Little fella says no to luxury tax

[thinkwild]

Bettman rejects a luxury tax. Yet many of his supporters have been saying for months now, why wont the players make it strict enough and solve the problems. No they are too greedy.

Turns out that Bettman is saying no go to it now. Yet he loses no ones support who previously thought that was an answer and slandered the players for not accepting it.

Only a cap will work. Only a cap will work. Only a cap will work. Click you heels Toto.

 

[codswallop]

You know, while I think both sides are acting like little children, I'm starting to resent the owners a bit. It seems to me that the PA has blinked quite a bit, and it's now up to the owners to move a little.

If the NHL won't negotiate any, it's time to just cancel the season. Don't leave us hanging more.

I've leaned twards the owners side prior to this little development, but the pendulum is starting to swing a bit.

I resent both sides quite a bit actually. They've both found ways to screw this up. But I'm probably different from many others around here, I don't side with one or the other. I simply want hockey to come back and for it to be stable for the future. Don't give a damn how that happens or who may (or may not) benefit from the agreement that brings it about.

Too many people argue about who said this or who said that, who's to blame, etc, etc, etc. (add about 100 more etc's onto that). I truly believe that they're missing the point. I don't expect that last line to go over well, if anyone else actually responds to this that is. But that's to be expected. Most around here seem content to argue these various points from biased perspectives with less-than-accurate info (or incomplete info, or unreliable info; depends on the subject).

I'm not saying we could actually have a meaningful debate; that likely isn't possible. There's just too much we don't know. But, like I said, most seem to be content making leaps of assumption and passing it off as fact. If taken with several grains of salt (or several adult beverages), it can actually be entertaining at times. No more, no less.

 

[shadoz19]

Ummm your talking like Bettman when you say..."Offerend nothing close to a permanent fix" It is a direction to a fix Gary WONT admit it but it is.

I'm not a player-hater like most people here, but they have not made a serious offer. One time rollbacks do not help permanently. While the players haven't made a serious offer, the owners have offered only one proposal worded 6 different ways. I think both sides should take a look at the TSN solution again and compromise on something similar to that.

 

[thinkwild]

I'm not a player-hater like most people here, but they have not made a serious offer.

Bettman has made it clear, a serious offer consists solely of the one thing he knows all sports unions will reject. What kind of offer can be made to a person intent on tying you up procedurally in legal battles and winning small procedural points on the technicalities of negotiation over a 2 year wear you down period.

Perhaps if they were serious about accepting a compromise, a serious offer can be made. Apparently $100mil in savings and a market correction isnt serious. Thats fine, then the owners losses of $100mil arent serious either. Obviously no one would attribute Detroits losses are serious. They made the choice, and over a 10 year period made money, even if they lose this year. No permamanent solution required.

Pittsburgh, NJ, and NYI dont have permanent problems. St Louis, Washington, dont have permanent problems.

The remaining $100 mil of losses can be addressed by the players serious offer.

 

[MrMackey]

Perhaps if they were serious about accepting a compromise, a serious offer can be made. Apparently $100mil in savings and a market correction isnt serious.

This money that the PA is caling to save the league are all based on flighty projections. Its very easy to make any kind of projections on imaginary events or historical records that don't take in to account the spending behaviour of owners.

I believe Bettman told the PA that they would accept his offer if they could guarantee their projections. The PA refused. Obviously they don't stand that firmly by their numbers, and the offer couldn't be that serious.

 

[Brent Burns Beard]

If things are so bloody bad (which they may well be), Bettman shouldn't have simply rubberstamped the CBA when it last expired.

i think you meant to say:

"if things are so bad that the only way to survice is to choke the players into a 33 % pay cut, then Bettman should be fired for presiding over the league he drove into the ground."

which is it people, either the NHL is healthy or it is sick. if it is sick, why not FIRE the guy at the top.

dr

 

[thinkwild]

I believe Bettman told the PA that they would accept his offer if they could guarantee their projections. The PA refused. Obviously they don't stand that firmly by their numbers, and the offer couldn't be that serious.

Guarantee these blunderheads wont lose money? If Bettman got a $31mil hard cap, can you guarantee no team will lose money?

 

[MrMackey]

Guarantee these blunderheads wont lose money? If Bettman got a $31mil hard cap, can you guarantee no team will lose money?

I can guarantee that the owners will lose money. Most of them are idiots, or have left their team in the hands of idiots. Also, a lot of expenses can be ran through a sports team to create I.S. losses. So losing money doesn't have a lot to do with it.

The guarantee isn't related to losing money. Its related to saving money on player salaries in relation to revenues.

A guarantee on player salary reduction would force teams to reduce payroll which would lower the salary demands of players. This would allow teams with less revenue to afford to sign these players to a contract that would be competitive to what the other 29 teams could offer.

Whether a team decides to make those offers is up to the GMs and owners. Same as operating at a loss.

If the PA can't offer a guarantee on salary reduction, then their offer doesn't really have much meat, because even they admit that the game is in trouble. They even use it in their argument that the owners created this mess.

 

[PecaFan]

I can guarantee that the owners will lose money. Most of them are idiots, or have left their team in the hands of idiots. Also, a lot of expenses can be ran through a sports team to create I.S. losses. So losing money doesn't have a lot to do with it.

That's what is so confusing. I've brought this up numerous times, and no one ever responds to it:

Owners are stupid, and ultra-competitive. They'll willingly overspend to win a Cup. They'll do whatever they can to get the player they want, and work around whatever impediments are in their way, such as caps, bonus structures, deferred payments, you name it.

So why does the NHLPA fight a hard cap?

Give the owners their hard cap, then laugh all the way to the bank as they work around it, as they always do.

 

[joechip]

Such as a Canadian dollar that has a value consistantly similar to the American dollar? Because that is what is damaging to the Canadian franchises more than anything, their dollar being worth solittle for so long. If the Canadian dollar was worth an American dollar, the Oilers would have easily been able to hang onto the majority of its talant. While it sucks to have these teams hindered by something they have no control over, I'm not sold that it's the league's job to make corrections for how a government decides to run its economy.

Yeah, from my perspective the players and the owners have been on the receiving end of a whole bunch of funny money printed up by Greenspan during both the Clinton Strong Dollar Days, and the Bush Weak Dollar Days. In all instances we, the fans, are the ones who pay. Higher ticket prices, broad inflation, an over-valued currency on one side to the transaction... and in the end, when the well dries up and there's no more easy credit to be found... everyone still wants to be paid the same amount as before?

Crazy! The interesting thing in all of this is that, by the time the current currency revaluations are finished, it will be the American teams crying pauper, while the strong Canadian dollar undergirds the health of Canada's Game, regardless of the NHL. I call it Karma, actually.

Ta,

 

[Brent Burns Beard]

That's what is so confusing. I've brought this up numerous times, and no one ever responds to it:.

no one responds because its a premise that has zero merit and when we read it, all we hear is your obnoxious irrelavant point.

dr

 

[shadoz19]

Bettman has made it clear, a serious offer consists solely of the one thing he knows all sports unions will reject. What kind of offer can be made to a person intent on tying you up procedurally in legal battles and winning small procedural points on the technicalities of negotiation over a 2 year wear you down period.

Perhaps if they were serious about accepting a compromise, a serious offer can be made. Apparently $100mil in savings and a market correction isnt serious. Thats fine, then the owners losses of $100mil arent serious either. Obviously no one would attribute Detroits losses are serious. They made the choice, and over a 10 year period made money, even if they lose this year. No permamanent solution required.

Pittsburgh, NJ, and NYI dont have permanent problems. St Louis, Washington, dont have permanent problems.

The remaining $100 mil of losses can be addressed by the players serious offer.

Do you think the players' current proposal will change the spending of big market teams? Erasing the losses for a year or two based on a couple of reductions will not change the economics of the game. I don't want a hard cap. I don't like guaranteeing anything. Some changes to the economic system need to be made, not one-time cost savings.

 

[SENSible1*]

The NHL's position on a luxury tax spelled out

Asked whether the league would at least sit down and talk again with the union if presented with a luxury-tax proposal that had more teeth to it, Daly said that would be a possibility.

"If they give us a meaningful proposal, absolutely I would think that it would be incumbent on us to consider it and to see if it warrants a meaningful counter-proposal," Daly said.

"I mean, they know what the issues are league-wide and the issues facing our clubs. I would hope, at some point in this process, that they would craft a proposal that would deal with those issues."

The league is willing to talk, just a soon as the players put something meaningful on the table.

 

[RangerBoy]

The league is willing to talk, just a soon as the players put something meaningful on the table.

What has the league put on the table?Six proposals which all act as the same system?

The players are the only group willing to negotiate.The owners want the players to basically give back everything they won in collective bargainning with the owners

The owners created this mess and now they want the players to clean up the mess

Cancel the season and just disband the NHL

 

[SENSible1*]

What has the league put on the table?Six proposals which all act as the same system?

The players are the only group willing to negotiate.

The PA presented an offer which was worse than their previous one after the owners presented them 6 proposals to offer a variety of systems designed to address the leagues problems and the players concerns with a rigid cap system. How anyone can construe that to be a willingness to negotiate is beyond me.

IF the players put a new meaningful offer on the table, the owners have indicated that they will negotiate. It is clear that both parties are equally guilty of contributing to the current stalemate and that one of them must blink for progress to be made.

The owners want the players to basically give back everything they won in collective bargainning with the owners.

Sure thing, because the players were making an average of $1.3 M prior to 1994, right? The scales need re-balancing, but no one is suggesting a return to the Eagleson era.

The owners created this mess and now they want the players to clean up the mess.

The owners and a severely flawed system created this mess. It is the responsibility of both parties to ensure that the next CBA puts in a system that improves the health of the NHL.

Cancel the season and just disband the NHL

Cancel the season and just disband the NHLPA.

 

[Seachd]

The owners created this mess and now they want the players to clean up the mess

Huh? The owners are trying to clean this up themselves. The players, who have to do nothing but show up at games and collect their millions, are preventing the implementation of a system that works. The Union still isn't taking this situation seriously, and that's pretty disappointing to see.

 

[txpd]

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?

If the players association are putting forward a new offer that does not contain a salary cap, in what way have they blinked? We know they are NOT going to do that, so the blink you think you see is a mirage.

 

[txpd]

Both sides need to compromise.

I am curious everytime I read a comment like this. How do both sides compromise over a disagreement like salary cap/no salary cap? there is either is a salary cap or there is not.

how is a cba without a salary cap a crushing defeat yet again for the owners?
how is a cba with a real salary cap not the same sort of defeat for the nhlpa?

 

[SENSible1*]

If the players association are putting forward a new offer that does not contain a salary cap, in what way have they blinked? We know they are NOT going to do that, so the blink you think you see is a mirage.

The original quote regarding "blinking" was mine.

With both parties saying that the next offer will come from the other side, if either party puts forward a deal with significant concessions, then they have clearly blinked, even if those concessions don't take the form the other side seeks.

 

[txpd]

Well one is trying..but its hard to do when one side is acting like a little spoiled kid.

that is crap. period. the nhlpa has said they will not except a salary cap. period.
that is their basic principle. where have they compromised??

 

[txpd]

newsguyone posts..."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."

you are correct. those were small to meaningless concessions, because in that system all players moneys lost to this proposal regained in the next round of arbitration.

then you suggest that the owners best response would be to give in on their major demand. back up off from hard cap to strict luxury tax. thats pretty good negotiating by the players...dont you think? NHLPA puts forward a small proposal and the result is that the owners give up what they have been holding out for....LOL. SLAP!!!! Come on.

 

[txpd]

The original quote regarding "blinking" was mine.

With both parties saying that the next offer will come from the other side, if either party puts forward a deal with significant concessions, then they have clearly blinked, even if those concessions don't take the form the other side seeks.

I could not disagree more. if the owners put forward a very player friend proposal with a fairly high % of revenue/salary cap, the players would reject that out of hand. just like the owners reject any idea of a luxury tax.

 

[SENSible1*]

I could not disagree more. if the owners put forward a very player friend proposal with a fairly high % of revenue/salary cap, the players would reject that out of hand. just like the owners reject any idea of a luxury tax.

Both sides have stated that the ball is in the other sides court and that the next offer will NOT come from them. They are currently engaged in a stare down.

Whichever side presents a real and meaningful offer designed to move negotiations forward will have blinked.

What you are avoiding is the fact that someone MUST eventually blink and that it may be in that party's best long-term interests to do so.

 

[txpd]

Do you think the players' current proposal will change the spending of big market teams? Erasing the losses for a year or two based on a couple of reductions will not change the economics of the game. I don't want a hard cap. I don't like guaranteeing anything. Some changes to the economic system need to be made, not one-time cost savings.

i havent come across a fan of a big dollar team that wants a hard cap yet. why should you be any different. who wants to give up a major advantage like that??

 

[Motown Beatdown]

Both sides have stated that the ball is in the other sides court and that the next offer will NOT come from them. They are currently engaged in a stare down.

Whichever side presents a real and meaningful offer designed to move negotiations forward will have blinked.

What you are avoiding is the fact that someone MUST eventually blink and that it may be in that party's best long-term interests to do so.

I dont always agree with you but your right, someone needs to blink and actually i dont give a crap who blinks.


My only problem with the owners in this whole thing is they are pretty much asking the players to save them from themselves. They are telling the Union, we the owners cant control all 30 of us, so we need your help doing so. I dont think you'll find one person who thinks the system doesn't need a workover. But going from one extreme to another extreme is not the answer IMO.