Cap for 3 years then next 3 years luxury tax?

[dakota]

Would the owners and players agreet to this:

Take the players last proposal and instead of having the luxury tax for the first 3 years and then the cap if it IS NOT working as the players proposed...why not reverse the process and have the CAP now... fix the immediate "systemic" problems and then in 3 years have a luxury tax..

would the players accept this... there are obvioulsy more issues than cap or luxury tax but this seems to be the BIG issue. what would be wrong with this?

Click to read more...

 

[amazingcrwns]

I think this would be viewed along the same lines as the NHLPA's 24% rollback proposal. It would provide a temporary solution to a long-term problem. Going in to the next CBA negotiation the owners would once again have to fight for a cap while they don't already have one to work off of.

 

[crossxcheck]

what if they were to stay under the current system for a trial period of 1, 2, or 3 years and if and when the league still has the same woes they would do a cap for the next few years? That would mean NHLPA and the NHL argeeing on how to determine the financial state of league, defining what is an "acceptable" state of the league, and to agree on a person to undertake this task. Probably wouldn't be accepted and I'm sure someone can shoot holes through this. Just a thought off the top of my head.

 

[dakota]

perhaps... but I would include the 24% rollback in the new CBA but build into it all the details that would limit the dramatic rise in salaries...

this would allow both the owners and the players to save face and not ruin the NHL for good... obviously the ideal thing for the owners would be to have a cap all the time... this idea is worth it in some ways to save some of the 2 billion dollar pie that will dissappear slowly if the game is not played because of this nosense.

 

[dakota]

what if they were to stay under the current system for a trial period of 1, 2, or 3 years and if and when the league still has the same woes they would do a cap for the next few years? That would mean NHLPA and the NHL argeeing on how to determine the financial state of league, defining what is an "acceptable" state of the league, and to agree on a person to undertake this task. Probably wouldn't be accepted and I'm sure someone can shoot holes through this. Just a thought off the top of my head.

THey could have done this a few years ago but I doubt they could now... I still think there is something to the original idea of reversing the timelines... if the players feel so strongly that there sytem will work (luxury tax) then they should like this idea... if they feel so strongly about the young up and coming players (like they say they do) they should like this idea.. it would be at least intersting to hear their reaction to something like this and why they would not like it.

 

[crossxcheck]

THey could have done this a few years ago but I doubt they could now... I still think there is something to the original idea of reversing the timelines... if the players feel so strongly that there sytem will work (luxury tax) then they should like this idea... if they feel so strongly about the young up and coming players (like they say they do) they should like this idea.. it would be at least intersting to hear their reaction to something like this and why they would not like it.

Well, since the NHL admitted the luxury tax system and salary roll backs would only temporarily fix the problems. Why not do essentially what I said before? then if it doesn't work, they will agree that some form of a cap is necessary. It gives the players a chance to provde their case. The luxury tax system and roll backs coupled with a few changes to the game (stuff being tried in the AHL plus calling obstructions), then maybe the league could draw more fans. That's not even factoring in future superstars like ovechkin and crosby. probably a bit too optimistic and naive on my part, but there's a chance it could work.

 

[dakota]

Well, since the NHL admitted the luxury tax system and salary roll backs would only temporarily fix the problems. Why not do essentially what I said before? then if it doesn't work, they will agree that some form of a cap is necessary. It gives the players a chance to provde their case. The luxury tax system and roll backs coupled with a few changes to the game (stuff being tried in the AHL plus calling obstructions), then maybe the league could draw more fans. That's not even factoring in future superstars like ovechkin and crosby. probably a bit too optimistic and naive on my part, but there's a chance it could work.

I believe what you are saying is kind of what the players proposed a luxury tax for the first few years then if it doesnt work a cap.. the owners refused this

I think the luxury tax system will not fix the problems NOW.. it is too far past that... so you are right in that it would be a temporary fix NOW...but it will put a drag on salaries in the future once the league fixes the systemic problems.... ie salaries are out of whack now... arbitration problems... etc., fix the problems now with a cap... then as the league and teams get healthier goto a system that includes luxury tax... revenue sharing etc.,

 

[crossxcheck]

I believe what you are saying is kind of what the players proposed a luxury tax for the first few years then if it doesnt work a cap.. the owners refused this

I think the luxury tax system will not fix the problems NOW.. it is too far past that... so you are right in that it would be a temporary fix NOW...but it will put a drag on salaries in the future once the league fixes the systemic problems.... ie salaries are out of whack now... arbitration problems... etc., fix the problems now with a cap... then as the league and teams get healthier goto a system that includes luxury tax... revenue sharing etc.,

I'm saying the luxury tax plus the 24% rollbacks will fix the problems for now and that in the 2 years following the players have their chance to prove their system works. If not, then a cap should be put in place. The players proposed a cap if their system didn't work?? I missed that one.

 

[dakota]

I'm saying the luxury tax plus the 24% rollbacks will fix the problems for now and that in the 2 years following the players have their chance to prove their system works. If not, then a cap should be put in place. The players proposed a cap if their system didn't work?? I missed that one.

i think they did... i may be wrong but there were reports i remember hearing about the players offering what you were saying: luxury tax first 3 years and if it is not working (based on an agreed formula) then a salary cap... it may have been a concept that was floated out there... but i think the owners refused it...

i dont think with the rollbacks and a luxury tax and tweaks to the CBA arbitration etc., will fix the problems now... i think there would have to be a CAP now to fix the problems with revenue sharing and later a luxury tax...

if the players refuse this then we know that they are not all about helping out the next generation of players...