Listening to Robert Esche make me ill.

Status
Not open for further replies.

Motown Beatdown

Need a slump buster
Mar 5, 2002
8,572
0
Indianapolis
Visit site
Boondock Saint said:
Wrong.

One of the proposals contained a luxury tax, which if made in any way effective, is thrown under the player's "salary cap" blanket....

Another contained a proposal where players would negotiate their contracts with the league, which contained no salary cap, however the player disagreed.

All 6 of the proposals DID NOT contain hard caps. However, the NHLPA calls any system that links revenues to expenses a hard cap and refuses to look at it.


So the owners would accept a luxury tax???

Really thats not what Bettman and Daly say...

http://www.usatoday.com/sports/hockey/nhl/2004-09-09-nhl-players-talks_x.htm

The
NHLPA has said from the beginning of negotiations that it would not give in to a salary cap, and Commissioner Gary Bettman has said a luxury tax system would not solve the league's financial problems.

And if the owners would accept a salary cap, why haven't they countered the players last offer? If the players are offering it up (albeit a weak on) and the owners would accept one, why aren't they talking working on it?
 

ak47

Registered User
May 21, 2004
36
0
1. Stop comparing the NHL to a real business or a real market. (first step for the NHLPA to realize)

2. Stop comparing the NHL to other sports leagues - revenues do not compare so the business models do not compare.

3. Stop saying owners have a right to make money because its their team - NHL owners do not buy sports franchises as a primary source of income or investment. They're all smart enough to realize that NHL franchises are not purchased to "make money" in the traditional sense.

With those 3 things in mind....let talk.....
 

triggrman

Where is Hipcheck85
Sponsor
May 8, 2002
31,627
7,348
Murfreesboro, TN
hfboards.com
JWI19 said:
So the owners would accept a luxury tax???

Really thats not what Bettman and Daly say...

http://www.usatoday.com/sports/hockey/nhl/2004-09-09-nhl-players-talks_x.htm

The

And if the owners would accept a salary cap, why haven't they countered the players last offer? If the players are offering it up (albeit a weak on) and the owners would accept one, why aren't they talking working on it?


I bet if you tied the tax to revenues and made the penalties stiff enough Bettman would listen.

Problem is then the players consider it a "cap" and won't agree.
 

Taranis_24

Registered User
Jan 6, 2004
681
0
Visit site
ak47 said:
1. Stop comparing the NHL to a real business or a real market. (first step for the NHLPA to realize)

2. Stop comparing the NHL to other sports leagues - revenues do not compare so the business models do not compare.

3. Stop saying owners have a right to make money because its their team - NHL owners do not buy sports franchises as a primary source of income or investment. They're all smart enough to realize that NHL franchises are not purchased to "make money" in the traditional sense.

With those 3 things in mind....let talk.....

The owners do not have the right to make money, but they also don't have the obligation to throw bad money after bad money out the door. How is it fair that players can make a buck or two but not okay for the owners? Who is the only side in this mess to be putting their own money on the line? I just don't understand why folks that are against the owners feel it's not at least fair that owners make at least the same average $1.8M a year?

JWI19 -

I to heard that the NHL would look at the NHLPA offer (the October '03 one, not the garbage proposed in September) if the NHLPA would guarantee it to work. The NHLPA declined to guarantee anything. I also look at this another way, since 1999 the NHL has tried to address this problem something else the NHLPA had no interest in doing. If they had talked 3-5 years ago a luxury tax system would be in place now and there wouldn't be this mess today. Now it's just to late, a bad luxury tax system will not address all the financial problems of the league right now. It probably would have 3 years ago but not now, and whose fault is it that it didn't happen then. 20% owners because the declined to hold their ground then and 80% players because they didn't care then. The %'s are just my opinion it could swing either way depending on allegiences.
 
Last edited:

Jag68Sid87

Sullivan gots to go!
Oct 1, 2003
35,575
1,249
Montreal, QC
The owners would listen to a luxury tax system, if it was more like the NBA and less like MLB. In the NBA, they have things like the "Larry Bird Rule", which states that you can re-sign your own free agents outside the luxury tax. It also has the individual salary ceiling, which also helps the system out tremendously. THEN, there's the luxury tax. Such a system might work in the NHL, though it's a little bit complex.

A luxury tax system like MLB doesn't work, because even if overall salaries are on the decline, it's still the same elite franchises that pick up the free agents. AND, in such a luxury tax system, Jarome Iginla would still go to the highest bidder and wind up with Detroit, Philly or Toronto (because those three teams wouldn't care about spending luxury tax money to secure the rights to one of the best players in the NHL).

There's nothing wrong with players having to decide whether to A) take the money or B) try to play for a ring. A salary cap system gives most players that option. I think franchise players could be exempted from such a system, but I like the idea that the player would have to come to a crossroads--do I want to continue with this program to try to win a Cup, or do I want to be paid like a front-line player?

You can argue that in the NFL there is too much player movement. However, how many players that make up the IDENTITY of a franchise actually moved from one team to another last summer? Not that many, if you think about it. And when it happens, the player is usually well past his prime (see Sapp, Warren or Rice, Jerry or Brown, Tim).
 

FlyersFan10*

Guest
Jag68Vlady27 said:
A luxury tax system like MLB doesn't work, because even if overall salaries are on the decline, it's still the same elite franchises that pick up the free agents. AND, in such a luxury tax system, Jarome Iginla would still go to the highest bidder and wind up with Detroit, Philly or Toronto (because those three teams wouldn't care about spending luxury tax money to secure the rights to one of the best players in the NHL).

Actually, if it becomes a dollar for dollar luxury tax, I could see teams like Detroit, Philadelphia and Toronto having issues with spending money on Jarome, going over the tax, and having to pay even more money. The owners of these teams aren't idiots and are very smart business men. That's what many people fail to realize. Do you think the Ontario Teachers Pension Fund would want to pay out additional revenue for a luxury tax? Think again. Mike Illitch didn't become a multi-millionaire by spending his money foolishly and same with Ed Snider. The three organizations know how to spend money wisely and that wasn't fairly addressed in that statement. Yes, those three teams would mind paying a luxury tax.
 

dawgbone

Registered User
Jun 24, 2002
21,104
0
FlyersFan10 said:
Actually, if it becomes a dollar for dollar luxury tax, I could see teams like Detroit, Philadelphia and Toronto having issues with spending money on Jarome, going over the tax, and having to pay even more money. The owners of these teams aren't idiots and are very smart business men. That's what many people fail to realize. Do you think the Ontario Teachers Pension Fund would want to pay out additional revenue for a luxury tax? Think again. Mike Illitch didn't become a multi-millionaire by spending his money foolishly and same with Ed Snider. The three organizations know how to spend money wisely and that wasn't fairly addressed in that statement. Yes, those three teams would mind paying a luxury tax.

The problem is, the players association views that as a cap... a $ for $ penalty is too stiff in their eyes, and doesn't act as a luxury tax, but as a cap instead.
 

Jag68Sid87

Sullivan gots to go!
Oct 1, 2003
35,575
1,249
Montreal, QC
Sorry, but I don't buy it. Those three owners know that they would have the upper hand on the rest, because they are willing to spend more to buy the Stanley Cup (if necessary). Like I said, the luxury tax system may slowly bring salaries back down, but the star players would go to the teams that love star power, love the veteran talent and show that they'll spare no expense to win the Stanley Cup.

That's all well and good for fans of those three teams (of which you are one), but it sucks for the rest.
 

ak47

Registered User
May 21, 2004
36
0
Taranis_24 said:
The owners do not have the right to make money, but they also don't have the obligation to throw bad money after bad money out the door. How is it fair that players can make a buck or two but not okay for the owners? Who is the only side in this mess to be putting their own money on the line? I just don't understand why folks that are against the owners feel it's not at least fair that owners make at least the same average $1.8M a year?

JWI19 -

I'm not for or against the player or the owners - all I'm saying is that as fans we tend to confuse the reasons why we are where we are.

I'm from Calgary and work in the oil and gas business and know that at least 3 of the owners of the Flames - Murray Edwards, Al Markin and Clay Ridell - have a net worth totalling over a billion dollars built through the oil and gas business. These guys knew going in that their investment in the Flames was going to provide low-to-negative returns. But they did it anyway. From the owner's perspective, the "losing money" argument is a red herring, a negotiating ploy for public perception (which is clearly working from reading these boards).

The real issue to discuss is how a new CBA can ensure competitive balance which is what I think the owner's really want. What's the best way to do that? How can a CBA reward good behaviour and penalize reckless behaviour? One way, simplistic as it seems, is to cap certain players and not cap others. For instance - no cap for players scouted, drafted and developed, and a cap for free agent signings, trades, etc., etc.
 

dawgbone

Registered User
Jun 24, 2002
21,104
0
ak47 said:
The real issue to discuss is how a new CBA can ensure competitive balance which is what I think the owner's really want. What's the best way to do that? How can a CBA reward good behaviour and penalize reckless behaviour? One way, simplistic as it seems, is to cap certain players and not cap others. For instance - no cap for players scouted, drafted and developed, and a cap for free agent signings, trades, etc., etc.

That's a very interesting argument... what about things like comparables, arbitration, etc...

The Rangers, indirectly, will still be able to affect the market for teams like Buffalo if they sign their 25 year old 22 goal scorer to a $4mil contract.

I guess if the cap was low enough, the players you draft and develop wouldn't make much more on other teams than they could on your own...

This is interesting, and should be explored a little further.
 

ak47

Registered User
May 21, 2004
36
0
dawgbone said:
That's a very interesting argument... what about things like comparables, arbitration, etc...

The Rangers, indirectly, will still be able to affect the market for teams like Buffalo if they sign their 25 year old 22 goal scorer to a $4mil contract.

I guess if the cap was low enough, the players you draft and develop wouldn't make much more on other teams than they could on your own...

This is interesting, and should be explored a little further.

You're right that there are many things that would need to be worked out. However, this structure would force franchises to have patience developing their homegrown talent, thus creating an identity for those franchises. It would reward the best hockey organizations - not the ones with the deepest pockets.

1. Players developed would have incentive to stay with their home franchises because they would be paid what the "market" dictates.

2. The leverage that these players would typically have - holdouts, demanding trades - would be reduced because getting traded to another franchise would be a cap "hit" to the other franchise - indirectly making players "honor" their contracts.

3. Revenue sharing proceeds would only fund the "uncapped" players - the capped players would be the responsibility of the individual franchises.

You're right - in this model you could have an entire team of uncapped players making an unlimited amount - but that's a risk that the owners should be willing to take for the benefits of the game.

Let's start it at a $15 MM U.S cap for non-homegrown talent and free reign on the rest.
 

dawgbone

Registered User
Jun 24, 2002
21,104
0
ak47 said:
You're right - in this model you could have an entire team of uncapped players making an unlimited amount - but that's a risk that the owners should be willing to take for the benefits of the game.

True, but only on certain teams. Players on say Calgary won't be able to command as much as if they were developed by the Rangers, but them leaving the team they were drafted to might not make them any better off.

It would be interesting to see some models and projections based on this.
 

ak47

Registered User
May 21, 2004
36
0
dawgbone said:
True, but only on certain teams. Players on say Calgary won't be able to command as much as if they were developed by the Rangers, but them leaving the team they were drafted to might not make them any better off.

It would be interesting to see some models and projections based on this.

Agreed - uncapped players in Calgary would make less than in New York, but the combination of revenue sharing for uncapped players and the work of the market should pay players what they're worth - let's face it - when all was said and done the Flames still came up with $15MM US to pay Iggy. From the NHLPA perspective I'm sure that they would whine that homegrown players would have no leverage to get the best deal but it's about time that Agents actually earn their money and do some real negotiating instead of relying on lunatic owners and a CBA weighted heavily in their favor.

(and - to be clear - i consider homegrown talent any player that was drafted or traded for and played his first game with that franchise - like Iggy).
 

PecaFan

Registered User
Nov 16, 2002
9,243
520
Ottawa (Go 'Nucks)
dawgbone said:
Most of the core?

Would that include guys like Havlat and Spezza?

Do you think Hossa is continually going to only command $3.5 mil while putting up 40 goals and averaging a point per game?

If Chara continues to be a continual Norris Candidate, don't you think he'll command the same money Pronger and them receive?

Yup. Chara just got a raise of a couple million a few months ago (and he was an idiot for settling, he would have scored far more in arbitration). In two years he gets several more million a year.

Havlat and Hossa are both due a few million each compared to others around the league. When Spezza's initial deal is up, he'll be cashing in as well.

It astounds me that Ottawa fans think the old CBA would help them.
 

Jag68Sid87

Sullivan gots to go!
Oct 1, 2003
35,575
1,249
Montreal, QC
The idea of capping free agent players was brought up by Mike Ribeiro, before word got out and he was told to muzzle it.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad

-->