640 Toronto reporting NHLPA proposal

[A Good Flying Bird*]

Is anyone else sick and tired of the PA's half-measure proposals that add up to absolutely nothing?

I can tell you that I am sick and tired of pro-owner supporters who don't:
a) realize that negotiation involves compromise
b) see this next CBA in the context of the last few CBAs. Everything proposed so far has been a major win for the owners, in terms of where we are coming from. I hear people who cry and whine about a $40 Million salary cap. They whine that "That will just make things worse!"
Really.
Worse.
Worse than what? Then what exists now? RIght now, teams can spend $80 Million. Teams can spend $100 Million. So how does a $40 Million cap make things worse.
How would a dollar for dollar tax on a $40 Million cap make things worse?
How would a $50 Million hard cap make things worse?
They wouldn't
All of these things are BETTER than what the owners have now.

The question is, how greedy can these owners be before they completely destroy the sport. They are already getting a better CBA then was in place when they bought these new franchises?
Were these owners simply too stupid to realize the CBA sucked when they bought in?

Good lord.
I'm going back into hibernation.

 

[Jaded-Fan]

I can tell you that I am sick and tired of pro-owner supporters who don't:
a) realize that negotiation involves compromise
b) see this next CBA in the context of the last few CBAs. Everything proposed so far has been a major win for the owners, in terms of where we are coming from. I hear people who cry and whine about a $40 Million salary cap. They whine that "That will just make things worse!"
Really.
Worse.
Worse than what? Then what exists now? RIght now, teams can spend $80 Million. Teams can spend $100 Million. So how does a $40 Million cap make things worse.
How would a dollar for dollar tax on a $40 Million cap make things worse?
How would a $50 Million hard cap make things worse?
They wouldn't
All of these things are BETTER than what the owners have now.

The question is, how greedy can these owners be before they completely destroy the sport. They are already getting a better CBA then was in place when they bought these new franchises?
Were these owners simply too stupid to realize the CBA sucked when they bought in?

Good lord.
I'm going back into hibernation.

Ann Arbor is near Detroit, right?

Can you not see that fans from areas that have seen their baseball team start every spring with no chance of winning, this year or any year to come, so their fears for hockey are not hypothetical but based on experience; who have seen their hockey team bleed big name players to teams like yours, who fear their hockey team, absent some major changes . . . major . . will become yet another team not worth rooting for anymore. Can you not see why we support the owners' position to the ends and back again if it believably shows the probability of returning hockey to competitive balance where what you put on the ice depends on management instead of $$$'s?

Then again if you indeed are from Detroit I am guessing you knew all of this . . . you merely did not care.

 

[oil slick]

I can tell you that I am sick and tired of pro-owner supporters who don't:
a) realize that negotiation involves compromise

I don't agree with this statement. If the pendulum has swung to one side, which it has over the last decade, I see no reason why negotiations must necessarily involve hefty compromise. The best deal does not necessarily come at the half way point of starting positions.

b) see this next CBA in the context of the last few CBAs. Everything proposed so far has been a major win for the owners, in terms of where we are coming from. I hear people who cry and whine about a $40 Million salary cap. They whine that "That will just make things worse!"
Really.
Worse.
Worse than what? Then what exists now? RIght now, teams can spend $80 Million. Teams can spend $100 Million. So how does a $40 Million cap make things worse.
How would a dollar for dollar tax on a $40 Million cap make things worse?
How would a $50 Million hard cap make things worse?
They wouldn't
All of these things are BETTER than what the owners have now.

The question is, how greedy can these owners be before they completely destroy the sport. They are already getting a better CBA then was in place when they bought these new franchises?
Were these owners simply too stupid to realize the CBA sucked when they bought in?

Good lord.
I'm going back into hibernation.

This also makes little sense. Just because it would be a "victory" for the owners (I suppose judged to be so because the CBA will be more in their favor than the last ludicrouse one), they should sign on? The last CBA was a debacle, which has almost ruined the sport, and your argument for them accepting a deal now is that it's better than the last one!?! Why not wheel out an actual argument as to why the CBA proposed by the players would work rather than the inspired "It's better than last one" line?

 

[Icey]

I can tell you that I am sick and tired of pro-owner supporters who don't:
a) realize that negotiation involves compromise
b) see this next CBA in the context of the last few CBAs. Everything proposed so far has been a major win for the owners, in terms of where we are coming from. I hear people who cry and whine about a $40 Million salary cap. They whine that "That will just make things worse!"
Really.
Worse.
Worse than what? Then what exists now? RIght now, teams can spend $80 Million. Teams can spend $100 Million. So how does a $40 Million cap make things worse.
How would a dollar for dollar tax on a $40 Million cap make things worse?
How would a $50 Million hard cap make things worse?
They wouldn't
All of these things are BETTER than what the owners have now.

The question is, how greedy can these owners be before they completely destroy the sport. They are already getting a better CBA then was in place when they bought these new franchises?
Were these owners simply too stupid to realize the CBA sucked when they bought in?

Good lord.
I'm going back into hibernation.

I might suggest you go back into hibernation. As a more pro-player than pro-owner your theory certainly has more than just a few major flaws.

The idea is not to get a deal that is better than what they have now or a deal that just keeps going the way it has. The idea is to get a deal that first is good for the sport and health of hockey and second a deal that fair to both the owners and players. Nobody wants to screw the players (okay, except a large portion on this board, but seriously I don't think that is the owners intentions). The players want to make as much money in as short of a team as possible (who wouldn't). The owners also want to make as much money in as short of time (again, who wouldn't), so the idea is to somehow find a way for most involved to be happy (lets be realistic, not everyone is going to be happy when this is all done).

This next CBA is going to favor the owners, there is no doubt about it. They have screwed themselves in the last few (and yes the owners have screwed themselves not the players have screwed them, this is part of my pro-player stance). The players have more than made out in the last CBA, so its time for them to take it on the chin and find out what they need to do to save this league. Take a page out of the airliner workers union. Take a cut to save the industry.

And if you can't see how a luxury tax doesn't keep salaries in line, well like you said you've been in hibernation or maybe denial for a while now. I don't think any of the NHL's proposals have been wonderful. There is something in each and every one of them that has screwed the players royally, but if the players don't realize soon that its not going to get any better. That the longer this drags on the worse it will get. So negotiate off the un-linked proposal and get a CBA done.

I am on the players side, but more than that I want a deal that will save this sport and make this sport healthy for many, many years to come. If the owners make out well in this deal, that's fine, but its certainly not necessary for me, what is necessary is the sport of hockey and this league because I don't want to be back here in 5 years with problems worse than they are today.

 

[19nazzy]

And if you can't see how a luxury tax doesn't keep salaries in line, well like you said you've been in hibernation or maybe denial for a while now. I don't think any of the NHL's proposals have been wonderful. There is something in each and every one of them that has screwed the players royally, but if the players don't realize soon that its not going to get any better. That the longer this drags on the worse it will get. So negotiate off the un-linked proposal and get a CBA done.

The reason a luxury tax doesn't keep salaries in line is because of the weak taxes put on going over the soft-cap. Obviously teams won't care about going over if its a $.25/.50 on the dollar. I mean who really cares then?
Make it $2/$4 on each dollar over the limit and then see where that goes.

 

[Icey]

The reason a luxury tax doesn't keep salaries in line is because of the weak taxes put on going over the soft-cap. Obviously teams won't care about going over if its a $.25/.50 on the dollar. I mean who really cares then?
Make it $2/$4 on each dollar over the limit and then see where that goes.

Well then it really wouldn't be a luxury tax but really more like a hard cap. But they need something to keep them from just paying the weak luxury tax. I still want teams to have the option of going over the cap, its just they are going to have to pay for it dearly. I like the idea of being able to borrow from a future year or use part of un-used previous year (with a % limit, such as 10-15%).

 

[Jaysfanatic*]

Dunno if anyone mentioned this or not, but, Watters was on Sportsnet very upset just a few moments ago. The PA called for this meeting, and instead of meeting the owners, met amongst themselves, and this really upset Watters........Goodenow is......urgh!

 

[mr gib]

Well then it really wouldn't be a luxury tax but really more like a hard cap. But they need something to keep them from just paying the weak luxury tax. I still want teams to have the option of going over the cap, its just they are going to have to pay for it dearly. I like the idea of being able to borrow from a future year or use part of un-used previous year (with a % limit, such as 10-15%).

there's still no guarantee the lower clubs will spend the money on the team - pittsburgh pirates

 

[Chayos]

It's time for the players to realize it is just that simple. They have set the president themselves by going and playing in Europe for 1/4 to 1/10th of what they made in the NHL. They have bar to which the NHL can negotiate down to. What other options do the players have? Go and play in the European leagies full time? Go play in the WHA? Form their own league and finance it themselves? The NHL owners have the markets cornered that can support the player's demands. Is Regina, Saskatoon and Hamilton going to allow for revenues that will support a $1.3 million average salary? Not a chance in hell. The NHL owners have the players by the balls and do what they want. If they choose to keep the NHLPA out and go with replacement players the hit will be short term as players naturally are replaced with new talent. Those players staying on the other side will just fade away as a foot note to the game.

As harsh as it sounds, that is the reality IMO. The players need the NHL a helluva lot more than the NHL needs them. The players proved they are not leaps and bounds better than players in other leagues, like they would hope you would believe. ECHL players have made life difficult for "NHL stars", so the disparity is not as bad as some here would think. Yes, the top 50 players in the world are special, but after that the massive majority are completely replaceable. The rank of file of the NHLPA better wisen up and realize this. Their livelihoods and future security for their families are on the line so the top 8% of the membership can continue to make obscene amounts of money.

Good post! Says what needed saying!

 

[Icey]

Dunno if anyone mentioned this or not, but, Watters was on Sportsnet very upset just a few moments ago. The PA called for this meeting, and instead of meeting the owners, met amongst themselves, and this really upset Watters........Goodenow is......urgh!

They were never suppose to meet with the owners. They were to meet with the NHL (bettman, daley etc.)

there's still no guarantee the lower clubs will spend the money on the team - pittsburgh pirates

Nope and that is why you need a payroll floor, so you don't end up with the pittsburgh pirates.

 

[Jaded-Fan]

Too late for me . . . I just want a fair deal so I do not end up with two Pittsburgh Pirates. One is bad enough, believe me. We in the burgh have done our penance, and deserve a good hockey deal as payback.

 

[mr gib]

Too late for me . . . I just want a fair deal so I do not end up with two Pittsburgh Pirates. One is bad enough, believe me. We in the burgh have done our penance, and deserve a good hockey deal as payback.

didn't mean to gang up on you pittsburgh - mario is the man -

 

[A Good Flying Bird*]

Ann Arbor is near Detroit, right?

Can you not see that fans from areas that have seen their baseball team start every spring with no chance of winning, this year or any year to come, so their fears for hockey are not hypothetical but based on experience; who have seen their hockey team bleed big name players to teams like yours, who fear their hockey team, absent some major changes . . . major . . will become yet another team not worth rooting for anymore. Can you not see why we support the owners' position to the ends and back again if it believably shows the probability of returning hockey to competitive balance where what you put on the ice depends on management instead of $$$'s?

Then again if you indeed are from Detroit I am guessing you knew all of this . . . you merely did not care.

Yes, I like the Wings. And sure, I enjoyed the fruits of Illitch's willingness to spend.
Detroit couldn't have won it's last cup without Illitch's resources (the first two cups were pure drafting and team management)
In fact, Detroit really didn't go out and start raiding the FA market until the moron from Carolina went out and ushered in the new era with his ridiculous offer to Fedorov.
Anyway, I've seen it from both sides of the fences. I watched the expos (my favourite baseball team) get turned into a minor league team.
But let's not forget that the expos put themselves in a lot of the trouble they were in. One, the blackballed Rodney Scott, a good ballplayer. Then they dumped Gary Carter. Then they played hardball with Raines and Dawson. Dawson left.
At that point, I realized there was no longer any point in routing for the expos. And so did a lot of other fans.
The fans realized the expos were a minor league team and stopped going to games.
Things got worse when the owners were found guily of collusion and salaries went through the roof. Then the Canadian dollar became next to worthless.
Boom.
A decent MLB franchise was torn to sheds.

See, I can understand the issues when they're presented by the Calgarys and Edmontons of the world.
I can't understand guys like Jacobs and Wirtz, notorious skinflints who've done their best turn their proud Original Six franchises into laughing stocks.
I can't understand why owners move or start teams in Carolina/Florida/Nashville and then wonder why they can't make the revenues to compete with established hockey markets.
I can't understand why they should feel entitled to compete with Detroit.
I went through years of misery as a Detroit fan. It hardly seemed fair to me that Edmonton had all those players and Detroit had Yzerman and a cast of goons.
But that's life.

I'm concerned about the state of hockey in Calgary and Edmonton, and Montreal. I couldn't care less about Nashville/Carolina/Florida.
Why should I? People don't seem to care down there?

Are hockey players making too much? Yeah. So are movie actors and CEOs, if you ask me.

I'm told that we need a $32-35 Million salary cap for the good of the game.
That's a damned lie.
How can Detroit be successful? There is no reason that other NHL cities can't compete with Detroit.
Detroit has a lousy Arena, by NHL standards. The Metro Detroit area is large. And hockey has roots in the area.
But you tell me, why can't Boston and Chicago find a way to run their teams effectively? They have everything Detroit has, and better arena's.
As for the hockey roots thing, it's going to take years for hockey to take hold in places like Nashville and Carolina ... if it ever takes hold.
Those owners, I assume, knew that going in. So why is the league catering to the LOWEST COMMON DEMONINATOR?

My concern remains with the Canadian teams. Places that love hockey but simply can't compete because they don't get the big corporate sponsorships available to some US markets and because of the weakness of the Canadian dollar, and mostly, because Canadian governments are less likely to finance a billionaire's play toy.
Which is why I favor a luxury tax. A strict luxury tax.
A strict luxury tax does two things:
1) It brings salaries down
(No one has yet to explain why a strict luxury tax won't take salaries down)
2) It spreads revenues to teams that need it.
(No one has yet explained how a salary cap will keep Nashville from losing money)

This way, the solution involves sacrifices by both the players and the owners. And just a little bit of sacrifice from the owners would have gotten this done.

But see, the Illitch's of the world are just as greedy as the Wirtz's of the world.
In their mind, they don't see a need to share revenue with the smaller clubs.

Instead, the greedy NHL owners want the players to make the entire sacrifice.
That's not partnership, Jaded.

That's bullying.

If the owners don't want to help each other fix the game, then why the hell should I support their lockout, which might just strangle the entire league?

 

[A Good Flying Bird*]

I don't agree with this statement. If the pendulum has swung to one side, which it has over the last decade, I see no reason why negotiations must necessarily involve hefty compromise. The best deal does not necessarily come at the half way point of starting positions.?

Hefty compromise????
What compromise????
Every giveback, in relation the last CBA, has come from the players.
I'm not talking about meeting half way.
The players have done that and more all ready. They're giving back 24 percent. They'll agree to a cap.
That's a pretty good damned deal compared to what they had. And if what they had was sooooo bad, then why in the hell did Bettman willingly EXTEND IT FOR SIX YEARS??

Now we're looking at major damage to the sport.
And 90 percent of the people on this board can't hide their disdain for the players "bring on the scabs" "I don't care if they ever come back"

It's groupthink.
And groupthink never solves problems.


[/QUOTE]This also makes little sense. Just because it would be a "victory" for the owners (I suppose judged to be so because the CBA will be more in their favor than the last ludicrouse one), they should sign on? The last CBA was a debacle, which has almost ruined the sport, and your argument for them accepting a deal now is that it's better than the last one!?! Why not wheel out an actual argument as to why the CBA proposed by the players would work rather than the inspired "It's better than last one" line?[/QUOTE]

Well, the last CBA was EXTENDED BY BETTMAN FOR SIX YEARS, so it seems pretty hollow for Bettman and the owners to cry about it. I guess they burned through their expansion fees and realize that they made a huge mistake.
I've already explained the huge benefits of the PA's proposal many times. But let me give you a brief explaination, using general numbers.

1) A 24 percent rollback might seem empty to you if you are the Chicago Blackhawks and you have no one under contract, but if you've got Yashin or Jagr under contract, you shouldn't sneeze at it.
2) A $49 Million is a significant victory. Sure, Nashville won't be on equal footing (There is no rule that suggests they should be. My 1,100 sq ft home is worth $180,000 US in Ann Arbor. It would be worth $600,000 in San Francisco. Or $45,000 in a Detroit slum.)
A $49 Million cap is going to force the major markets to cut spending. Plain and simple. Detroit can't have $85 Million in salary. Nor can the Rags spend $65. Or Colorado spend $60.
These big spenders will now be forced to live within a budget far less than where they currently operate.
This will have a big impact on the small market teams. If the big guys are maxxed out or nearly maxxed out, they'll have less room to make a huge offer to a small guy's star player. This give your little team a better chance at keeping their free agents.
Also, when the big teams spend less money on players, that means that their will be a league wide drop in player demand. Less demand equals less salary. League wide.
So can Nashville go out and sign the big name UFA's? No.
But they won't have to pay as much to keep their own players. Because the market will readjust and reduce salaries.
Also, older players like Hull and Chelios and Joseph and Hasek etc, are going to be more expendable. Teams like Detroit and Colorado will have to make tough choices that they weren't faced with before.
You're going to have lots of old valuable guys around on the market and available on the cheap. This will also be of benefit to smaller market teams, who could use the star presence and veteran leadership.

Now, I know some of you will talk about levers that move the cap up or down, but those can be negotiated.
Personally, I think the players offer would have helped the small market teams.
It wouldn't have cured the league. Nothing can cure a league that has 5 teams in cities that don't care about the sport.
But it would have been a HUGE improvement over the current CBA.

And if it wasn't good enough, well, prepare for another dogfight at the next CBA negotiation.


Instead, the lockout now drags toward its second full year. It will be years before we know how much the game has been harmed by this lockout.

It comes down to a cost/benefit analysis, I suppose.

 

[zeker]

1) It brings salaries down
(No one has yet to explain why a strict luxury tax won't take salaries down)

Pretty simple:

All the money saved by the rich teams lowering their payroll slightly is offset (probably MORE than offset) by the increases in the poor teams payrolls due to the "free money" they get from the luxury tax.

This is why the NHLPA loves the luxury tax idea - a) because it doesn't really hinder the richest teams from overspending and setting salary standards anyways, and b) because it gives the poorer teams free money to spend.

2) It spreads revenues to teams that need it.
(No one has yet explained how a salary cap will keep Nashville from losing money)

A salary cap #1 puts a real drag on salaries and #2 instantly makes a team with a $20-$30 million dollar payroll competetive with ALL the other teams, increasing their on ice success.

As all the evidence tells us, no single factor is more important in drawing revenues than on-ice success, thus the revenues of the poorer teams will rise as well.

Thirdly, a salary cap instantly and dramatically raises franchise values for all teams, but especially the poorer teams - which means that their financial viability will no longer be dependant on year to year operating profits.

 

[iagreewithidiots]

I hear people who cry and whine about a $40 Million salary cap. They whine that "That will just make things worse!"
Really.
Worse.
Worse than what? Then what exists now? RIght now, teams can spend $80 Million. Teams can spend $100 Million. So how does a $40 Million cap make things worse.
How would a dollar for dollar tax on a $40 Million cap make things worse?
How would a $50 Million hard cap make things worse?
They wouldn't
All of these things are BETTER than what the owners have now.

Are you talking about pro player or pro owner people?

Most of the people trying to feed everyone crap about the cap being worse or a bad thing are the pro player types.

 

[zeker]

I can tell you that I am sick and tired of pro-owner supporters who don't:
a) realize that negotiation involves compromise
b) see this next CBA in the context of the last few CBAs. Everything proposed so far has been a major win for the owners, in terms of where we are coming from. I hear people who cry and whine about a $40 Million salary cap. They whine that "That will just make things worse!"

These are absolutely irrelevant factors.

The only factors that matter are the bottom line - money.

The owners aren't concerned with "winning" or "losing" - it is simply in their financial best interests to continue to hold out for a cap.

Even with the lost season, they will be better off financially for this lockout if it gets them the cap.

This is what the players and their supporters fail to realize - they keep looking at this as a fight, a negotiation, about winning and losing...but that is simply irrelevant.

The owners look at their financial bottom line, and it clearly tells them that holding out for a cap makes them a helluva lot richer than settling for anything else - even when factoring in the lost season.

 

[A Good Flying Bird*]

I might suggest you go back into hibernation. As a more pro-player than pro-owner your theory certainly has more than just a few major flaws.

The idea is not to get a deal that is better than what they have now or a deal that just keeps going the way it has. The idea is to get a deal that first is good for the sport and health of hockey and second a deal that fair to both the owners and players. Nobody wants to screw the players (okay, except a large portion on this board, but seriously I don't think that is the owners intentions). The players want to make as much money in as short of a team as possible (who wouldn't). The owners also want to make as much money in as short of time (again, who wouldn't), so the idea is to somehow find a way for most involved to be happy (lets be realistic, not everyone is going to be happy when this is all done)..

Your generalizations may work for sweeping four-lane streets, but they do little to enhance your argument.
First off, we don't know how many owners are involved in the game to make a year-to-year profit.
Many owners are in the game because the values of hockey franchises have been skyrocketing (until the lockout, anyway). Ilitch bought the wings for $8 Million about 25 years ago. The franchise is worth close to 40 times that today. Not bad. Lots of equity, there, I suppose.
Also, some owners buy franchises because it gives them credibility/fame/good will in a community. Illitch is seen as a champion of the city of detroit. WHen he wants something in Detroit or Michigan, he gets it.
Also, some owners use their franchises to get things from taxpayers. In what other business can you convince taxpayers to spend hundreds of millions of dollars on your investment?
ANd there are the owners who are simply in it to fulfill some childhood fantasy. Losing $10Million doesn't mean much to them. In fact, it helps them with the IRS.

This next CBA is going to favor the owners, there is no doubt about it. They have screwed themselves in the last few (and yes the owners have screwed themselves not the players have screwed them, this is part of my pro-player stance). The players have more than made out in the last CBA, so its time for them to take it on the chin and find out what they need to do to save this league. Take a page out of the airliner workers union. Take a cut to save the industry..

Which they have done. A $49 Million cap. A 24 percent salary rebate.

.

And if you can't see how a luxury tax doesn't keep salaries in line, well like you said you've been in hibernation or maybe denial for a while now. .

Insults aside, do you mind explaining your logic?
Let me ask you this. WHich is better for the league?
a) A hard cap at 35 Million?
b) a luxury tax system, with a threshold at $35 Million. Taxed at a dollar for dollar for the first $10M. Taxed at $1.50 for the next $10 Million, etc. Taxes dispersed to the small market teams, based on a few criteria.

Think about it.
And then give me your answer.

 

[A Good Flying Bird*]

These are absolutely irrelevant factors.

The only factors that matter are the bottom line - money.

The owners aren't concerned with "winning" or "losing" - it is simply in their financial best interests to continue to hold out for a cap.

Even with the lost season, they will be better off financially for this lockout if it gets them the cap.

This is what the players and their supporters fail to realize - they keep looking at this as a fight, a negotiation, about winning and losing...but that is simply irrelevant.

The owners look at their financial bottom line, and it clearly tells them that holding out for a cap makes them a helluva lot richer than settling for anything else - even when factoring in the lost season.

Well, that remains to be seen.
If they don't get what they want, and then the NHL fans are slow to comeback, then the owners will have screwed themselves.
It's a cost benefit analysis.
I'm just not sure that ANYONE is really considering the long term cost of this lockout.

 

[Flames Draft Watcher]

I can tell you that I am sick and tired of pro-owner supporters who don't:
a) realize that negotiation involves compromise

The question is, how greedy can these owners be before they completely destroy the sport.

The Oilers new owners for example were brought in with the realization that the system WOULD be changing when the CBA expired. That's just one example.

As for compromise, it doesn't have to involve compromise if one side has the leverage. In this case I think the owners are in a much better position to sit out indefinitely than the players are. Therefore there doesn't have to be much compromise from their end if they don't want it.

"The question is, how greedy can these owners be before they completely destroy the sport."

You can reverse the quote to say "players" instead of "owners" and it holds just as much water.

 

[Flames Draft Watcher]

I'm just not sure that ANYONE is really considering the long term cost of this lockout.

Lot's of people are considering it, but it's a complete unknown at this point.

 

[Flames Draft Watcher]

Instead, the greedy NHL owners want the players to make the entire sacrifice.
That's not partnership, Jaded.

That's bullying.

Well that's how business works. Owners/management dictate salaries. There's no partnership with employees. There's stock options but the NHLPA basically rejected that idea when they rejected the league's offer to share 50% of the revenues over a given amount.

 

[A Good Flying Bird*]

Pretty simple:

All the money saved by the rich teams lowering their payroll slightly is offset (probably MORE than offset) by the increases in the poor teams payrolls due to the "free money" they get from the luxury tax.

This is why the NHLPA loves the luxury tax idea - a) because it doesn't really hinder the richest teams from overspending and setting salary standards anyways, and b) because it gives the poorer teams free money to spend..

There is no basis for what you say.
1) If you set a luxury tax threshold at $35-to$40 Million (with a 100 percent penalty) you are going to devestate player salaries.
The Detroit Red Wings aren't going to spend $80 Million on player salaries if it costs them over $120 Million to do so.
The Wings lost $15 Million last season with an $80 Million budget.
Assume Illitch is willing to lose $15 Million everyseason (A HUGE ASSUMPTION, but I do so just to favor your argument) He'd only get $60 Million worth of players to get to an $80M cost.
That's going to have a huge effect on spending. Is Illitch going to spend $80 Million for a $60Million team?
Hell no. Not unless he was convinced his team had a good shot at the cup.
A team like Detroit (the resident bad guy to all the small market hillbillies) is likely going to spend $50Million tops. That means that 10 million gets distributed among the small market teams.
So Detroit's salary drops from $80 Million to $50Million. That in turn puts a damper on salary demands. And that money goes to help small market teams make ends meet.

 

[Flames Draft Watcher]

And if what they had was sooooo bad, then why in the hell did Bettman willingly EXTEND IT FOR SIX YEARS??

Heh, you make it sound as if it was Bettman's sole decision. He's a figurehead for the owners, they are ones who extended it. And I've read at least one quote that said Bettman advised them against it and warned where things were going but they ignored him.

 

[A Good Flying Bird*]

Well that's how business works. Owners/management dictate salaries. There's no partnership with employees. There's stock options but the NHLPA basically rejected that idea when they rejected the league's offer to share 50% of the revenues over a given amount.

That's how business works when employees are simply making a product.
But in entertainment, the empolyees are much more than people who produce. They are, in many but not all respects, the actual product.