Little fella says no to luxury tax

[hockeytown9321]

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.

thanks for the insight. :lol

 

[hockeytown9321]

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

They're going to have to fight on of there's a uniform cap too.

C'mon people, its a salary cap. Salary is linked to revenue. How can anybody complain?

 

[PecaFan]

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

Heh, you can always tell when you've got a PA type cornered with no good answer, because out comes the invective.

That idea with "zero merit" is exactly what happened last lockout. After fighting for months, the NHLPA gave in and gave the owners what they wanted, a salary cap on rookies amongst other things.

That deal has been pure gold for the players, yet they threw away hundreds of millions of dollars in salary to fight it. They could have signed that deal on day one.

The exact same thing applies right now.

 

[tantalum]

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?

Because that leaves the second main obstacle still in play...revenue disparity between teams. The players want to address that with predominantly revenue sharing. The owners have said increased revenue will be a part of a new CBA (concession owners btw). With increased revenue sharing which the players want the ONLY meaningful way to define any sort of revenue is on a league wide basis. Hence the concession on the players part MUST be tying salaries to revenue.

Of course your idea has a little merit...it will MAKE the NHLPA discuss what is and what isn't revenue to set those individual team budgets which is really what the whole problem in this negotiation is...the players refuse to look at the numbers.

 

[Motown Beatdown]

An interesting note, yesterday Steve Yzerman was on a local radio show and when asked about the players luxury tax proposal. He basically said they (the players) will be more than willing to negotiate the percentage of the tax with the owners if they would come to the table, so their offer isn't set in stone as in the tax percentage. He believe the union has made a major concession willing to take a luxury tax and increase revenue sharing to help the small market teams. He said he hasn't heard about a so called drop dead date to cancel the season but feels if a deal isn't done by Jan 15th the season will pretty much be over.

About hockey he said his excited to play in tonights charity game in Ann Arbor against the USA U-18 teams and kinda worried about those kids who beat Notre Dame 7-2. HE also said he cant wait to go to Russia to play in Lariniov's farewell game. He said when hockey starts up he will be wearing a visor. He's been a soccer dad since the season ended driving his girls to practice and school and what not.

 

[tantalum]

An interesting note, yesterday Steve Yzerman was on a local radio show and when asked about the players luxury tax proposal. He basically said they (the players) will be more than willing to negotiate the percentage of the tax with the owners if they would come to the table, so their offer isn't set in stone as in the tax percentage. He believe the union has made a major concession willing to take a luxury tax and increase revenue sharing to help the small market teams. He said he hasn't heard about a so called drop dead date to cancel the season but feels if a deal isn't done by Jan 15th the season will pretty much be over.

revenue sharing isn't a concession by the players but by the owners. Everyone realizes the tax number isn't set in stone but what is set in stone right now is the players do not want to define the threshold as a percentage of revenues...that's the concession they will have to make to get the owners back to the table. On the other side the owners proposals are also not set in stone...the cap level etc is open for discussion should the players come to the table. But the league has some sort of cap set in stone right now and unless they move from it the players aren't coming back to the table.

Neither side is willing to negotiate UNTIL the other side moves from this one position. Of course the players would go to the table if the owners dropped the requirement to tie salaries to revenues...that would be a HUGE concession on the owners part and signal a NHLPA victory for the CBA. It makes me laugh when I hear people on either side say things like YZerman said which is absically "if you drop your major issue and give in to us we'll be back at the table".

The only question in all this is who gives in. I think it HAS to be the players. They need to bring in a signfiicant tax with a realistically low threshold that can be related to league revenues (especially if the players want revenue sharing) in exchange the league will drop the hard cap ideas and instead negotiate a soft cap/luxury tax system. If the owners give in the league is dead.

 

[petrobruin]

What Compromise

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

The NHLPA wouldn'yt even stand behind their numbers!

GOOD compromise!

Its not worth the paper its written on.

Pure B.S.

Petr

 

[hockeytown9321]

Because that leaves the second main obstacle still in play...revenue disparity between teams. The players want to address that with predominantly revenue sharing. The owners have said increased revenue will be a part of a new CBA (concession owners btw). With increased revenue sharing which the players want the ONLY meaningful way to define any sort of revenue is on a league wide basis. Hence the concession on the players part MUST be tying salaries to revenue.

Of course your idea has a little merit...it will MAKE the NHLPA discuss what is and what isn't revenue to set those individual team budgets which is really what the whole problem in this negotiation is...the players refuse to look at the numbers.

Silly me, I thought the main issue as a salary cap. I'm willing to bet that if the PA went to the league with this proposal, they would take it.

 

[tantalum]

Silly me, I thought the main issue as a salary cap. I'm willing to bet that if the PA went to the league with this proposal, they would take it.

There are two issues that the NHL has repeatedly said must be addressed in the new CBA. The first is of cost certainty, i.e. linking player expenditures to league revenues (a cap soft or hard). The second is decreasing or ridding revenue disparities among the clubs. To address some of the second one the league has said increased revenue sharing. To deal with it the rest of the way will most likely be in conjunction with the solution to the first issue. Your "solution" does not address those concerns just as the NHLPA solutions do not effectively address the primary concerns or needs of the owners who are and should continue to be in the drivers seat.

 

[hockeytown9321]

There are two issues that the NHL has repeatedly said must be addressed in the new CBA. The first is of cost certainty, i.e. linking player expenditures to league revenues (a cap soft or hard). The second is decreasing or ridding revenue disparities among the clubs. To address some of the second one the league has said increased revenue sharing. To deal with it the rest of the way will most likely be in conjunction with the solution to the first issue. Your "solution" does not address those concerns just as the NHLPA solutions do not effectively address the primary concerns or needs of the owners who are and should continue to be in the drivers seat.

You think the the league cares about competitive balance. Bettman can pay lip service to Edmonton and Calgary all he wants. Their demand of a cap is about profit, nothing else. If you think otherwise, you're very naive.

 

[SENSible1*]

You think the the league cares about competitive balance. Bettman can pay lip service to Edmonton and Calgary all he wants. Their demand of a cap is about profit, nothing else. If you think otherwise, you're very naive.

Some people work very hard at missing the point.

What do you think the effect on league wide revenues and profits would be if your proposal was accepted?

 

[hockeytown9321]

Some people work very hard at missing the point.

What do you think the effect on league wide revenues and profits would be if your proposal was accepted?

Profits would be guaranteed. My proposal includes a link between salary and revenue where salary cannot be greater than revenue, does it not?

 

[txpd]

You think the the league cares about competitive balance. Bettman can pay lip service to Edmonton and Calgary all he wants. Their demand of a cap is about profit, nothing else. If you think otherwise, you're very naive.

I think you are much to quick to dismiss competitive balance has part of a total package to make the league as a whole profitable. When half or more teams in the NHL are not regularly competitive, do not have brand name players on their rosters, they are a terrible drag on the league. In the NBA and the NFL a championship matchup of teams just like Tampa Bay and Calgary would have been a strong draw.
In those leagues where there is more competitive balance teams build an identity and build brand name players as they improve. they are not off the league radar entirely for 5, 6, 8 years. Tampa in particular is a team full of exciting stars that are relatively unknown because the franchise was not competitive for most of a decade. by the time the current NHL system builds Lecavalier, Richards, St Louis, Kubina, Khabibulin and Boyle into brand name players, the majority of them will be with different teams.

The plan fact is that one of serious problems that the NHL has is that half its teams fall into the off the radar catagory. A sport fighting to stay national vs its regional history with teams that mostly have no more than local value. Unless the NHL can get more competitive balance and accellerate the rebuild time the league will continue to have 50% of its games involving at least one team that no one past its local market cares about and 25% of its games with both teams in that catagory.

Yes, its about profit. But the bare facts are that the NHL will never be profitable if only 6 or 8 teams are regularly competitive and hold any interest past their home markets like the current NHL is. Pheonix vs Tampa might be a great NHL game this season, but no one outside of those sunbelt markets will watch. that needs to change.

 

[hockeytown9321]

I think you are much to quick to dismiss competitive balance has part of a total package to make the league as a whole profitable. When half or more teams in the NHL are not regularly competitive, do not have brand name players on their rosters, they are a terrible drag on the league. In the NBA and the NFL a championship matchup of teams just like Tampa Bay and Calgary would have been a strong draw.
In those leagues where there is more competitive balance teams build an identity and build brand name players as they improve. they are not off the league radar entirely for 5, 6, 8 years. Tampa in particular is a team full of exciting stars that are relatively unknown because the franchise was not competitive for most of a decade. by the time the current NHL system builds Lecavalier, Richards, St Louis, Kubina, Khabibulin and Boyle into brand name players, the majority of them will be with different teams.

The plan fact is that one of serious problems that the NHL has is that half its teams fall into the off the radar catagory. A sport fighting to stay national vs its regional history with teams that mostly have no more than local value. Unless the NHL can get more competitive balance and accellerate the rebuild time the league will continue to have 50% of its games involving at least one team that no one past its local market cares about and 25% of its games with both teams in that catagory.

Yes, its about profit. But the bare facts are that the NHL will never be profitable if only 6 or 8 teams are regularly competitive and hold any interest past their home markets like the current NHL is. Pheonix vs Tampa might be a great NHL game this season, but no one outside of those sunbelt markets will watch. that needs to change.

How could competitive balance make a bit of difference in guaranteeing profit under my scenario? Salary is linked to revenue. Its foolproof.

And I don't know how much NFL you watch, but teams fall off the radar extemely quickly, mostly becuase of the cap. When teams get good, the good players get raises and teams can't afford all of them. And its also much easier to rebuild in the NFL. their draft is much less of a crapshoot.

 

[cassius]

The NHL needs a salary cap.. .teams like the Rangers and the Redwings are just getting far too rediculous.

Why not even the playing field?

 

[hockeytown9321]

The NHL needs a salary cap.. .teams like the Rangers and the Redwings are just getting far too rediculous.

Why not even the playing field?

Yeah, how dare the Red Wings draft guys like Yzerman, Fedorov and Lidstrom. They should probably be disqualified from playing for a few years whenever the league comes back. They need to be treated like Germany after World War I. They have to be stopped.

 

[quat]

Yeah, how dare the Red Wings draft guys like Yzerman, Fedorov and Lidstrom. They should probably be disqualified from playing for a few years whenever the league comes back. They need to be treated like Germany after World War I. They have to be stopped.

Your arguments are far from convincing when you purposely ignore what the post is about. No one said the Red Wings didn't draft well, so why bring that into the conversation? The topic was the Wings inflato budgets (although certainly not them alone), that have skewed the payrolls of all teams.

Plus before talking about German history, you may actually want to do a little more recent research. There's a strong opinion that the main reason Germany became so beligerent wasn't the monetary penalty imposed after their loss. It was due "primarily" to the general feeling that Germany in fact did not lose the first WW. They never suffered any losses on home soil and it was common public opinion after the War, given on many occassions by the military, that they were let down by their government and that was the only reason they "lost" WW1. Obviously the harsh monetary penalties didn't help, but the World recession at that time would have spanked Germany as it did every country in the world.

blah blah blah.

 

[hockeytown9321]

Your arguments are far from convincing when you purposely ignore what the post is about. No one said the Red Wings didn't draft well, so why bring that into the conversation? The topic was the Wings inflato budgets (although certainly not them alone), that have skewed the payrolls of all teams.

Plus before talking about German history, you may actually want to do a little more recent research. There's a strong opinion that the main reason Germany became so beligerent wasn't the monetary penalty imposed after their loss. It was due "primarily" to the general feeling that Germany in fact did not lose the first WW. They never suffered any losses on home soil and it was common public opinion after the War, given on many occassions by the military, that they were let down by their government and that was the only reason they "lost" WW1. Obviously the harsh monetary penalties didn't help, but the World recession at that time would have spanked Germany as it did every country in the world.

blah blah blah.

Uh, when did I say why Germany did or didn't lose. No matter the reason they lost, they were decimated after the war by the victors as punishment.

And how do I ignore the purpose of the post? All i've heard from bettman is that there must be a cap. I proposed a cap. What's the problem?

 

[Steve L*]

The NHL needs a salary cap.. .teams like the Rangers and the Redwings are just getting far too rediculous.

Why not even the playing field?

Because teams like the Wings, Flyers and Avs have worked hard to build up a fanbase to support their spending. They shouldnt have to support other teams because they are in a city where noone cares about hockey or dont even try to succede (like the Hawks).

A cap based in income or a cap on a per player basis would suit me as I believe teams should work for their success, not have it put on a plate for them through artificial means.

 

[YellHockey*]

No one said the Red Wings didn't draft well, so why bring that into the conversation? The topic was the Wings inflato budgets (although certainly not them alone), that have skewed the payrolls of all teams.

What contracts have the Red Wings signed that have inflated the payrolls of all teams?

 

[FLYLine27*]

The NHL needs a salary cap.. .teams like the Rangers and the Redwings are just getting far too rediculous.

Why not even the playing field?

Yes the Rangers and ther 44 million payroll. WOAH! Funny how the average team salary is 45 million.

 

[PecaFan]

Because teams like the Wings, Flyers and Avs have worked hard to build up a fanbase to support their spending. They shouldnt have to support other teams because they are in a city where noone cares about hockey or dont even try to succede (like the Hawks).

If they think like that, they need to study more Star Trek.

The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few.

Besides, a strong league benefits the Wings and Avs more than it does to keep things the same.

 

[txpd]

Because teams like the Wings, Flyers and Avs have worked hard to build up a fanbase to support their spending. They shouldnt have to support other teams because they are in a city where noone cares about hockey or dont even try to succede (like the Hawks).

A cap based in income or a cap on a per player basis would suit me as I believe teams should work for their success, not have it put on a plate for them through artificial means.

Part of what makes your position mistaken is the idea that particularly Detroit and Philadelphia are working in markets that would yield the same kind of revenue as most any other NHL market. if each of the 30 NHL markets reached their revenue maximum, Detroit and Philly would more than double the revenue of more than half the teams in the league.

What you are basically saying is that because the Red Wings and Flyers got into the league early and got the best markets that they should have a spending advantage over teams that came later and had to take smaller markets.

 

[quat]

Uh, when did I say why Germany did or didn't lose. No matter the reason they lost, they were decimated after the war by the victors as punishment.

And how do I ignore the purpose of the post? All i've heard from bettman is that there must be a cap. I proposed a cap. What's the problem?

Hmm... I believe you intentionally try and find anyway to disagree with people who you deem to hold a different opinion than your own.

First, maybe you should read my post about Germany again, because you don't seem to understand what I wrote. Perhaps I wasn't very clear. It relates to the effects of the "punishment" Germany recieved for attacking it's neighbours. Since you seem to equate it with something rather spurious, I thought it worth commenting on. But rereading your post, the comment is rather off the cuff, and it's not really totally clear what you intended by it. Anyhow, no big deal.

Second: A poster said that New York and Detroit were responsible for inflating salaries. You responded to that post with a comment about Detroits drafting ability. I pointed out that your post didn't deal with the posters comment. Now you come back talking about Bettman, his cap and your own.

I'm stating that you answer peoples posts with comments that have little or nothing to do with what they wrote. It's really annoying, because one never gets a chance at resolving what's being discussed.

If you disagree with his point that the Rangers and Detroit are responsible for rising salaries, then let us know why. Please don't come back with indignant comments about something unrelated, such as their drafting, or the players wives or how Bettman is a troll.

Very simple.

 

[quat]

What contracts have the Red Wings signed that have inflated the payrolls of all teams?

Well recently I'd say guys like Hasek or Cujo or even Whitney. Lidstrom when he re-signed stands out. Hatcher. These are certainly the more recent signings.