Bill Watters said...

Discussion in 'Fugu's Business of Hockey Forum' started by Charge_Seven, Feb 3, 2005.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
View Users: View Users
  1. Charge_Seven

    Charge_Seven Registered User

    Joined:
    Aug 12, 2003
    Messages:
    4,631
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Don't know if anyones mentioned this, but Watters was saying that he believes the two will eventually settle on a compromise...(get ready for this pro-management guys...) of a very stiff luxury tax.

    Now, to be fair, he did not have a source on that, and was simply stating what he figured had to happen to get a deal done.
     
  2. Crows*

    Crows* Guest

    Very odd.

    Waters has been so attamently saying there was no hope for a nsettlement for a long time.
     
  3. Brewleaguer

    Brewleaguer Registered User

    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2005
    Messages:
    260
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Going on 7 hours you would think something possitive was happen behind those doors.
     
  4. Charge_Seven

    Charge_Seven Registered User

    Joined:
    Aug 12, 2003
    Messages:
    4,631
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Agreed.
     
  5. oil slick

    oil slick Registered User

    Joined:
    Feb 6, 2004
    Messages:
    7,593
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    84
    I'm a pro-management guy, and I've thought for a while that a stiff tax is the way to go. I look at it this way. An extremely high luxury tax is effectively a cap. As you begin lowering it, at some point it stops being a cap, and starts being a dissuading force for increased spending, until you go down to the farcicle 20% (which does very little) proposed by the Union. There must be some point which is a not a complete non-starter to both parties.
     
  6. Bruwinz37

    Bruwinz37 Registered User

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2002
    Messages:
    27,430
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Occupation:
    Sales
    I am pro management (only because of the fiscal ruins the game is in) but I would be for a stiff tax. I think the league would be fine with a hard cap at 50m and I think the teams could live with that too. Basically you are just trying to stop the top 5 teams from spending a ridiculous amount of money. If no team could spend more than 50m dollars contracts would still come down but it would give some teams leeway to spend a bit more if they need to.

    I stiff luxury tax starting at 40m would also work because (if for example it was dollar for dollar) a team would think twice about offering an UFA 6m per year if they are over the cap because it would be like playing that player 12m per year. We all know there are no hockey players worth that much.
     
  7. Charge_Seven

    Charge_Seven Registered User

    Joined:
    Aug 12, 2003
    Messages:
    4,631
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Exactly. I'm a pro-PA guy and have always thought a stiff tax was the way to go too.

    37 million: $0.25 per dollar over
    42 million: $1.00 per dollar
    45 million: $1.50 per dollar
    47 million: $2.00 per dollar
    50 million+: $4.00 per dollar

    Essentially that's a hard cap at 47. If a team goes over, then it only benefits those teams under the soft cap. Now, I don't want those numbers, but that's workablem there's no way anyone can argue otherwise. Most teams would stay under the 42,000,000. A few would venture over the 45, and maybe one a year would top 47...50 would be unthinkable...
     
  8. mudcrutch79

    mudcrutch79 Registered User

    Joined:
    Jul 5, 2003
    Messages:
    3,903
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    The Big Smoke
    Home Page:
    How many BoG members does it take to approve a deal?
     
  9. Phillip The Third

    Phillip The Third ... line center ?

    Joined:
    Apr 22, 2004
    Messages:
    26,377
    Likes Received:
    1,025
    Trophy Points:
    169
    At that point it becomes semantics. The NHLPA has already said that a stiff luxury tax was the same thing as a hard cap.

    People have got to realize that what the NHLPA want is to keep being able to play the owners against themselves. They don't care about a system that would work economically.
     
  10. speeds

    speeds Registered User

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2002
    Messages:
    6,823
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    St.Albert
    Home Page:
    I like the idea, but think the owners would like to have the tax levels tied to revenue so that if league wide revenue drops, so will the thresholds correspondingly. And of course the reverse would be true for players, if revenue increses the tax levels increase.

    Something like I suggested in the below thread, post 4.

    http://hfboards.com/showthread.php?t=127407&page=1

    I have it with an eventual hard cap, but ultimately that wouldn't be required, you could just throw as you have a 4:1 LT (or whatever you think is punitive enough to stop anyone from going over) at whatever you consider the approporiate level.

    I think it works better that way because it allows the NHL to say they have linkage (though there is no actual linkage, only a linkage between revenue and the LT thresholds) and allows the NHLPA to say there's no hard cap (though implicitly there would be because the 4:1 LT at the high end would act as a defacto cap).

    Both win by claiming they got what they want when neither gets exactly what they want (or at least, what they say they want).
     
  11. Charge_Seven

    Charge_Seven Registered User

    Joined:
    Aug 12, 2003
    Messages:
    4,631
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Unless they came out and defined what a stiff tax is, they can still get away with accepting one and saying it wasn't what they originally meant as stiff.
     
  12. hockeytown9321

    hockeytown9321 Registered User

    Joined:
    Jun 18, 2004
    Messages:
    2,358
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    If Bettman approves of the deal, it takes a simple majority to ratify(16) If he disapproves, there needs to be a 75% majority(23). Essentially, Bettman has 8 BOG votes.
     
  13. Phillip The Third

    Phillip The Third ... line center ?

    Joined:
    Apr 22, 2004
    Messages:
    26,377
    Likes Received:
    1,025
    Trophy Points:
    169
    That's if you believe the players are ready to cave and are only looking to save face.
     
  14. Charge_Seven

    Charge_Seven Registered User

    Joined:
    Aug 12, 2003
    Messages:
    4,631
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Yes, however we all know that if the owners accept the soft cap/lux tax that they are th eones who caved :joker:
     
  15. RangerBoy

    RangerBoy TRUST THE PROCESS

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2002
    Messages:
    38,696
    Likes Received:
    2,231
    Trophy Points:
    231
    Location:
    New York
    Home Page:
    Watters has been saying on his radio show that there would be a season
     
  16. mudcrutch79

    mudcrutch79 Registered User

    Joined:
    Jul 5, 2003
    Messages:
    3,903
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    The Big Smoke
    Home Page:
    A majority may well jump at something like a true stiff luxury tax, providing that the revenue was redistributed. It's a complete screw job for the big markets though; they're better off with a hard cap, or no cap at all.

    Interestingly, for Bettman himself, a stiff luxury tax is probably just fine; it will ensure the survival of a lot of the markets that he's responsible for bringing into the league.
     
  17. me2

    me2 Calling out the crap

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 2002
    Messages:
    33,314
    Likes Received:
    1,301
    Trophy Points:
    214
    Location:
    Blasting the bull***

    24% rollback + your defacto cap at 47m.


    Its a major win for the owners, with out the extras they will want such are lower rookie salaries and symetric arbitration. Both of which they'd push for and probably get. QO reduced to 100% (or lower). And no linkage/no hard cap means no salary floor.

    24% rollback
    symetric arbitration
    your luxury tax system
    no team salary floor
    lower rookie salaries
    QO reduced to 100% or lower


    Looks good.
     
    Last edited: Feb 3, 2005
  18. Phillip The Third

    Phillip The Third ... line center ?

    Joined:
    Apr 22, 2004
    Messages:
    26,377
    Likes Received:
    1,025
    Trophy Points:
    169
    "If you caress a circle long enough, it becomes vicious" -Eugène Ionesco
     
  19. nyr7andcounting

    nyr7andcounting Registered User

    Joined:
    Feb 24, 2004
    Messages:
    1,919
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Don't think of it as a winner and a loser. If they get a deal, it's not going to be either sides philosophy, it'll be somewhere in the middle. If they do something to save the season, they are both winners. I mean they suck, big time, but really they would both will have won. I think that a stiff luxury tax, that works as it intended to do, it something that majority can live with, wether you are pro-pa or management.
     
  20. Charge_Seven

    Charge_Seven Registered User

    Joined:
    Aug 12, 2003
    Messages:
    4,631
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I've said that before, and I agree. I just didn't want this thread to take some nasty "the players are caving" turn...
     
  21. Volcanologist

    Volcanologist Used Register

    Joined:
    Jan 14, 2003
    Messages:
    23,190
    Likes Received:
    813
    Trophy Points:
    214
    Location:
    Toronto
    I think for once Billy might be right.

    It won't be in time to save this season, but the owners are going to have to figure out another model to get their cost controls.
     
  22. I'm 100% pro management, but those numbers are way too stiff. 4 dollars on the dollar at 50 million? Dollar for dollar at 42 is good enough, anything above that isn't necessary.
     
  23. mudcrutch79

    mudcrutch79 Registered User

    Joined:
    Jul 5, 2003
    Messages:
    3,903
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    The Big Smoke
    Home Page:
    What makes you think dollar for dollar is a more proper response to the NHL's financial situation?
     
  24. PecaFan

    PecaFan Registered User

    Joined:
    Nov 16, 2002
    Messages:
    8,939
    Likes Received:
    4
    Trophy Points:
    141
    Location:
    Ottawa (Go 'Nucks)
    Home Page:
    You got a cite for that? It goes against everything I've ever heard.

    The last deal got pushed through with barely over 50%. That's the whole reason it was changed, to make sure that 75% of the league agrees to the new system.

    I don't think Bettman has a vote. It takes 75% either way.
     
  25. mudcrutch79

    mudcrutch79 Registered User

    Joined:
    Jul 5, 2003
    Messages:
    3,903
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    The Big Smoke
    Home Page:
    Everything I've read says that to approve a deal not approved by Bettman, it takes 23 votes. That'd be meaningless if it took the same to approve a deal he supports.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page

monitoring_string = "358c248ada348a047a4b9bb27a146148"