Sportsnet: NHL includes stiff luxury tax in latest proposal

[AM]

thats funny

So from here on out all NHL players must be between 5'10" - 6' and 180 - 200lbs. Can't have mismatches out there.

you do realize, in some sports, where size and weight ake a big difference, the competators have to fit within a certain weight to play?

 

[norrisnick]

you do realize, in some sports, where size and weight ake a big difference, the competators have to fit within a certain weight to play?

I do. Doesn't mean it isn't utterly absurd for hockey.

 

[Brent Burns Beard]

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

actually they do ....

dr

 

[nyr7andcounting]

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

In real poker no, you sit at a table with whatever you have and start playing On TV they are only equal because they all buy in the same amount. World Series of Poker is a 10k buy-in for everyone who wants to be in it, and no matter who you are it costs you that much to get in.

In the NHL the buy in prices are not the same. Big market teams cost almost double what small market teams would cost, maybe even more. If you want all the NHL owners to have the same amount, the NHL is going to need to sell all the franchises for the same amount. If you want the Leafs to spend as much as the Preds, than the Preds and Leafs owners need to make the same investment when they come into the league. Since that's basically impossible, it would make sense that owners who pay more to get into the league and make a higher-risk investment are allowed to have a little more cash or spending power than owners who payed less.

 

[mooseOAK*]

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.

Past success is no indication of future results, particularly when the drafting was done under different regimes.

Not wanting to go off topic my point was that the higher spending teams may be affected in the short term but in the end every team is going to have to give something up if they get too successful.

 

[vadardog]

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

I can't believe people don't want an equal playing field where all teams can compete financially. Would you go watch a boxing match where one competitor had his hands tied behind his back. Would you feel like a champion if you won a running race when all other runners had to carry a 50 pound stone. Would you feel smarter than your poker buddies if you always got to start the hand with 3 aces. As a fan you have to support the owners stance if you enjoy seeing good hockey. The reason the World Cup of hockey and the recent Olympics are better tournaments than the World Championships is every team has a chance to play their best. Also why is it better to watch Canada vs Russian than Canada vs Austria. Because the team are more equal, it means something if you win. If the old CBA was in place again NHL hockey would suck. Would the Leafs really be champions if they won the Stanley Cup with a payroll three times some of their competitors.

 

[Colorado Avalanche]

in Football Chelsea is buying "championships",so why not in hockey?

 

[nyr7andcounting]

I can't believe people don't want an equal playing field where all teams can compete financially. Would you go watch a boxing match where one competitor had his hands tied behind his back. Would you feel like a champion if you won a running race when all other runners had to carry a 50 pound stone. Would you feel smarter than your poker buddies if you always got to start the hand with 3 aces. As a fan you have to support the owners stance if you enjoy seeing good hockey. The reason the World Cup of hockey and the recent Olympics are better tournaments than the World Championships is every team has a chance to play their best. Also why is it better to watch Canada vs Russian than Canada vs Austria. Because the team are more equal, it means something if you win. If the old CBA was in place again NHL hockey would suck. Would the Leafs really be champions if they won the Stanley Cup with a payroll three times some of their competitors.

And have the Leafs wont the Stanley Cup? No, as a matter of fact they have one of the longest droughts going. The Rangers didn't win for 54 years before winning in 94 and have sucked pretty much every year since. Having a financial advantage isn't as great as some people make it out to be.

I understand that teams who spend more do at least make it to the playoffs at a better rate than low spenders, and that needs to be fixed. But having every team spend the same amount despite fan bases, revenues etc. would be even worse.

 

[Drury_Sakic]

Making all teams equal is not what this lockout is about..


This lockout is about $..

I dare anyone to say otherwize

 

[vadardog]

And have the Leafs wont the Stanley Cup? No, as a matter of fact they have one of the longest droughts going. The Rangers didn't win for 54 years before winning in 94 and have sucked pretty much every year since. Having a financial advantage isn't as great as some people make it out to be.

I understand that teams who spend more do at least make it to the playoffs at a better rate than low spenders, and that needs to be fixed. But having every team spend the same amount despite fan bases, revenues etc. would be even worse.

nyr7 you wouldn't be a rangers fan would you? I think by your reasoning we should just give the rangers the Stanley cup every year. I mean you have the biggest fan base. Or you could alternate with Toronto who have the biggest revenues. Don't worry about the fact that small market teams won't have a chance to grow revenues because they will lose all the time. By your logic I see now that my team (the Oilers) have been going about trying to win the Stanley Cup all wrong. Why try to draft well, develop players, or create a winning attitude? Instead they should be petitioning Alberta and Canadian polititians to open the borders to foreign immigrants. Or they could ban the use of condoms anything to get the population higher for a winning team. O.K. sorry for such sarcastic debating style, but it really annoys me that so called fans can actually take the stance that they would rather have a revenue competition for the Stanley Cup than a competition on the ice.

 

[mytor4*]

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"
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------in other words you don't mind me building my 100 thousand dollar house next to your 4 mil house also when you build 4 mil house it does affect me because the empty building lot next to you just jumped up double in price same as the players if you can afford and offer a player a 10 mil contract than others also want 10 mil so it affect me when you offer outragious contracts. its not about what a handfull of teams can afford its about league parity and making the league better for all on equal ground

 

[Drury_Sakic]

Gosh..

This is why the NHL negoitations melt down..


I brought up a simple solution for a few potential problems that the league might have under a new CBA... and rather than actually talk about it, break it down.......and work around it...

It degraded to people arguing and calling each other names...!



We bash Gary and Bob for it, but then when given the chance, do the same thing...

 

[nyr7andcounting]

nyr7 you wouldn't be a rangers fan would you? I think by your reasoning we should just give the rangers the Stanley cup every year. I mean you have the biggest fan base. Or you could alternate with Toronto who have the biggest revenues. Don't worry about the fact that small market teams won't have a chance to grow revenues because they will lose all the time. By your logic I see now that my team (the Oilers) have been going about trying to win the Stanley Cup all wrong. Why try to draft well, develop players, or create a winning attitude? Instead they should be petitioning Alberta and Canadian polititians to open the borders to foreign immigrants. Or they could ban the use of condoms anything to get the population higher for a winning team. O.K. sorry for such sarcastic debating style, but it really annoys me that so called fans can actually take the stance that they would rather have a revenue competition for the Stanley Cup than a competition on the ice.

Did I say the team with the biggest fan base and most revenues should be given the cup every year? No, not even close. And the NHL playoffs are far from a "revenue competition". I mean come on, revenue and payroll doesn't mean **** when the 16 teams get into the playoffs. But, the owners that pay more to get into the league and those teams that DO have more money than other teams, should be able to spend at least a little more than other teams. Of course only if they choose to and can afford to...and it doesn't create an advantage unless they know how to spend it on the right players.

Bottom line is having every team spend the same amount despite all the ways in which they differ, which you seem to be advocating, is even worse than just leaving things as they were. I live in NY so if I pay more for my tickets, my owner paid more for his franchise and it costs players more to live here, why shouldn't the Rangers be allowed to spend a little more if they decide they can afford to?

What really annoys me is fans like you, who support the owners despite the fact that their solutions aren't going to fix the problems you are complaining about. This has never been about leveling competition for the NHL, it's always been about money. If your main concern is financial and athletic competition than the only solution is revenue sharing...something that the owners avoided talking about for a year and MIGHT now give in a little. It's the most important thing...but without it if NYR still has more money than the Oilers they should be able to spend more money than the Oilers.

 

[Weary]

I can't believe people don't want an equal playing field where all teams can compete financially. Would you go watch a boxing match where one competitor had his hands tied behind his back. Would you feel like a champion if you won a running race when all other runners had to carry a 50 pound stone. Would you feel smarter than your poker buddies if you always got to start the hand with 3 aces. As a fan you have to support the owners stance if you enjoy seeing good hockey. The reason the World Cup of hockey and the recent Olympics are better tournaments than the World Championships is every team has a chance to play their best. Also why is it better to watch Canada vs Russian than Canada vs Austria. Because the team are more equal, it means something if you win. If the old CBA was in place again NHL hockey would suck. Would the Leafs really be champions if they won the Stanley Cup with a payroll three times some of their competitors.

But how can the Olympics be so great? The U.S. and Canada must spend more than three times what other countries spend on their teams. They likely outspend some by ten or twenty times. So how is that fair? How is that good hockey? What you've really done is make an argument against the quality of Olympic hockey.

 

[vadardog]

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"
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------in other words you don't mind me building my 100 thousand dollar house next to your 4 mil house also when you build 4 mil house it does affect me because the empty building lot next to you just jumped up double in price same as the players if you can afford and offer a player a 10 mil contract than others also want 10 mil so it affect me when you offer outragious contracts. its not about what a handfull of teams can afford its about league parity and making the league better for all on equal ground

I had a hard time trying to figure out if your post is saying free spending for all is good or if your showing how free spending is not an economically viable system. But if I lived in a country of 30 people and 10 were rich and 10 were poor and 10 were middle class. I think it would be a poor political stance to allow the 10 rich people to buy everything forcing the 10 poor people to live on the streets (equivalent to franchises folding). Thereby making the 10 middle class people poor people. When they start to not be able to afford property - out on the streets for you. Now you have 10 rich people who own everything (equivalent to having all the best players). Except some of the rich are richer than others so they start taking properties from those people. Eventually you get a 1 person country who owns everything. Why do you think Microsoft is no longer allowed to buy every company that offers competition. Because a system in which the rich take whatever they want doesn't work. Part of the reason we pay taxes is to give some help to the needy.

 

[BLONG7]

Did I say the team with the biggest fan base and most revenues should be given the cup every year? No, not even close. And the NHL playoffs are far from a "revenue competition". I mean come on, revenue and payroll doesn't mean **** when the 16 teams get into the playoffs. But, the owners that pay more to get into the league and those teams that DO have more money than other teams, should be able to spend at least a little more than other teams. Of course only if they choose to and can afford to...and it doesn't create an advantage unless they know how to spend it on the right players.

Bottom line is having every team spend the same amount despite all the ways in which they differ, which you seem to be advocating, is even worse than just leaving things as they were. I live in NY so if I pay more for my tickets, my owner paid more for his franchise and it costs players more to live here, why shouldn't the Rangers be allowed to spend a little more if they decide they can afford to?

What really annoys me is fans like you, who support the owners despite the fact that their solutions aren't going to fix the problems you are complaining about. This has never been about leveling competition for the NHL, it's always been about money. If your main concern is financial and athletic competition than the only solution is revenue sharing...something that the owners avoided talking about for a year and MIGHT now give in a little. It's the most important thing...but without it if NYR still has more money than the Oilers they should be able to spend more money than the Oilers.

So in your world, there should be a rich league and a poor league??? Rich teams spend because they can, and the small market teams can't so they will be a Tier 2 league, I wonder how much they would charge for tickets? I wonder how well the teams in the rich league would do amongst themselves? Bottom line is the big boys(Rag$ and Leaf$) need the bottom feeders like Nashville and the Oilers....It makes no sense to say that the teams that afford to spend, just go ahead and spend, ala the NY Yankees in MLB, and the NYR in the NHL...these types of teams and markets are a major part of the problem...

 

[FlyersFan10*]

So in your world, there should be a rich league and a poor league??? Rich teams spend because they can, and the small market teams can't so they will be a Tier 2 league, I wonder how much they would charge for tickets? I wonder how well the teams in the rich league would do amongst themselves? Bottom line is the big boys(Rag$ and Leaf$) need the bottom feeders like Nashville and the Oilers....It makes no sense to say that the teams that afford to spend, just go ahead and spend, ala the NY Yankees in MLB, and the NYR in the NHL...these types of teams and markets are a major part of the problem...

So, according to this, large markets are the problem then. That because they have the population and the money to support a major league team, they should be penalized for that. See, the problem that I have is that even large market teams can be cheap and continue to screw the fans in the market there (Chicago and Boston anyone). The problem to fix it all is 100% revenue sharing amongst the owners. That's the only way to address the issues. It keeps competitive balance in place, always ensures that every team is playing on a level playing field, and ensures that everyone in the end is making some kind of money. It's funny that you don't see teams like Boston or Chicago supporting this, but they have no qualms in supporting a salary cap. Gee, do you think those teams might have a problem with revenue sharing and that they only want the cap in place to maximize profits? Yeah, thought so.......

 

[OlTimeHockey]

in Football Chelsea is buying "championships",so why not in hockey?

In Chelsea, do they spend tons to get the best players from every team they can? And has it hurt/how has it hurt the entertainment value of the game?

It must be like baseball....watching the Mets/Yankees/BoSox buy every star and leave the rest of th league with less excitment for the respective fans.

Or hockey (where once the Jets had Hawerchuk, the Sabres had LaFontaine, the Devils MacLean, the Caps Gartner/Dino, the Kings Gretzky, the Stars Dino/Gartner, the Isles Turgeon, the Wings Yzerman, the Blues Hull, Oilers Messier, etc.) where we have witnessed in the past ten years seven teams buying up or squeezing 80% of the (established!) elite talent out there; where Heatley and Gaborik are predestined on a course to wear Red in Detroit or Blue in Toronto (or the Rangers....same thing, really, except for the record) or to get nosebleeds in Colorado.

My point all throughout is that it is NOT about the money.

"Little" people think about money. The wealthy think of power. To be able to force the highest ratings and garner the highest attendance in all 29 venues outside their own (ald reap the financial reards) and to get the exclusive coverage ESPN provides the Uber Spenders is the goal.....NOT the money.

The ratings/seat sales/POWER yields the money on its own.

The best hockey was played 12-15 years ago. It wasn't because of the trap or the changes in the rules or even the expansion that the game has declined and popularity has waned.

The reason that the game was much more enjoyable back then was that on ANY given night, the two worst teams had players that people would want to see play in their venue. On any given night, th talent level of BOTH teams on the ice could b counted on to be at least exciting.

Give me a last place Penguins team with Mario playing a Devils team with Carpenter and Muller over the current Red Wings playing the Panthers ANY DAY. I think of hockey like a book: if I know how the book is going to turn out, I ain't buying it, so I'd like to see a gam in the same light.

30 teams, dispersed talent and home grown heroes that kids grow up watching. Tickets aren't inflated in price like Kirstey Alley in a chocolate shop, games are more entertaining and meaningful, playoff rounds more riviting, and GM's are more acountable for their drafting and trading.

If we keep going at the rate we are, only the top three of the seven guilty spenders will be able to afford the best, leaving an elite group, a competitive group and filler/fodder in the other 20+ teams that can no longer to afford to keep their players IF THEY GET TOO GOOD before their contracts are up. There will be 10% great games, maybe 15-25% good games and the rest filler.

Networks will not pay, fans will have to pay more to view at home or live, coverage will shrink, teams will fold and the game will implode.

We watched it happen to all sectors of business, through the monopolies of the past century, through the rows of the grocery store and independant shops that were cut down by corporate sprawl. Demand shaped by planning and used as a spear on competition.

Options get limited, people financially cut off from enjoying it or forced to pay high rates.

My point is simply that the system now benefits the players and the owners who want to shape their market share and can do so. The system will kill the league or cripple it enough to destroy the quality of the games played. Eventually.

The only way for expenses to go now is up.

Heavily taxing the fat cat big teams who spend so wrecklessly will allow the smaller teams to field a quality product to make games, ALL GAMES, more entertaining, for the last place teams on up to the division leaders.

So in essence, this whole thing is about either the players wanting more and more money every year or it's about the monopolization of talent and domineering of the market and revenue by a select few teams at the expense of the fans, the league and the game.

So ask yourself:

Stevie Y vs. Mario
1988 Penguins vs. 1988 Red Wings or 2004 Penguins vs. 2004 Red Wings?


Cus after the summer of 1988, Gretzky got bought by McNall and players began to get bought and sold like commodities and the word team got soiled by the term "free agency" and the disgusting coinage "salary dump" every year since.

And the game has never been the same. Hopefully it can be again.

We need heroes, not heroes for hire.

That's why I don't support the owners or the players or anyone involved in this decaying game right now. I want better hockey than what was provided and refuse to stand behind anyone who has shown me the trap, bought a team or held out for more money because $X million wasn't enough to play in front of me and my $60+ seat.

You keep the abusers from raising salaries, you keep the expenses of fielding a team down and allow 30 teams to get as good as their management will allow them (meaning the Islanders will go nowhere, but I can stomach watching them play the Panthers/Penguins/'Canes).

 

[vadardog]

Did I say the team with the biggest fan base and most revenues should be given the cup every year? No, not even close. And the NHL playoffs are far from a "revenue competition". I mean come on, revenue and payroll doesn't mean **** when the 16 teams get into the playoffs. But, the owners that pay more to get into the league and those teams that DO have more money than other teams, should be able to spend at least a little more than other teams. Of course only if they choose to and can afford to...and it doesn't create an advantage unless they know how to spend it on the right players.

Bottom line is having every team spend the same amount despite all the ways in which they differ, which you seem to be advocating, is even worse than just leaving things as they were. I live in NY so if I pay more for my tickets, my owner paid more for his franchise and it costs players more to live here, why shouldn't the Rangers be allowed to spend a little more if they decide they can afford to?

What really annoys me is fans like you, who support the owners despite the fact that their solutions aren't going to fix the problems you are complaining about. This has never been about leveling competition for the NHL, it's always been about money. If your main concern is financial and athletic competition than the only solution is revenue sharing...something that the owners avoided talking about for a year and MIGHT now give in a little. It's the most important thing...but without it if NYR still has more money than the Oilers they should be able to spend more money than the Oilers.

Try to look at the situation from the perspective of someone who has not been benefiting from the inequities in payroll. In Edmonton the team is barely scraping by. The owners bought the team not to make a profit, but because they were locals who felt the area deserved NHL hockey. I bet 90% of edmontonians can name at least 10 players on the Oilers. You can't say the same about New Yorkers. You can't have followed hockey closely and argue that over the 90's to now that the Oilers have not been ***** of their best players by rich teams. The oilers will not survive unless an agreement is reached that will allow them to ice a competitive team which means a competitive payroll. Now I'd agree with someone who said that if thats the case maybe Edmonton is not a NHL worthy city, except that Edmonton has more revenue than about 10 other teams. So are you advocating that 10 teams fold. I've never heard of a Union that fights to try and get a third of their members fired. I don't really care if the owners end up getting rich off hockey or if the players end up getting rich as long as the competition is equal (or at least close to equal). I'm not so naive that I believe all teams will end up equal, but if the NHL was a marathon some teams have been getting a ten mile head start. The players have admitted the system is out of wack, but they are still asking for a 5 mile head start. The owners are saying if there has to be a head start it can only be 1 or 2 miles otherwise what is the point of even racing.

 

[OlTimeHockey]

The problem to fix it all is 100% revenue sharing amongst the owners. That's the only way to address the issues. It keeps competitive balance in place, always ensures that every team is playing on a level playing field, and ensures that everyone in the end is making some kind of money.

The fix is making a team that drafted player X to be able to keep player X with a sufficient offer without team (k)y coming along and giving an offer sheet above market rate, a la Holik or Kasparaitis (several teams were guilty of bidding them up, not just the obvious one).

One side wants the players to realize they make ENOUGH money, one side wants the owners to spend ENOUGH money or realize they have spent ENOUGH money.

How about shaping and fixing the way the market works so that both sides can and have to control themselves? The only winners are the lawyers right now. The only losers throughtout the destruction of hockey as we know it have been the fans.

Tax the guilty, force the sanity and teams will all be fine.

 

[OlTimeHockey]

I don't really care if the owners end up getting rich off hockey or if the players end up getting rich as long as the competition is equal (or at least close to equal). I'm not so naive that I believe all teams will end up equal, but if the NHL was a marathon some teams have been getting a ten mile head start.

I don't think there has to be any assurance of equality or parity, just a guarantee that all teams CAN compete and acquire players that can help them (IF they choose to manage their teams effectively). Right now, the top six spending teams can acquire a premier talent. Maybe seven if they can shelve their pride and lose in Manhattan (j/k ).

 

[Brent Burns Beard]

The fix is making a team that drafted player X to be able to keep player X with a sufficient offer without team (k)y coming along and giving an offer sheet above market rate, a la Holik or Kasparaitis (several teams were guilty of bidding them up, not just the obvious one)..

1st off ... thats what RFA is all about. no one makes RFA offers to other teams players, so the system already prohibits other teams from offering more money to your own player than you can afford.

2nd off ... why shouldnt Holik and Kasperitus be allowed to be paid as much as someone is willing to offer ? were they born to be indentured slaves ? surely no one is telling you how much you should be allowed to paid ?

3rd off ... what team has benefited from giving stupid contracts to players like Holik and Kasperitus ? none ... so who cares. let NYR sign those guys to contracts that pay them 10million per shift, who the hell cares.

dr

 

[Wetcoaster]

During the second intermission of the Canada/Sweden game Brian Burke was critical of the NHL for introducing new concepts at this late date in the negotiations.

 

[SENSible1*]

During the second intermission of the Canada/Sweden game Brian Burke was critical of the NHL for introducing new concepts at this late date in the negotiations.

Wetcoaster using Burke to prove a point. Will miracles never cease?

 

[SedinFan*]

Good boys.

Now meet in the middle at $42.5-$45 million for the top of the ceiling and we're really getting going.

Still too high for Edmonton, Calgary, Ottawa, Vancouver, Nashville, Atlanta, Washington, Pittsburgh, Montreal, Chicago, Columbus, Minnesota, Phoenix etc etc to make money.

42.5-45 million will act as a basement for teams, so the average teams payroll will go up, hence the reason a cap over 40 million won't work.