Little fella says no to luxury tax

[txpd]

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 am not avoiding the fact that someone MUST blink. I am just saying that blink will not take the form of not coming off the salary cap stance of the party making the next offer.

If NHLPA makes a proposal that opens the door to a salary cap or the NHL makes a proposal that walks away from their demand for a salary cap, then you are right that someone blinked.

But, because this situation is a matter of Cap or No Salary Cap there is not much to do but do the stare down. for there to be a meaningful proposal someone will have to cave in.

 

[RangerBoy]

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.

Did the players force the owners to sign the contracts?The players are the product.The fans pay to see the players.They don't spend their money to watch Gary Bettman,Jeremy Jacobs,Bill Wirtz,Tom Hicks and the rest of the owners

A system which works?A hard cap with guaranteed contracts does not work

 

[RangerBoy]

Cancel the season and disband the NHL

Come on Gary do it

 

[SENSible1*]

Did the players force the owners to sign the contracts?The players are the product.The fans pay to see the players.They don't spend their money to watch Gary Bettman,Jeremy Jacobs,Bill Wirtz,Tom Hicks and the rest of the owners

A system which works?A hard cap with guaranteed contracts does not work

That explains the resounding success of the WHA and Original Stars Hockey League.

 

[shadoz19]

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??

A hard cap won't necessarily fix things. If you guarantee things it gives them less reason to improve the product etc. They would know that as long as their revenues remained the same they would make the same amount of money. At the same point the whole RFA thing needs to be fixed too. Take out the guaranteed raises.

 

[Seachd]

They would know that as long as their revenues remained the same they would make the same amount of money.

Why would their revenue remain the same if they're not putting effort into making the team better?

 

[txpd]

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.

its a misread to say that the "owners...are pretty much asking the players to save them from themselves."

1. the owners are asking the big spender teams to give up their payroll advantage that has been so successful for most of them and rely on better drafting and player developement. the league is also telling those teams they get one shot at signing the big $$ free agent player. meaning that payroll restrictions will not allow signing of another player if the first one signed is a bust. these are also teams where there fan base is often used to them having a roster nearly full of established, known players that will be forced to use more rookies and unknown players.

2. any hard cap will have to come with an equally hard salary floor. that floor will require teams that dont spend money in the free agent market at all at present to spend money in that area in the new cba.

there are challenges and dangers for all the teams if there is a hard salary cap coming.

lastly, when you say, "They are telling the Union, we the owners cant control all 30 of us, so we need your help doing so."
first there is the whole question of collusion...right? if they agree to limit salary on their own and among themselves, without including the nhlpa, that would be a federal violation in at least the USA...i would think.

there are additional problems with the idea that the owners could somehow hold down their spending to an agreed level volunteerily. that is the fan base in each market. marketing after letting a star player walk because he doesnt fit under a salary cap is a lot easier to do than it is if the team were to decide to spend within their means while a star player leaves to sign with a rival. teams like boston, edmonton, calgary and so on that spend within limits won't have to field attacks from fans and media that they are not willing to make the "commitment(spend) to doing what it takes to win".

 

[txpd]

Did the players force the owners to sign the contracts?The players are the product.The fans pay to see the players.They don't spend their money to watch Gary Bettman,Jeremy Jacobs,Bill Wirtz,Tom Hicks and the rest of the owners

A system which works?A hard cap with guaranteed contracts does not work

the players did not force the owners to sign the contracts. the system did. over the last 10 years only last year did the winner of the cup not come from the top 10 in league payroll rank.

 

[Mothra]

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??

Ok...so its not just me that wonders about that....

I dont get how some people are saying the PA has compromised......I dont care what side people favor in this mess.....the issue of linking salaries to revenue is not one that can be compromised. The specifics of a cba with a cap or with lux tax can be compromised.....but at the core its either one way or the other

 

[Motown Beatdown]

Ok...so its not just me that wonders about that....

I dont get how some people are saying the PA has compromised......I dont care what side people favor in this mess.....the issue of linking salaries to revenue is not one that can be compromised. The specifics of a cba with a cap or with lux tax can be compromised.....but at the core its either one way or the other

They have compromised because it's a simple fact that the offer they gave the owners is a worse deal for them than what they had under the old CBA. They are not looking for the same deal they had in the old CBA

 

[shadoz19]

Why would their revenue remain the same if they're not putting effort into making the team better?

Its not to say that they woudn't do anything but not as much knowing that their costs won't change and they're practically guarateed a profit by fixing it to a percentage of revenues.

 

[YellHockey*]

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??

So what? Every intelligent Ottawa Senators fan I know doesn't want a hard cap either since they know that their team, which could be a dominating team for the next five years at least, would be broken up under a hard cap.

 

[Mothra]

They have compromised because it's a simple fact that the offer they gave the owners is a worse deal for them than what they had under the old CBA. They are not looking for the same deal they had in the old CBA

Ok....so if the owners propsed a hard cap at lets say 50 mil that too would be a compromise?

 

[SENSible1*]

So what? Every intelligent Ottawa Senators fan I know doesn't want a hard cap either since they know that their team, which could be a dominating team for the next five years at least, would be broken up under a hard cap.

Most Sens fans know that the best hope of keeping this team together is a soft cap that allows teams to spend extra on the players they develop, but causes an overall deflation in players salaries. A few misinformed, arrogant Sens fans can't seem to comprehend that there is a great deal of flexibility possible in a "cost certainty" scenario and continue to spout their misinformation at every opportunity; all the while questioning the intelligence of everyone who doesn't share their misapprehension.

It almost makes me ashamed to be a Sens fan.

 

[Motown Beatdown]

Ok....so if the owners propsed a hard cap at lets say 50 mil that too would be a compromise?

IMO yes, and it would help thier cause infront of the NLRB. Because after all i think thats where this whole fircken mess is gonna end up.

 

[codswallop]

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

That's the pot calling the kettle black around here, not specifically refering to you (though you can easily be included at times) but that statement could be used to describe a high percentage of the posts on this particular board.

Proof, facts; four-letter words around here. Opinion and assumption are hardly suitable replacements, but are often used as such. Don't kid yourself, a pretty fair amount of what's posted here doesn't deserve a second look. But it will almost always strike a cord with someone, and prompt a heated response that can get into insulting like yours above. We've all done it before. But there's no real need for it, it just isn't worth it.

But I'm not here to play peacemaker. Get as nasty as you want with others, no skin off my nose. At times, we all interject into other conversations; just thought I'd give my .$02 (which of course is over-stating the price of this and pretty much every other post here).

 

[Brent Burns Beard]

Most Sens fans know that the best hope of keeping this team together is a soft cap .

good to see you have come over the side that thinks this mess is due to the owners refusal to negotiate.

the owners refuse a soft cap premise, so why do you support their tactics ?

dr

 

[garry1221]

good to see you have come over the side that thinks this mess is due to the owners refusal to negotiate.

the owners refuse a soft cap premise, so why do you support their tactics ?

dr

same can be said for the the PA and a strict lux tax, just like everything on this board, there's always the other side to the story and all of us are looking at the book, on the front cover is bettman, on the back cover is goodenow and in the middle is a whole big heaping pile of nothing but egos too huge for their own good.

 

[tantalum]

good to see you have come over the side that thinks this mess is due to the owners refusal to negotiate.

the owners refuse a soft cap premise, so why do you support their tactics ?

dr

Actually the Daly quite clearly stated they would happily discuss a soft cap solution. It was in reagrds to the NBA soft cap where when he clarified his position clearly stated a soft cap gets discussions going as it ties the cap to revenues. An arbitrary number is quite meaningless. It has to be flexible to change as teh league changes...good or bad. Especially with being gate driven.

They may be going for a hard cap but a soft cap discussion gets the players committed to the one main obstacle....tying salaries to revenue in order to define the soft cap. If the players were to define their thresholds for administering tax as a percentage of revenues the NHL would go back to the table.

 

[hockeytown9321]

How bout this for a cap: Each team gets to spend 55% of their revenue. If Detroit generates $90 million in revenue, their cap is 49.5 million. If Nashville generates $30 million, their cap is 16.5. Doesn't that tie salary to revenue? Why isn't that fair?

 

[Motown Beatdown]

How bout this for a cap: Each team gets to spend 55% of their revenue. If Detroit generates $90 million in revenue, their cap is 49.5 million. If Nashville generates $30 million, their cap is 16.5. Doesn't that tie salary to revenue? Why isn't that fair?

Then the NHL and NHLPA would fight like dogs as what is "hockey revenue"

 

[SENSible1*]

good to see you have come over the side that thinks this mess is due to the owners refusal to negotiate.

the owners refuse a soft cap premise, so why do you support their tactics ?

dr

Actually the Daly quite clearly stated they would happily discuss a soft cap solution. It was in reagrds to the NBA soft cap where when he clarified his position clearly stated a soft cap gets discussions going as it ties the cap to revenues. An arbitrary number is quite meaningless. It has to be flexible to change as teh league changes...good or bad. Especially with being gate driven.

They may be going for a hard cap but a soft cap discussion gets the players committed to the one main obstacle....tying salaries to revenue in order to define the soft cap. If the players were to define their thresholds for administering tax as a percentage of revenues the NHL would go back to the table.

Thanks for saving me the keystrokes.

PA supporters seem oblivious to the facts if they don't fit their preconcieved notions.

An NBA-style soft cap is very much in play, if the players are smart enough to take the owners up on it.

 

[YellHockey*]

Then the NHL and NHLPA would fight like dogs as what is "hockey revenue"

But it is a lot easier to say what is and isn't revenue for an individual business then to try and come up with a single solution for 30 different businesses.

 

[CorneliusBennet]

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

 

[txpd]

How bout this for a cap: Each team gets to spend 55% of their revenue. If Detroit generates $90 million in revenue, their cap is 49.5 million. If Nashville generates $30 million, their cap is 16.5. Doesn't that tie salary to revenue? Why isn't that fair?

You are not serious are you? of course you are a detroit fan and want to keep your spending advantage. you dont mind that only 6 or 8 NHL teams can afford an NHL brand name player at ufa eligibility. you don't mind that 6 or 8 teams can afford to dress a lineup entirely made up of established/household name players while half the league is lucky to have as many as 1 brand name player.

you dont care that its bad for the nhl as a whole when the Stanley Cup finals are Jerome Iginla and 19 no names vs Vinny Lecavalier, Martin St Louis and 18 no names because those complaining are all saying they miss Detroit. Of course the reason that Calgary and Tampa have no name rosters is that because the NHL is Detroit, Colorado and 4 or 5 other teams full of established players and then the rest of the league that no one cares about. no cares about them because in that system only last year did a team outside the top 10 in spending win the cup. the teams that win are the big money teams and there is no reason to create brand name players in markets like Calgary or Tampa or Edmonton or Pheonix. You dont care that life is tough for 20 NHL teams because you are a Wings fan. You either dont care that its tough or only care about the rest of the league so far as the Wings needs someone to beat.