the power structure upside down.

Well hey...that's what life is all about. When change does come you can't exactly put the genie back in the bottle. Some may have prepared and some may not. Its a new world and the past is no more than a memory.

IMO when (and if?) a stupid CBA is actually agreed to all stakeholders need to have it applied equally and we go from there. Special rules will only start us all down a slippery slope to getting the Game financially F'd up all over again, and I don't want to have to pay that price ever again.

The reality is that the Lockout has already crippled some teams, we just haven't been made aware of who they speifically are yet (and I accept that as the way it has to be) so to be worried about how it might affect teams afterwards is sort of academic IMO.

 

[me2]

Oh? When did the early announcement of a hard cap at $35M come out? I and a couple of GMs must have missed it.

Bettman has been pushing for linkage around 52-55% from the start. The owners would have know what the league wanted in negotiations for years. They probably voted on it!

 

[NYIsles1*]

Like I said earlier. Most of these guys aren't Wirtz or Jacobs. Or Karmanos, Leonsis, or one of the other guys who thought they bought a toy and then it got too expensive for them.

The big boys of Toronto, Detroit, Philly, Colorado, Rangers are in it to win. Sure they make more money, but really they want to win which is why they've gambled with huge payrolls during the past CBA.

They made more revenue but lost more operating their teams. That's a formula that drives a business to a lockout. Pick a team besides Toronto on your big spenders list and that team reportedly lost money last season. Put Dallas, St Louis, San Jose on it as well.

The Sharks cut payroll by ten million, got younger, went to the semi-finals with excellent fan support in a modern building and still lost ten million?

Wirtz and Jacobs actually operated their business and make a marginal profit. Jacobs team payroll was above the league avg. Are they both supposed to spend sixty million or more to lose twenty/thirty million? Is this how you play to win?

Illitch does such a great job in Detroit his team losses are close to 20m going to the second round of the playoffs, well done.

As for these current negotiations the NHLPA repotedly still wants a 50m ceiling while the owners could barely agree to offer 42.5 when the season was still in the balance and most owners refused to agree to play at 45m. Outside of Goodnow's removal of the two exemptions to 53.9 million what's has changed for Goodnow in these negotiations since the season (and revenue streams) have been drastically reduced?

If 50m is as low as Goodenow will go for a ceiling there is no hope of a season starting on time or Bettman not being forced to use replacement players or keep the league shutdown for another full season.

Goodenow told his players be ready to holdout for two years and think that's exactly what he will do because it's his best chance to keep a free market with high team payrolls. What does he really have to lose other than the 30m cap the owners will enforce if they win in the courts vs the 35-40m which is what the cap is shrinking to every day as revenue streams dry up?

I also think Goodenow has no problem trading jobs/teams to accomodate the
high-end players.