incawg said:
If Bettman and co. come back on Tuesday with any sort of proposal that includes a luxury tax instead of a hard cap, there is no doubt in my mind that there will be hockey this year. You would immediately get the negotiation process rolling and it would really just be an issue as to exactly where the final tax numbers end up. But I just don't see that happening; Bettman won't cave on the hard cap issue this quickly. Bettman did allude to the salary cap during the Q&A portion of his news conference, although he prefers to use the less objectionable phrases. My money is on the NHL coming back with another hard cap proposal, which will most likely lead to a stalemate. Ultimately the most logical conclusion to this mess is a very high luxury tax, but to get something on the scale that the owners will be looking for, I think they'll end up using the hard cap proposals as leverage for quite a while longer.
IMO, a luxury tax of say 100:1 over 40 million does the same thing as a hard cap
As of this point, IMO, coming back with a 'hard cap' framework (when a high enough $ amount of a luxury tax can do the same thing) makes a 'hard cap' proposal now unproductive...
By going the 'luxury tax' route, IMO, it will
appear that Bettman and the owners made a huge concession by agreeing to negotiate a luxury tax (i.e. by using the
same framework that the NHLPA has proposed be used)... Just like it
appears that Goodenow made a huge concession with the 24% rollback... It's all smoke and mirrors (since the size of the luxury tax could be so absurd that it acts like a hard cap), and it puts the ball back in Goodenow's court...
IMO, for this CBA, the luxury tax is the way to go... I'd be disappointed if the NHL went for a home run with a hard cap... IMO, it's not necessary...
For
this CBA, the luxury tax is the solution, IMO... The NHL now has a defendable case that the 'free market' system doesn't work - thus, why the NHLPA is willing to negotiate a luxury tax system (whereas the NHLPA wasn't willing to negotiate this in the past)... Come next CBA, the NHL may have a defendable case that the 'luxury tax' system doesn't work - thus, IMO, the NHLPA would be much more willing to negotiate a cap system once history shows the results of the luxury tax system...
I'm hoping that the luxury tax system will right the ship, but if it doesn't, then the NHL is in a
much better position to get a strict cap implemented come the next CBA...
IMO, league economics should be dealt with over time... not with a definitive blow... No one knows the ramifications of doing too much, too fast... Things can quickly spiral out of control... Slow, steady, controlled, logical steps will minimize negative impact, IMO...
And IMO, with a luxury tax framework on the table, it is not necessary for the league to go for the jugular (to do
whatever it takes to get a hard cap implemented - kill the season, kill the NHLPA if necessary)... If the league wants to 'kill' the NHLPA if it gets in the way of a hard cap, give the NHLPA a rope to hang themselves with (agree to a variation of the luxury tax framework they proposed... prove that it doesn't work with real results)... It's cleaner, and you might get away with murder... The only problem is, it takes longer...
If I was a hard cap supporter (which I'm not), to try and get a hard cap right now, IMO, is
not the optimal strategy... not if the goal is to win the war (not just a battle)... When you are going into court to try and break a union, you've got to make sure that you have exhausted all other alternatives first to have a fighting chance... It's not an easy thing to do, and it can backfire...
You can definitely be right, incawg... The NHL may be still going for the hard cap for quite a while longer... It wouldn't be too surprising to me if the NHL came back with a hard cap counter offer (only so that it
appears that they are ultimately making a
huge sacrifice to negotiate a
strict luxury tax during the
final hour to save the season)... Pretty dramatic, I know...
Who knows how this plays out, but ultimately, trying to get a hard cap implemented in this CBA doesn't make much sense to me (especially when considering - if I remember correctly - that only one of the league's proposals to the NHLPA contained a hard cap, so they were willing to explore other avenues than a hard cap)... But I could definitely be wrong...