Little fella says no to luxury tax

Discussion in 'Fugu's Business of Hockey Forum' started by hockeytown9321, Nov 30, 2004.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
View Users: View Users
  1. hockeytown9321

    hockeytown9321 Registered User

    Joined:
    Jun 18, 2004
    Messages:
    2,358
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
  2. SENSible1*

    SENSible1* Guest

    Goodenow says no to "soft cap".

    Anybody still want to believe the players are willing to compromise?
     
  3. FLYLine27*

    FLYLine27* BUCH

    Joined:
    Nov 9, 2004
    Messages:
    42,410
    Likes Received:
    3
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Occupation:
    PO
    Location:
    NY
    What? :dunno:
     
  4. hockeytown9321

    hockeytown9321 Registered User

    Joined:
    Jun 18, 2004
    Messages:
    2,358
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0

    here's what you said in the thread about the new offer:
    "IF the rumours are true and the players are putting a real offer forward, then the NHL has won the first big battle in this war, as the players have blinked big time."

    I take that to mean you think the players, for whatever reason, have moved significantly toward the owners side.

    So which is it?
     
  5. FLYLine27*

    FLYLine27* BUCH

    Joined:
    Nov 9, 2004
    Messages:
    42,410
    Likes Received:
    3
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Occupation:
    PO
    Location:
    NY
    Comon..who really thought the owners were going to COMPROMISE? They dont understand that word.
     
  6. RangerBoy

    RangerBoy TRUST THE PROCESS

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2002
    Messages:
    38,786
    Likes Received:
    2,330
    Trophy Points:
    231
    Location:
    New York
    Home Page:
    Come on Gary,just cancel the season and the NHL will die south of the border

    Slice your own wrist and pull the trigger

    The NHL will cease to exist.It already is on life support.56% of the American sports fans did not even know the NHL was locked out
     
  7. shadoz19

    shadoz19 Registered User

    Joined:
    May 21, 2004
    Messages:
    1,769
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Both sides need to compromise.
     
  8. FLYLine27*

    FLYLine27* BUCH

    Joined:
    Nov 9, 2004
    Messages:
    42,410
    Likes Received:
    3
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Occupation:
    PO
    Location:
    NY
    Yea so thunder your against the side that is trying to bring back hockey and solve the problem? While the other is dismissing anything they get without the word Cap in it? :shakehead
     
  9. FLYLine27*

    FLYLine27* BUCH

    Joined:
    Nov 9, 2004
    Messages:
    42,410
    Likes Received:
    3
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Occupation:
    PO
    Location:
    NY

    Well one is trying..but its hard to do when one side is acting like a little spoiled kid.
     
  10. The players are compromising.
    1. They have proposed a luxury tax (not a big one, but a giveback, to be sure.)
    2. They have proposed immediate giveback of 5 percent.

    Those are concessions. That's movement. That's a start.
    The owners should have come back and proposed a very strict luxury tax.

    Then, negotiations could have started.
    But the owners have shown no such interest in moving this forward. Not in the least. They started by offering a ridiculous hard cap, tied to revenues (which may as well have been pulled from Arthur Anderson's magic book of accounting).
    It amounted to a 33 percent pay cut.

    No one in their right mind is going to accept such a harsh proposal.
    If things are so bloody bad (which they may well be), Bettman shouldn't have simply rubberstamped the CBA when it last expired.

    You simply can't let things go bad for 9 years and then expect to fix it all in one CBA negotiation.

    He should get what he can now.
    And continue to work on it in the next CBA.

    It took years of neglect for Rome to crumble.
    It's even more negligent now for our Ceaser to completely rip it down and try to rebuild it in a day.
     
  11. hockeytown9321

    hockeytown9321 Registered User

    Joined:
    Jun 18, 2004
    Messages:
    2,358
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0

    I saw that poll today too, its really amazing.

    Just to reiterate, the majority of sports fans in the US don't even know there's a lockout, let alone choosen sides. How anybody can argue with a straight face that attendance won't drop drastically, regardless of if they use replacement players or not, is beyond me.
     
  12. hockeytown9321

    hockeytown9321 Registered User

    Joined:
    Jun 18, 2004
    Messages:
    2,358
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    He extended the current CBA twice, including in 1999, which if you listen to his press conference at th start of the lockout, was when he "knew" the CBA couldn't work. Isn't that negligent?

    You're right too on the players proposals. They were starting points. The league could have easily come back with a $30 million threshold and 1,000% tax. Who's going to go over that? Then you have a starting point.
     
  13. Cawz

    Cawz Registered User

    Joined:
    Sep 18, 2003
    Messages:
    14,372
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    36
    Location:
    Oiler fan in Calgary
    Home Page:

    Have you guys seen the other thread with the 6 NHL offers itemized? If the PA cannot find a staring point for discussions in 6 distinctively different solutions put forward by the NHL, then they are not trying to bring back hockey.
     
  14. SENSible1*

    SENSible1* Guest

    There is only one issue of importance, "cost certainty" and NEITHER side has compromised one bit on it.

    IF the players put a better offer on the table, but still based on a luxury tax, they haven't compromised one iota, only attempted to make their position more sellable from their laughable last offer.

    It will also mean that the owners have forced the PA to directly contradict their public statements about the next offer coming from the owners and therefore the PA were the first ones to blink in this game of chicken.
     
  15. hockeytown9321

    hockeytown9321 Registered User

    Joined:
    Jun 18, 2004
    Messages:
    2,358
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    they were 6 distinctive ways to get the same result. The players could put out 6 different luxury tax proposals, and Bettman's sheep would all say they're not compromising. In fact, one of them said so in the post above.
     
  16. SENSible1*

    SENSible1* Guest


    How can one individual so consistently miss the point?

    Replacement hockey isn't about trying to generate revenue or maintain current attendance levels. Over the long run, IF the NHLPA refuses to cross, then the NHL would have to make the product marketable and profitable and the odds are decent they could do so. Over the short run, the owners are willing to absorb significant losses to bring the union into a more realistic understanding of their role and gain a long term advantage.
     
  17. Taranis_24

    Taranis_24 Registered User

    Joined:
    Jan 6, 2004
    Messages:
    680
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    74
    Home Page:
    If this is the case now why wasn't it in 1999 when the league first approached the PA, and again in 2000, and again in 2001, and again in 2002, and again in 2003, and again last year. The fact is the union wanted to get what they could and not care about down the road. If the PA would have agreed to a tax system 2 years ago which the league was looking for we wouldn't be in the lockout today. I understand the league renewed the last CBA a couple of times, and Bettman tried to get this resolved during the last lockout but the owners caved, I don't think you are going to get 23 of them to cave now. The recently proposed 5% rollback by players yes a compensation but when the league as a whole last summer had salaries increase by 16% because of arbitration/FA's etc what does the 5% really mean almost nothing. Even with a 10% rollback the salaries would have increased this year by 1% (not much I know) but with the league in trouble I have a hard time with any increase. I believe the proposed hard cap by the league cut back the salaries by 27-28% not 33%. Offering the players greater than half of generated revenues is more then fair. I agree though there would have to be some serious sitdowns with lawyers and cpa's to work what is revenue and what are the expenses. The league should come back with a increase to 55%-45% share of revenue share with players getting the better part. Tell me how this isn't fair if the union and league could honestly sitdown and work the particulars to the revenue and expense breakouts. From what I read the owners offered to negotiate the revenues and expenses questions with the union to make sure the trust was there only to be turned down by the union.

    The longer the lockout the lower the revenues I would rather have 55% of $2B then 55% of $1B?
     
    Last edited: Nov 30, 2004
  18. hockeytown9321

    hockeytown9321 Registered User

    Joined:
    Jun 18, 2004
    Messages:
    2,358
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0

    What you don't understand is that the league cannot sustain the losses they will incur if they use replacement players, and probably can't even if they don't. Its not a 2 month process. Its would take years and years to get people to forget they're watching minor leaguers pretending to be NHL'ers. It will be impossible to get on national TV(they're barely on it now), and no pro sports league can survive without national TV money.
     
  19. SENSible1*

    SENSible1* Guest

    What you fail to understand is that they wouldn't have to go years without the NHLPA members crossing.
     
  20. hockeytown9321

    hockeytown9321 Registered User

    Joined:
    Jun 18, 2004
    Messages:
    2,358
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    This is laughable. Do you know why the league extended the CBA twice? Its because they had to promise all the expansion owners there wouldn't be a work stoppage before the year 2000. And do you know why they so wanted those expansion teams? Because they all had to pay huge, huge franchise fees. So before you go and say the union didn't want to negotiate so they could get whatever they could out of the CBA, don't forget to say the same about the owners.
     
  21. Cawz

    Cawz Registered User

    Joined:
    Sep 18, 2003
    Messages:
    14,372
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    36
    Location:
    Oiler fan in Calgary
    Home Page:
    Well, I thought there were some interesting ideas in the 6 offers that could have been worked on. The fact that the PA dismissed them all with a blanket statement (they're all a cap) shows that they are not willing to negotiate.

    I saw one offer that was a distinct cap. The other 5 offers had at least some merit. If the PA chose to either incorporate some of them into their own offer, or dismiss each one specifically and explain why, then it would show a willingness to cooperate.

    Did you read all 6 offers? There was about 2 paragraphs each (not 1 sentence each, as was the rumor around here a few weeks ago)
     
  22. hockeytown9321

    hockeytown9321 Registered User

    Joined:
    Jun 18, 2004
    Messages:
    2,358
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    We'll see how many do, though I'm sure there will be quite a few. But how many are going to be the guys even somewhat recognizable to the average person? Those are the guys who make the most, and the ones who won't cross. And whatever happens, replacement players will have the stigma of being replacment players, no matter if they crossed or not. Perception is reality.

    Do you even remember what the talk was like during Spring training of 1995 when baseball used replacement players? Fan support, like the product, was not good.
     
  23. hockeytown9321

    hockeytown9321 Registered User

    Joined:
    Jun 18, 2004
    Messages:
    2,358
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    yes, i've read them. In the end, they all put a concrete limit on what players can make, be it individually or collectively.

    The fact is if you asked the players what their ideal solution would be, they would say keep the current CBA. If you asked the owners what their's would be, they would tell you salary cap. Who has moved off their ideal solution more?
     
  24. FLYLine27*

    FLYLine27* BUCH

    Joined:
    Nov 9, 2004
    Messages:
    42,410
    Likes Received:
    3
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Occupation:
    PO
    Location:
    NY
    O yeah..you mean the 6 Offers which all include that hard hard cap? Yea ive seen it and laughed. They probably came up with all 6 in one meeting.
     
  25. FLYLine27*

    FLYLine27* BUCH

    Joined:
    Nov 9, 2004
    Messages:
    42,410
    Likes Received:
    3
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Occupation:
    PO
    Location:
    NY
    This my friend is a perfect example of bettman getting to a Vulnerable fan who thinks the only solution is a cap. :shakehead
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page

monitoring_string = "358c248ada348a047a4b9bb27a146148"