24% rollback

[A Good Flying Bird*]

My thoughts exactly kerrly what do you think GMs will do with the newfound 24% of their budget? Go out and sign all the big name free agents still out there to even more ridiculous salaries because all teams will have enough money to be in the bidding, creating a price war à la Holik.

With that in mind a 24% rollback is almost a bonus for the players, it'll drive the next round of salary negotiations to incredible heights.

The luxury tax they propose is a joke, 20 cents on the dollar? Who's that gonna stop? add revenue sharing to that and suddenly teams like TB, Carolina, Edmonton, Minnesota...etc can afford to enter the bidding wars. It just slows down the big market teams but transfers their buying power to the small markets.

Once again that kind of proposal almost works to the PA's advantage.

They're really not proposing anything significant until you hit 75 cents on the dollar, starting at $40M.
Under the proposed luxury tax, a $50M payroll pays $1M in luxury tax oooh frightening!
A $60M team pays $6M.
A $65M team pays $9M.

Basically it only becomes a deterrent over $60M. How many teams are over $60M, five?

I think the Luxury tax should be higher.

But let's get to the root of the problem.
Small market teams are complaining because they can't compete, revenue wise, with big market teams.

Cry me a river.
You want a big-market team?
Then pony up $300 Million and by the Rangers.
What's that? You only have $110 Million?
Well, how about these Florida Panthers over here. Sure, it'll take decades to have the fan base and business network you need to have a highly-competitive franchise that packs the rink every night, but come on, what do you want for $110 Million.

 

[X0ssbar]

Bob: 24% rollback
Gary: linkage from salary to revenues
Bob: you can have your linkage, but no rollback
Gary: deal

The only guess is how many weeks it's going to take to get to this inevitable resolution.

I agree, I think the rollbacks are just a bargaining chip for the NHLPA - they will cash that in for a stiffer luxury tax or some kind of phased in layered soft cap system.

This NHLPA offer is a good start though, it will be interesting to see what the league comes back with on Tues.

 

[Marshall]

I guess my problem with the "Owners need to use discipline" thought is the fact that it's not like they are working in a vacuum. They have to sell tickets, often in non-traditional markets. Marketing campaigns, season ticket sales. I don't know of a single fan who has ever forked over dough because they were proud of their owner's financial discipline. The owners don't work in a vacuum, they have to generate excitement.

I'm not facistly stating this, I'm just curious as to how it sometimes doesn't figure into people's thinking. Maybe it does, and I just miss it, but for the most part, the arguements tend to treat the owners as if they are bidding against no-one, and that there are no outside factors involved.

Not to say that there haven't been a large amount of offers; but there IS pressure.

(Edit: Baaaaaaaaaaaaaaad spelling)

 

[kerrly]

Easy. Owner says " OK, GM, your budget is 47 million. Do not spend more).

And then he says "Haha I was just kidding, we're the Colorado Avalnche and the tax is only 20 cents on the dollar, time to add Ziggy Palffy and Glen Murray. Get on it Lacroix."


You're still on your its more this guys fault than that guys fault rant, get over it. That does nothing but make you sound like a whiny baby. When I'm actually talking about issues to fix the game, you are complaining about mistakes in the past that do nothing to fix the league's systemic problems.

 

[Ismellofhockey]

One final thing: Why on earth do people still think that UFA's make a team competitive??? Only on RARE occassions (Toronto) does it do anything, and Toronto is a peak 2nd round team that can only beat Ottawa.

Big f'ing deal. The teams that win are the teams that develop and trade for players who are under 30 and restricted. End of story.

The problem you don't seem to see is that the average salary is also on the rise every year, qualifying players at 110% is a huge problem for a team like the Sens because it means that the players they develop get raises much bigger than what they sometimes deserve.
Add to that the fact that arbitration links the salary structures of small markets to the salary structure of big markets, add UFA signings getting out of whack with reality because of bidding wars and all of a sudden, the Sens aren't breaking even, they're losing $2M/season, 5 years later they're losing $10M/season, ticket prices keep rising and pretty soon the Sens are in real trouble.

This isn't only about how much they're losing now, it's about how much they'll be losing in 10 years unless the system is altered to slow things down.

A payroll tax not only slows downs raises in the UFA market, it slows down raises in the RFA market as well and that's really where it affects the Sens and other financially smart small market teams.

 

[kerrly]

I agree, I think the rollbacks are just a bargaining chip for the NHLPA - they will cash that in for a stiffer luxury tax or some kind of phased in layered soft cap system.

This NHLPA offer is a good start though, it will be interesting to see what the league comes back with on Tues.

I could live with that no doubt. I do hope that happens, because we all know that the league will come back with a stiffer tax in the very least. I have to say I'm very optimistic at this point.

 

[kerrly]

The Owners will just mess up ALL Over again and cause the market to skyrocket again.

Maybe they should take all Owners and GMS...FIRE THEM all and get a bunch of guys who can manage money better so the average salary doesnt go from 1 million to 1.9 million in a spam of 5 years.


The players are GIVING the owners a GET OUT OF JAIL FREE CARD for all there horrible spending in the past years but they dont relize this..well maybe they do but dictator bettman calls ALL shots so it doesnt really matter.

Or maybe they can just put a system in that doesn't allow them to spend rediculously. Whats the difference, it will keep the market from skyrocketing, but apparently you think it would be so much easier to replace everyone that you think is a tool.

 

[Chelios]

Maybe they should take all Owners and GMS...FIRE THEM all and get a bunch of guys who can manage money better so the average salary doesnt go from 1 million to 1.9 million in a spam of 5 years.

Or...... they could keep the same owners and GMs and fix the system so the average salary won`t skyrocket again

I find it somewhat ironic that the players and their supporters are always saying that the players shouldn`t be responsible for paying for the owners mistakes, and yet that is exactly what they are trying to do with their salary rollback. The owners aren`t looking for the players to give back money, to bail them out, the players can keep their money, but the system has to be fixed. Thats the bottom line.

I was really optimistic with rumours coming in on a 75 cent tax after 40 million, but this offer is brutal. Throw away the rollback and stiffen the tax, thats all that has to be done.

 

[DRL]

what i think would happen is the big budgeted teams would love this, there budget already works with over 60M, now with the extra cash they coul sign palffy, murray, kariya etc. without blowing their budget and only paying a minimal tax 20c/$1

 

[Ismellofhockey]

I think the Luxury tax should be higher.

But let's get to the root of the problem.
Small market teams are complaining because they can't compete, revenue wise, with big market teams.

Cry me a river.
You want a big-market team?
Then pony up $300 Million and by the Rangers.
What's that? You only have $110 Million?
Well, how about these Florida Panthers over here. Sure, it'll take decades to have the fan base and business network you need to have a highly-competitive franchise that packs the rink every night, but come on, what do you want for $110 Million.

That doesn't make sense, you want Calgary fans to buy the New York Rangers, move them to Calgary and expect to still be a big market team after the move?
It's not just the owners crying, it's the fans, how does buying the Florida Panthers help a fan in Calgary?

 

[Trottier]

I guess my problem with the "Owners need to use discipline" thought is the fact that it's not like they are working in a vacuum. They have to sell tickets, often in non-traditional markets. Marketing campaigns, season ticket sales. I don't know of a single fan who has ever forked over dough because they were proud of their owner's financial discipline. The owners don't work in a vacuum, they have to generate excitement.

I'm not facistly stating this, I'm just curious as to how it sometimes doesn't figure into people's thinking. Maybe it does, and I just miss it, but for the most part, the arguements tend to treat the owners as if they are bidding against no-one, and that there are no outside factors involved.

Not to say that there haven't been a large amount of offers; but there IS pressure.

(Edit: Baaaaaaaaaaaaaaad spelling)

All very true, but no one ever suggested that successfully managing a multi-million dollar business is easy work. (And I'm not trying to be sarcastic.) Seems to me that the mark of a great NHL exec is one who can continually ice a competitive team and turn a profit. Not many do. But then again, there are only so many ultra-successful companies in any line of business.

Also worth noting the hypocrisy that your post points to among many fans. (Not you.) Namely, a lot of folks around this board have casually mentioned to "Bring on the replacement players, I'll pay to watch them, screw the NHL players!".

These are the exact same people who whine when their team is not competitive in the annual mid-summer dog and pony show known as the NHL free agent market.

Go figure.

 

[Taylor21]

The problem with the luxury tax for the owners as I see it is if the Rangers sign a player for 7m every agent and player will use that as the benchmark for their worth. So unless their is a way to prevent the big market teams from overpaying for a player that every other agent will use as a FMV of their guy I can't see the owners accepting a luxury tax.

 

[FLYLine27*]

Or maybe they can just put a system in that doesn't allow them to spend rediculously. Whats the difference, it will keep the market from skyrocketing, but apparently you think it would be so much easier to replace everyone that you think is a tool.

They need a system to control themself?

Electric Dog Collar is to Dog Not Leaving Yard
AS
Salary Cap is to Owners not Overspending.


They are capable of controlling what they do UNLIKE a dog...what a joke....they are professionals...if they cant figure out how to keep the NHL from skyrocketing salaries and they need someone to enforce it for them then the NHL really is in bad shape.

 

[vanlady]

The problem with the luxury tax for the owners as I see it is if the Rangers sign a player for 7m every agent and player will use that as the benchmark for their worth. So unless their is a way to prevent the big market teams from overpaying for a player that every other agent will use as a FMV of their guy I can't see the owners accepting a luxury tax.

The Rangers won't have the money to spend, the union has always contended that any CBA will require significant revenue sharing. Saskin is throwing around the number 75%. So if they have to pool 75% of there revenues, how are they supposed to be able to spend money they don't have?

 

[Trottier]

The problem with the luxury tax for the owners as I see it is if the Rangers sign a player for 7m every agent and player will use that as the benchmark for their worth. So unless their is a way to prevent the big market teams from overpaying for a player that every other agent will use as a FMV of their guy I can't see the owners accepting a luxury tax.

But your scenario implies that the negotiation process ends there. It doesn't. Agents can price their players at whatever damn price they wish. The market will determine their worth. And the market is not dictated solely by the biggest spender(s). Otherwise, in MLB, for example, you would not have one team approaching a $200M payroll, while every other team is under the payroll tax threshold of approx. $130M(?).

And especially since that one team (NYY) hasn't won anything in five season, common sense dictates that overspending may not be the path to success. The "follow-the-leader" mentality with regard to spending on players was the norm in pro sports for years. I think it has ended to a great extent, certainly in baseball (based on the reduction in the median MLB salary), and even in the NHL over the last 12-24 months, without a hardcap. Respectfully, some fans are simply not paying close attention or are basing their opinions on outdated trends. That does not mean that pendelum did not swing too much already in the players' favor and that modest changes don't have to be made to help recede payrolls and the rate of salary inflation moving forward. But that trend was already well underway, even before this last CBA expired in September.

 

[A Good Flying Bird*]

That doesn't make sense, you want Calgary fans to buy the New York Rangers, move them to Calgary and expect to still be a big market team after the move?
It's not just the owners crying, it's the fans, how does buying the Florida Panthers help a fan in Calgary?

It makes all the sense in the world.

If you want to own a hockey team in a big market and enjoy all the revenues that come with big markets, then you have to pay more for that franchise. Much. Much, Much, More.

These owners have paid a ton of money for their teams. They deserve the benefits of playing in a big market.
If they so choose, they should have the option of spending more on their on-ice product.

I don't like the hard cap because it eliminates the owner's discretion. Why should fans in Detroit/New York/Toronto have to live with the market set by god awful hockey markets like Carolina (whose brilliant idea was that!).

To me, that's why a luxury tax works..
Because it increases the cost of splurging on your team and, therefore, reduces spending, which helps smaller market teams by reducing the market value for players.
Also, the revenue sharing in the luxury tax will provide money to smaller market teams trying to hold on to their own talent.

It allows owners to spend revenues if they want to. But it discourages too much spending.
I don't think that salary costs have to be equal. It's ridiculous to even want that.
Nothing else is equal. Ticket prices will never be equal. They will always be higher in Detroit than in Nashville. Merchandise will always sell more in Detroit than it will in Atlanta.
You can't buy a team in a small market or a non-hockey market and expect the same benefits that owners have in big-hockey markets.

I think the players need to reduce the salary rollback significantly and increase the luxury tax penalties significantly.

 

[codswallop]

I guess my problem with the "Owners need to use discipline" thought is the fact that it's not like they are working in a vacuum. They have to sell tickets, often in non-traditional markets. Marketing campaigns, season ticket sales. I don't know of a single fan who has ever forked over dough because they were proud of their owner's financial discipline. The owners don't work in a vacuum, they have to generate excitement.

I'm not facistly stating this, I'm just curious as to how it sometimes doesn't figure into people's thinking. Maybe it does, and I just miss it, but for the most part, the arguements tend to treat the owners as if they are bidding against no-one, and that there are no outside factors involved.

Not to say that there haven't been a large amount of offers; but there IS pressure.

(Edit: Baaaaaaaaaaaaaaad spelling)

There are more than a few outside factors involved, and those factors vary from franchise to franchise. Even a die-hard fan who follows his team very closely can only know of and get good info on some of those factors affecting his team, certainly not the inside information that thankfully they keep to themselves (I say thankfully because that would be a nightmare of over-information especially when only a handful of people could actually understand it). There are legal reasons why such info can remain private, but I was simply thinking of it from the standpoint of our "debates" around here.

It's no surprise that people here take a certain statement, topic, number, etc. and run with, not knowing or caring whatever other info might be relevant to include in that premise. It would only slow them down.

I'm not trying to sound all high and mighty, like I've figured all of this out. In fact, I'm stating the exact opposite. I may know of a few bits and pieces that make up this puzzle. I'm sure others here know more than myself. But in reality, none of us knows sh*t. We're so ill-informed about how many pieces there are to this puzzle and what they actually mean that it's ridiculous. The difference is I realize that I don't know crap, some still have delusions that their opinion of the overall situation is actually informed.

You gotta admit though, it is good for a laugh every so often!

 

[kerrly]

They need a system to control themself?

Electric Dog Collar is to Dog Not Leaving Yard
AS
Salary Cap is to Owners not Overspending.


They are capable of controlling what they do UNLIKE a dog...what a joke....they are professionals...if they cant figure out how to keep the NHL from skyrocketing salaries and they need someone to enforce it for them then the NHL really is in bad shape.

Or not put an elecrtric dog collar on the dog and he runs out in the street and gets pulverized by a bus.

News flash, the NHL is in bad shape. Not just because of some of the bad contracts given out either i.e. Holik, Yashin etc. But also because of the system. Certain teams will do certain things that suit them based upon their budgets, which in turn effect teams with different budgets through arbitration, contract negotiations, qualifying offers etc.

 

[PecaFan]

And especially since that one team (NYY) hasn't won anything in five season, common sense dictates that overspending may not be the path to success. The "follow-the-leader" mentality with regard to spending on players was the norm in pro sports for years. I think it has ended to a great extent, certainly in baseball (based on the reduction in the median MLB salary), and even in the NHL over the last 12-24 months, without a hardcap.

You're not seriously suggesting that money doesn't buy success in MLB? The Yankees have a string of championships and runner ups to show for it. Ooh, they don't manage to win every year. Big whoop. They still pretty much have guaranteed playoff spot, and ten home playoff games guaranteed. They lost this year to Boston, who managed to finally spend enough to end decades of incompetence.

 

[SwisshockeyAcademy]

Are you still too dense to realize that the only real "spedning sprees" (which i may add have pretty much stopped) in the NHL occur on UFA players who are over 30, and thus declining. I am a Sens fan, a so called small market team fan, who doesn't give 2 ***** about what washington or new york does in terms of signing UFA's. It doesnt improve their teams and it doesnt affect ottawa's ability to be competitive.

The whole point of this roll back is to reset the market so all the claimed losses that the owners say (which are obvioulsy BS for anyone with a half an ounce of common sense) they incurred are whiped out.

I will concede that there will still be final negotiations with regards to this proposal and the NHls counter proposal before the season is announced somewhere around January 6th, 2005.

Until then its all speculation, but there will be a season, as I've said all along, and the players have offered huge concessions to help out the league from its mismanagmeent. Thats a ton considering the fact that the owners are the ones who let it get to this point.

Once again, instead of making the system idiot proof, why not just get rid of the idiots. The owners of the so called small markets dont have to bid up for players since they can develop their own. The only argument you could make is if one really rich team makes a crazy deal for a RFA and the smaller markets are impacted.. .Gladly the arbitrator looks at what is the norm, and not the exceptional case.

Its seems idiotic how all the pro-owner people point to ISOLATED incidents as if it represents the norm (see Yashin hold out) . HOw dumb is that? Looking at the exception, not the rule, will never give you even close to an accurate and logical position on the state of the league.

I think the luxury tax percentages will be adjusted, probably to 35% of payroll over 45 million and there will be some alterations obviously.

UFA ages will drop a few years, maybe to 29 or 28. I think players (thankfully) reallize that a ridiculously low UFA age would damage the sport, which they care for. The players are team guys probalby more than any other sport (baseball too) and unlike the NFL and NBA, they (for the most part) realize that acheiving the goal through building and experience is a lot more rewarding than a randomized league like the NFL where its just forced mediocrity.

Aight, back to studying for finals.

Forced mediocrity. If we get anything like what the NFL has i'm in.

 

[Trottier]

You're not seriously suggesting that money doesn't buy success in MLB?

As much as it does in the NHL. Which means sometimes. Nothing wrong with that, IMO. In the spirit of fairness, I'm sure you inadvertently omitted mention of the Anaheim Angels ('02) and the Florida Marlins ('03), two lower-to mid payroll teams (at the time) that won championships more recently than the big payroll Yankees.

Spending more money shouldn't guarantee success. And it never has. Which makes the argument specious.

 

[Kid Canada]

As much as it does in NHL. Which means sometimes. In the spirit of fairness, I'm sure you inadvertently omitted mention of the Anaheim Angels ('02) and the Florida Marlins ('03), two lower-to mid payroll teams (at the time) that won championships more recently than the big payroll Yankees, who are conveniently trotted out despite the fact that they have not -repeating - won anything since 2000.

Spending more money shouldn't guarantee success. And it never has. Which makes the argument specious.

The Yankees are a prime example of what's wrong with baseball and on a smaller scale, sports in general.

 

[adurn]

The 24% rollback is just the starting figure for negotiations. The rollback will lower in exchange for tougher spending rules, possibly even a cap.

 

[MacDaddy TLC*]

It doesnt have to be a ONE TIME THING..UNLESS....UNless the owners go SPENDING crazy AGAIN and start raising everyones salary again like they did in the past 10 years.

This proposal isn't enough to slow the Maple Leafs, the Rangers, and about 8 other teams like Bob Mckenzie said.

The first words out of Gary Bettmans' mouth before he started to avoid answering questions directly was something about it being the foundation for a counter offer next Tuesday. This is far from being solved.

 

[Ismellofhockey]

It makes all the sense in the world.

If you want to own a hockey team in a big market and enjoy all the revenues that come with big markets, then you have to pay more for that franchise. Much. Much, Much, More.

These owners have paid a ton of money for their teams. They deserve the benefits of playing in a big market.
If they so choose, they should have the option of spending more on their on-ice product.

I don't like the hard cap because it eliminates the owner's discretion. Why should fans in Detroit/New York/Toronto have to live with the market set by god awful hockey markets like Carolina (whose brilliant idea was that!).

To me, that's why a luxury tax works..
Because it increases the cost of splurging on your team and, therefore, reduces spending, which helps smaller market teams by reducing the market value for players.
Also, the revenue sharing in the luxury tax will provide money to smaller market teams trying to hold on to their own talent.

It allows owners to spend revenues if they want to. But it discourages too much spending.
I don't think that salary costs have to be equal. It's ridiculous to even want that.
Nothing else is equal. Ticket prices will never be equal. They will always be higher in Detroit than in Nashville. Merchandise will always sell more in Detroit than it will in Atlanta.
You can't buy a team in a small market or a non-hockey market and expect the same benefits that owners have in big-hockey markets.

I think the players need to reduce the salary rollback significantly and increase the luxury tax penalties significantly.

You're calling Calgary, Edmonton and Ottawa poor hockey markets?
Heck even Montreal lost money in recent years, why should small markets have to do with big markets who can't spend responsibly?