Back in 1994...

[ehc73]

I read in the Vancouver Sun today that 10 years ago, the owners wanted a luxury tax system in the NHL. Back then, they were complaining that the avg salary of over $500k a year was too much. Back then, the big point producers were the only ones who were millionaires.

10 years ago, I was still in elementary school, so I didn't really pay attention to the business dealings...I just knew that the two sides were bickering and couldn't reach an agreement. For those of you who do remember the issues at hand, I have a question: why did the players oppose a luxury tax system back then? And do you think it would've prevented the trouble the NHL currently faces?

Click to read more...

 

[Buffaloed]

I read in the Vancouver Sun today that 10 years ago, the owners wanted a luxury tax system in the NHL. Back then, they were complaining that the avg salary of over $500k a year was too much. Back then, the big point producers were the only ones who were millionaires.

10 years ago, I was still in elementary school, so I didn't really pay attention to the business dealings...I just knew that the two sides were bickering and couldn't reach an agreement. For those of you who do remember the issues at hand, I have a question: why did the players oppose a luxury tax system back then? And do you think it would've prevented the trouble the NHL currently faces?

If that's what the Vancouver Sun says it's incorrect. It was the players who proposed a luxury tax 10 years ago in response to the owners demand for a cap. The owners wanted no part of revenue sharing. It's almost exactly the same situation we have today. The major difference now is that Bettman has veto power so the owners can't ram another bad CBA down his throat. That's the owners way of acknowledging that Bettman was right 10 years ago, and they were wrong.

 

[GKJ]

If that's what the Vancouver Sun says it's incorrect. It was the players who proposed a luxury tax 10 years ago in response to the owners demand for a cap. The owners wanted no part of revenue sharing. It's almost exactly the same situation we have today. The major difference now is that Bettman has veto power so the owners can't ram another bad CBA down his throat. That's the owners way of acknowledging that Bettman was right 10 years ago, and they were wrong.

Was Bettman not the commish in 1994? He still needs the same 8 owners on his side.

 

[John Flyers Fan]

Was Bettman not the commish in 1994? He still needs the same 8 owners on his side.

Back then Bettman needed alot more than 8 owners to get his way. He needed at least a majority if not 2/3rds.

 

[Buffaloed]

Back then Bettman needed alot more than 8 owners to get his way. He needed at least a majority if not 2/3rds.

Not exactly, because there weren't 30 teams in 1994.

 

[John Flyers Fan]

Not exactly, because there weren't 30 teams in 1994.

14 out of 26 is still more than 8.

 

[GKJ]

needs is a present tense verb right?

 

[Buffaloed]

14 out of 26 is still more than 8.

That's true, but 9 is a lot closer to 8, and only 9 dissenters were needed to reject a CBA proposal in 1994. A 2/3rds majority is required for approval.