Back in 1994...

Discussion in 'Fugu's Business of Hockey Forum' started by ehc73, Sep 14, 2004.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. ehc73

    ehc73 Registered User

    Joined:
    Jan 18, 2003
    Messages:
    5,930
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Occupation:
    CS Student
    Location:
    Coquitlam, BC
    Home Page:
    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?
     
  2. Buffaloed

    Buffaloed webmaster

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2002
    Messages:
    28,149
    Likes Received:
    3,160
    Trophy Points:
    232
    Location:
    Buffalo
    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.
     
  3. GKJ

    GKJ Global Moderator

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2002
    Messages:
    142,313
    Likes Received:
    3,082
    Trophy Points:
    232
    Was Bettman not the commish in 1994? He still needs the same 8 owners on his side.
     
  4. John Flyers Fan

    John Flyers Fan Registered User

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2002
    Messages:
    22,416
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Home Page:

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

    Buffaloed webmaster

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2002
    Messages:
    28,149
    Likes Received:
    3,160
    Trophy Points:
    232
    Location:
    Buffalo
    Not exactly, because there weren't 30 teams in 1994. :D
     
  6. John Flyers Fan

    John Flyers Fan Registered User

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2002
    Messages:
    22,416
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Home Page:
    14 out of 26 is still more than 8. :razz:
     
  7. GKJ

    GKJ Global Moderator

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2002
    Messages:
    142,313
    Likes Received:
    3,082
    Trophy Points:
    232
    needs is a present tense verb right? :rolly:
     
  8. Buffaloed

    Buffaloed webmaster

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2002
    Messages:
    28,149
    Likes Received:
    3,160
    Trophy Points:
    232
    Location:
    Buffalo
    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. :p:
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page

monitoring_string = "358c248ada348a047a4b9bb27a146148"