Sportsnet: NHL includes stiff luxury tax in latest proposal

Status
Not open for further replies.

SENSible1*

Guest
norrisnick said:
Nope. Teams with veteran (expensive) talent will have a distinct disadvantage to teams with young (inexpensive) talent, because they won't have as much room to fill out a team with NHL calibre players. Players with equal production, but unequal tenure, do not have equal pricetags. Jagr and Kovalchuk, both provide about the same impact for your team and one makes $11M and the other (with bonuses) made around $2-3M. Luongo and Brodeur. Lang and Datsyuk. etc...

So they'll have to revamp their roster.

They'll have to face the same tough decisions other franchises have been dealing with for years. The difference being that all teams will be in the same boat.

It's time for brains to take precedence over bucks.

Welcome to the other side. Hope you enjoy your stay.
 

SENSible1*

Guest
norrisnick said:
Lost this one in the page shuffle.

Was the purpose of this whole mess parity or punishing the big teams and flipping the balance of power?

The balance of power won't be flipped.

All teams will face the same challenges. Once the overspenders have adjusted their rosters they'll be in the same situation as every other team.

Time to put their wallets away and start making tough decisions. Let's see how well they do on a level playing field.
 

SENSible1*

Guest
mooseOAK said:
The Sens will be affected soon also because they have a fairly large group of good younger players. With a cap they won't be able to afford to keep all of their best ones as they all get into the higher salary ranges.

Your point being?

I don't expect the Sens to be immune from the natural cycle that will affect all teams equally. Sure they have an excess of talent right now and some will have to be moved. They also have plenty of young talent ready to step in an fill the holes.

The Sens have always excelled in the areas of drafting and player development.
Give the Sens a NHL where brains are more important than bucks and I'll gladly take my chances.
 

SENSible1*

Guest
Newsguyone said:
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.

When all teams have an equal shot under a salary cap, the game IS improved. Fans of the big market teams gleefully ignore the negative effect of having the majority of the markets in the league at a disadvantage to start every season and act like any move that diminishes their silver spoon postition is an attack on the game itself.

The simple fact is as follows. Having an unequal playing field hurts the game.

This isn't about getting a "pound of hide", but simply asking all teams to compete on a more equal basis.

People losing a priviledged status always whine till they are blue in the face. Simply because things will be a little tougher on the Wings, Avs, Leafs etc, does not mean that things will be worse off for the league as a whole.

Get over yourself and examine the benefits of being able to sell hope in 30 markets instead of just 7-10.
 

Chaos

And the winner is...
Sep 2, 2003
7,968
18
TX
Thunderstruck said:
The balance of power won't be flipped.

All teams will face the same challenges. Once the overspenders have adjusted their rosters they'll be in the same situation as every other team.

Time to put their wallets away and start making tough decisions. Let's see how well they do on a level playing field.

But why should they have to? Why shouldn't owners be able to spend what they can afford? Why does everyone have to be on a "even playing field"? Thats like telling rich people they cant go out and buy a huge house, because other people can't afford it. You know what? Too ****ing bad. Just because your team can't afford a high(say $50+ mil) payroll doesnt mean the teams that can afford it shouldnt be able to pay it.

And for the record, I support one of those team-by-team caps based on individual team revenues.
 

SENSible1*

Guest
kdb209 said:
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.

Exactly.
 

SENSible1*

Guest
Chaos said:
But why should they have to? Why shouldn't owners be able to spend what they can afford? Why does everyone have to be on a "even playing field"? Thats like telling rich people they cant go out and buy a huge house, because other people can't afford it. You know what? Too ****ing bad. Just because your team can't afford a high(say $50+ mil) payroll doesnt mean the teams that can afford it shouldnt be able to pay it.

And for the record, I support one of those team-by-team caps based on individual team revenues.

The health of the league as a whole is damaged when a team overspends. The market for their cheif expense (player costs) is set league wide. A low range between top and bottom spenders ensures that the market isn't skewed by the actions of a few irresponsible teams.

Sorry that your team is being asked to use their brains over their bucks, but when you use your brains you don't hurt the other teams, unlike what happens when your team uses its wallet.
 

Wetcoaster

Guest
kdb209 said:
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.
Of course ticket prices are not set by salary levels, any informed person realizes that but so few people are actually informed. That is why Bettman peddles this myth (amongst others) to the uninformed - it is part of the NHL propaganda campaign.

Here is Bettman on the on the CBC National with Peter Mansbridge from last September. Bettman was "on message" as they say in the PR biz.

With the right economic system, we can have 30 healthy, competitive franchises all with affordable ticket prices, which frankly all of this is about the fans.

One of the things that we're trying to accomplish in collective bargaining now is an economic system that enables us to take the inflationary pressure off of ticket prices and ensure that we have affordable ticket prices so that families can go to games.

But in the final analysis, we know that if we don't have affordable ticket prices, competitive teams, and stable franchises, we won't have fans.

Seems pretty clear that bettman is pushing the ticket price myth.
 

Wetcoaster

Guest
DR said:
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
No it is not. The Bruins own his rights until he is 31 under the current system.

His only negotiating leverage with the Bruins is to withhold his services until he is eligible for salary arbitration.
 

Chaos

And the winner is...
Sep 2, 2003
7,968
18
TX
Thunderstruck said:
The health of the league as a whole is damaged when a team overspends. The market for their cheif expense (player costs) is set league wide. A low range between top and bottom spenders ensures that the market isn't skewed by the actions of a few irresponsible teams.

Sorry that your team is being asked to use their brains over their bucks, but when you use your brains you don't hurt the other teams, unlike what happens when your team uses its wallet.

In your eyes, a $50+ mil payroll might be overspending..but what if a team can afford it? That is not overspending. Just because your team can't afford a high payroll doesnt mean that those who can are irresponsible. Do you like the idea of someone telling you what you can and cannot spend your money on? I sure as hell dont. If I'm sitting around with $5 million in my hand, and I want to by a $4 million house, I should be able to do that. I shouldnt be told "no, you cant do that" because other people can't afford a $4 million house.
 

SENSible1*

Guest
Chaos said:
In your eyes, a $50+ mil payroll might be overspending..but what if a team can afford it? That is not overspending. Just because your team can't afford a high payroll doesnt mean that those who can are irresponsible. Do you like the idea of someone telling you what you can and cannot spend your money on? I sure as hell dont. If I'm sitting around with $5 million in my hand, and I want to by a $4 million house, I should be able to do that. I shouldnt be told "no, you cant do that" because other people can't afford a $4 million house.

Unlike the individual decisions that you or I make with our money, NHL franchises are intimately tied to each other in their operating costs.

You can spend 4 M on your home with little to no effect no me. The same cannot be said for players who's market value and arbitration awards are based on the contracts signed by all teams.

Simply because a team "can afford it", that doesn't make it good for the health of the league, so yes, the other owners have a right to say that you can't spend every last penny you can afford.
 

Chaos

And the winner is...
Sep 2, 2003
7,968
18
TX
Thunderstruck said:
Unlike the individual decisions that you or I make with our money, NHL franchises are intimately tied to each other in their operating costs.

You can spend 4 M on your home with little to no effect no me. The same cannot be said for players who's market value and arbitration awards are based on the contracts signed by all teams.

Simply because a team "can afford it", that doesn't make it good for the health of the league, so yes, the other owners have a right to say that you can't spend every last penny you can afford.

Which is why they need to fix arbitration(dont ask me how,they just do). However, if a team can afford a $50+ million payroll(IF they can afford it), then that team should be allowed to pay it. Thats why I earlier stated I support a team-by-team cap, which limits what each team spends to what it can actually afford. I dont like the idea of telling the Wings, Avs, Stars, Leafs that they can't spend past $40 mil, when realistically, those teams can afford $50+ mil.
 

SENSible1*

Guest
Chaos said:
Which is why they need to fix arbitration(dont ask me how,they just do). However, if a team can afford a $50+ million payroll(IF they can afford it), then that team should be allowed to pay it. Thats why I earlier stated I support a team-by-team cap, which limits what each team spends to what it can actually afford. I dont like the idea of telling the Wings, Avs, Stars, Leafs that they can't spend past $40 mil, when realistically, those teams can afford $50+ mil.

Arbitration is not the only inflationary mechanism. Players will simply hold out to force a trade to a market with a higher cap if the gap is set on a market by market basis.

Teams should not be allowed to spend to a level that damages their partners.
 

A Good Flying Bird*

Guest
Thunderstruck said:
When all teams have an equal shot under a salary cap, the game IS improved. Fans of the big market teams gleefully ignore the negative effect of having the majority of the markets in the league at a disadvantage to start every season and act like any move that diminishes their silver spoon postition is an attack on the game itself.

The simple fact is as follows. Having an unequal playing field hurts the game.

This isn't about getting a "pound of hide", but simply asking all teams to compete on a more equal basis.

People losing a priviledged status always whine till they are blue in the face. Simply because things will be a little tougher on the Wings, Avs, Leafs etc, does not mean that things will be worse off for the league as a whole.

Get over yourself and examine the benefits of being able to sell hope in 30 markets instead of just 7-10.

Sorry dude. But business involves risk. That's capitalism.
Or maybe you think Billionaires should be able to invest $100 Million and expect AUTOMATIC profits.
Tell that to anyone mom and pop business who put their livlihood on the line every day.

Illitch doesn't enjoy a better market than Boston, or Chicago.
How did Colorado become a hockey mecca all of the sudden when 20 years ago it was the joke of the league??
This comes down to management.
Illitch has been managing is empire beautifully.
He's turned the Dead Things into HockeyTown in 20 years. In the process, he's made a ton of money, become a major civic leader, bought the Tigers, built a downtown stadium, bought a casino, etc, etc. etc.

He's the model for good business practice.
He did all this without a salary cap. Without a guarantee.

But in your whacked reality, you think a guy like Bill Wirtz DESERVES a profit despite running the franchise into the ground.

That's fair??
 

Brent Burns Beard

Powered by Vasiliev Podsloven
Feb 27, 2002
5,575
570
Thunderstruck said:
When all teams have an equal shot (at losing).
i added the (brackets) ...

wouldnt it be wonderful to know that NYR has the same chance to win, no matter what, that say NJD and OTT do, even though those two franchises have been models for almost a decade ?

why should OTT and NJD have the same chance to lose as NYR and STL ?

dr
 

Brent Burns Beard

Powered by Vasiliev Podsloven
Feb 27, 2002
5,575
570
Thunderstruck said:
.

Get over yourself and examine the benefits of being able to sell hope in 30 markets instead of just 7-10.
i wonder how much trouble CGY and TBY would have had selling "hope" in their market ?

every year at least 2 "no chance" teams make a run. hope is an easy sell in the NHL.

stop with the cliche.

dr
 

Brent Burns Beard

Powered by Vasiliev Podsloven
Feb 27, 2002
5,575
570
Wetcoaster said:
No it is not. The Bruins own his rights until he is 31 under the current system.

His only negotiating leverage with the Bruins is to withhold his services until he is eligible for salary arbitration.
i know how the system works .. it doesnt change the fact that if he doesnt want to play for BOS, we shouldnt expect him to be an indentured servant simply because he is paid a tonne of cake for it.

it wasnt really my overall point anyhow. the point was to refute the claim of players being "stolen". most players who are signed are actually of the UFA variety and therefore are free to choose where they play, as long as the team wants them.

dr
 

AM

Registered User
Nov 22, 2004
8,463
2,512
Edmonton
nah

norrisnick said:
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.

yes they did what they did under the old CBA....

and that's why we are at the place we are today.

Unfortuneately, they are just going to have to bite the bullet.
 

norrisnick

The best...
Apr 14, 2005
28,832
13,329
Thunderstruck said:
The balance of power won't be flipped.

All teams will face the same challenges. Once the overspenders have adjusted their rosters they'll be in the same situation as every other team.

Time to put their wallets away and start making tough decisions. Let's see how well they do on a level playing field.

LOL right.

All teams won't face the same challenges. Half the league will face the challenge of adding payroll to their budding allstars and elite prospects. While the other half of the league will face the challenge of deciding which young player to hold onto and which to replace with an ECHL-priced fill in around the vets they molded for years.
 

Weary

Registered User
Jul 1, 2003
1,068
0
Thunderstruck said:
Arbitration is not the only inflationary mechanism. Players will simply hold out to force a trade to a market with a higher cap if the gap is set on a market by market basis.

Teams should not be allowed to spend to a level that damages their partners.
if that's the case then it makes sense if both the draft and restricted free agency are abolished. If teams can spend equally, then having those mechanisms to help ensure balance makes no sense.
 

NYIsles1*

Guest
Newsguyone said:
Sorry dude. But business involves risk. That's capitalism.
Or maybe you think Billionaires should be able to invest $100 Million and expect AUTOMATIC profits.

Tell that to anyone mom and pop business who put their livlihood on the line every day.
There are differences between businesses taking huge losses vs ones marginally profitable. At this point we have teams with almost no hope of breaking even to say nothing about making money. Being a hockey billionaire does not mean it's acceptable to lose tens of millions owning that product each year. The mom and pop businesses you talk about would be out of business within their first year running things in this manner.

Newsguyone said:
Illitch doesn't enjoy a better market than Boston, or Chicago.
How did Colorado become a hockey mecca all of the sudden when 20 years ago it was the joke of the league??
This comes down to management.
Illitch has been managing is empire beautifully.
He's turned the Dead Things into HockeyTown in 20 years. In the process, he's made a ton of money, become a major civic leader, bought the Tigers, built a downtown stadium, bought a casino, etc, etc. etc.
He's the model for good business practice.
He did all this without a salary cap. Without a guarantee..
Illitch does not enjoy a better market than Boston or Chicago but what he does do is spend more corporate revenue from his other businesses to lose more. This is not quality business management, it's using the corporate bank account to cover expenses that should not be spent if it wants to operate at a profit. In the process he claimed years ago he team had to win the cup to break even and it's been nothing but downhill from there.

The only thing Mike Illitch did without a salary cap or a guarantee is spend to a point he now losses close to 20m a year going to the second round of the playoffs and a lot of fans expect nothing less.

A model for poor business practice and that's being kind.

Newsguyone said:
But in your whacked reality, you think a guy like Bill Wirtz DESERVES a profit despite running the franchise into the ground.
That's fair??
What's fair is to run a business at a level that is self-sustaining. I'm not a fan of Wirtz, however running his team like a rich kids toy and losing money is far worse.

This business is not locked out because of Wirtz today.
 

AM

Registered User
Nov 22, 2004
8,463
2,512
Edmonton
yup

NYIsles1 said:
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.


in a nutshell.
 

AM

Registered User
Nov 22, 2004
8,463
2,512
Edmonton
this is a competative league...

Chaos said:
But why should they have to? Why shouldn't owners be able to spend what they can afford? Why does everyone have to be on a "even playing field"? Thats like telling rich people they cant go out and buy a huge house, because other people can't afford it. You know what? Too ****ing bad. Just because your team can't afford a high(say $50+ mil) payroll doesnt mean the teams that can afford it shouldnt be able to pay it.

And for the record, I support one of those team-by-team caps based on individual team revenues.

in the poker games everyone is watching, do certain players start with more cash?
 

mooseOAK*

Guest
Newsguyone said:
Sorry dude. But business involves risk. That's capitalism.
Or maybe you think Billionaires should be able to invest $100 Million and expect AUTOMATIC profits.
Tell that to anyone mom and pop business who put their livlihood on the line every day.
The owners never asked for automatic profits, they asked for cost certainty.
Illitch doesn't enjoy a better market than Boston, or Chicago.
Yes, he does. Detroit is right across the bridge from Canada so even when they were bad they had a huge pool of fans to draw from.
How did Colorado become a hockey mecca all of the sudden when 20 years ago it was the joke of the league??
This comes down to management.
No, it comes down to the fact that they inherited a team full of stars that has never had a losing season.
Illitch has been managing is empire beautifully.
He's turned the Dead Things into HockeyTown in 20 years. In the process, he's made a ton of money, become a major civic leader, bought the Tigers, built a downtown stadium, bought a casino, etc, etc. etc.

He's the model for good business practice.
He did all this without a salary cap. Without a guarantee.

But in your whacked reality, you think a guy like Bill Wirtz DESERVES a profit despite running the franchise into the ground.

That's fair??

His team is playing to half empty rinks, Wirtz is getting what he deserves already.
 

norrisnick

The best...
Apr 14, 2005
28,832
13,329
AM said:
in the poker games everyone is watching, do certain players start with more cash?
So from here on out all NHL players must be between 5'10" - 6' and 180 - 200lbs. Can't have mismatches out there.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad

-->