Sportsnet: NHL includes stiff luxury tax in latest proposal

[NYIsles1*]

So in your world, there should be a rich league and a poor league??? Rich teams spend because they can, and the small market teams can't so they will be a Tier 2 league, I wonder how much they would charge for tickets? I wonder how well the teams in the rich league would do amongst themselves? Bottom line is the big boys(Rag$ and Leaf$) need the bottom feeders like Nashville and the Oilers....It makes no sense to say that the teams that afford to spend, just go ahead and spend, ala the NY Yankees in MLB, and the NYR in the NHL...these types of teams and markets are a major part of the problem...

Rich corporate ownership, not rich teams making profits. Big difference. Why do you think there is so much resistance among owners with regard to profit sharing...

No profits.

The Ranger drew tv ratings equal to only 60,000 homes with an 80m dollar team in 2003-04. Are the Oilers doing this poorly on television or playing to the empty seats the Rangers do?

The Ranger problem is they play in an oversaturated sports market, no matter what they spend trying to copy the Yankees they cannot get any attention regardless of what happens on the ice. Unfortunatley we have too many folks who do not know or understand the New York hockey market or Ranger fans who live in 1994 when the Yankees and Mets were still low payroll teams struggling and baseball still had an
off-season in this region so the media had to fill the space with hockey.

 

[Wetcoaster]

Wetcoaster using Burke to prove a point. Will miracles never cease?

He was bound to eventually get something right - just on the law of averages

 

[NYIsles1*]

I bet 90% of edmontonians can name at least 10 players on the Oilers. You can't say the same about New Yorkers.

And this is where New York is an awful hockey market and why it losses money operating. People can already name Robinson Canoe but ask them to name five hockey players and it's not going to happen unless that person is a die-hard hockey fan in a market that only draws from one demographic of the population.

What's interesting about this is the Oilers come close to breaking even while the Rangers reportedly claim 40.9m in losses.

There is nothing big market about any of this. Which is why all team should play with a low cap.

 

[Brent Burns Beard]

There is nothing big market about any of this. Which is why all team should play with a low cap.

why should they if they choose not to ? NYR made their bed, why should anyone care ?

if everyone can see that the EDM model is more productive than the NYR model, yet they choose the NYR model, so be it.

i am not prepared to lose another season of hockey simply to save NYR from themselves.

dr

 

[NYIsles1*]

why should they if they choose not to ? NYR made their bed, why should anyone care ?

As I wrote the other day in response to you unfortunately when a few teams do set a player market like this it drives up the salary for everyone. That's why you have to care if a few teams set a market this high because it filters down to every player on every team when it's time to negotiate a new contract. That's why the avg NHL salary is 1.8 million today.

You cannot dismiss it as so be it, keep spending, who cares? It's that thinking that forced the owners to say enough and shut the sport down.

i am not prepared to lose another season of hockey simply to save NYR from themselves.

It's not about just any one team, it's about the entire business.

 

[Brent Burns Beard]

As I wrote the other day in response to you unfortunately when a few teams do set a player market like this it drives up the salary for everyone. That's why you have to care if a few teams set a market this high because it filters down to every player on every team when it's time to negotiate a new contract. That's why the avg NHL salary is 1.8 million today.

You cannot dismiss it as so be it, keep spending, who cares? It's that thinking that forced the owners to say enough and shut the sport down.


It's not about just any one team, it's about the entire business.

the players offered to reset the market place and put in provisions to help keep it down. if the owners cant control themselves, i really dont care if it costs them millions.

fact is, no one should feel sorry for the NYR nor support shutting down hockey while using NYR as a case study.

dr

 

[nyr7andcounting]

So in your world, there should be a rich league and a poor league??? Rich teams spend because they can, and the small market teams can't so they will be a Tier 2 league, I wonder how much they would charge for tickets? I wonder how well the teams in the rich league would do amongst themselves? Bottom line is the big boys(Rag$ and Leaf$) need the bottom feeders like Nashville and the Oilers....It makes no sense to say that the teams that afford to spend, just go ahead and spend, ala the NY Yankees in MLB, and the NYR in the NHL...these types of teams and markets are a major part of the problem...

No, in my world there would be almost 80% revenue sharing in the NHL...but unfortunetly the owners don't want a partnership with each other. The big markets DO need the small markets, so just as the NFL did when they realized this in the 60's, the big markets should share a ton of revenue.

The problem of competition on and off the ice is ONLY solved by revenue sharing...there is no other way to solve it. So for someone to come on here and argue that the league need a cap and cost certainty etc. in order to level the playing field, it doesn't make any sense.

However, if the big markets don't share revenue and as long as they still have it in their pocket, why should they be stopped from spending it? As a NYR fan, if my money isn't going to Nashville to help them become more competative, than why can't it be going back into my team to make my team more competative? Who exactly does it help to have Dolan making a huge profit off the Rangers under a cap? Doesn't help me or any of the other 29 teams in the league.

 

[nyr7andcounting]

Try to look at the situation from the perspective of someone who has not been benefiting from the inequities in payroll. In Edmonton the team is barely scraping by. The owners bought the team not to make a profit, but because they were locals who felt the area deserved NHL hockey. I bet 90% of edmontonians can name at least 10 players on the Oilers. You can't say the same about New Yorkers. You can't have followed hockey closely and argue that over the 90's to now that the Oilers have not been ***** of their best players by rich teams. The oilers will not survive unless an agreement is reached that will allow them to ice a competitive team which means a competitive payroll. Now I'd agree with someone who said that if thats the case maybe Edmonton is not a NHL worthy city, except that Edmonton has more revenue than about 10 other teams. So are you advocating that 10 teams fold. I've never heard of a Union that fights to try and get a third of their members fired. I don't really care if the owners end up getting rich off hockey or if the players end up getting rich as long as the competition is equal (or at least close to equal). I'm not so naive that I believe all teams will end up equal, but if the NHL was a marathon some teams have been getting a ten mile head start. The players have admitted the system is out of wack, but they are still asking for a 5 mile head start. The owners are saying if there has to be a head start it can only be 1 or 2 miles otherwise what is the point of even racing.

Yea, that is the problem with the league right now, but the bigger problem is that the NHL hasn't tried to solve any of those problems yet you still support their solutions as if they would.

"The owners brought the team to make a profit", "The oilers will not survive unless an agreement is reached that will allow them to ice a competitive team which means a competitive payroll"...how does stopping NYR spending at $42.5M help either of these two? The Oilers will only be slightly more competative and will only have slightly more revenues from being competative. With revenue sharing, the Oilers will make a profit and/or ice a more competative team.

Every one of your problems is solved by pure revenue sharing, not by a cap or anything else.

 

[garry1221]

No, in my world there would be almost 80% revenue sharing in the NHL...but unfortunetly the owners don't want a partnership with each other. The big markets DO need the small markets, so just as the NFL did when they realized this in the 60's, the big markets should share a ton of revenue.

The problem of competition on and off the ice is ONLY solved by revenue sharing...there is no other way to solve it. So for someone to come on here and argue that the league need a cap and cost certainty etc. in order to level the playing field, it doesn't make any sense.

However, if the big markets don't share revenue and as long as they still have it in their pocket, why should they be stopped from spending it? As a NYR fan, if my money isn't going to Nashville to help them become more competative, than why can't it be going back into my team to make my team more competative? Who exactly does it help to have Dolan making a huge profit off the Rangers under a cap? Doesn't help me or any of the other 29 teams in the league.

if the nhl had the revenues for revenue sharing it'd be easy. but without a national tv deal, without significant sponsorship money, then it's useless to even try it IMO. right now the televised games are so isolated it's not worth the time trying to pool the money and spread the wealth. Why should $$ from the tv rights in atlanta be used to better the oilers of flames, a team they seldom play (just an example)... the nhl needs a good national tv revenue stream before revenue sharing even comes into play. i know that's not the only revenue that can be shared, but it's the easiest to keep track of. IMO if a team markets itself better and thus its revenue stream grows quicker than a team that hardly markets itself, then IMO the owner of the profitable team SHOULD get his just reward (being able to do what he wants w/ the extra money the team has made), if he chooses to put the money back into his team, great, all for the better of the team and game, if he chooses to pocket it, then good for him, he earned it by providing a good product.

 

[nyr7andcounting]

42.5-45 million will act as a basement for teams, so the average teams payroll will go up, hence the reason a cap over 40 million won't work.

The average payroll was about $40M under the old CBA. You think that number will go UP under a $42.5M-$45M cap? That's ridiculous.

 

[nyr7andcounting]

if the nhl had the revenues for revenue sharing it'd be easy. but without a national tv deal, without significant sponsorship money, then it's useless to even try it IMO.

How much is shared means nothing it's the rate that is shared. What you said doesn't even make any sense.

If revenue sharing is at 60%, NYR shares 60% of revenues wether they are $1.00 or $100M. The absence of a tv deal and some other revenues just means that everyone in the sport makes less, it doesn't mean that you can't share revenues.

 

[AXN]

Make it 25-40M with 100% luxury tax starting at $32.5M and we have a deal. Based on 2.1B revenues, changed accordingly.

I think its too low. I would make it 25 to 45 with 100% lux tax starting at 40 to 45.
That would take it to 50. You are basically taking the salaries down by about 5 years. Five years ago if you have told the owners that your salaries will remain the same until the revenue picked up then we would never be in this mess right now.They can still lose money but so can anybody and they did manage five years ago.

 

[WC Handy*]

the players offered to reset the market place and put in provisions to help keep it down. if the owners cant control themselves, i really dont care if it costs them millions.

fact is, no one should feel sorry for the NYR nor support shutting down hockey while using NYR as a case study.

dr

How is it that you still haven't grasped the fact that the actions of the New York Rangers negatively effect every other team inthe league?

 

[Brent Burns Beard]

How is it that you still haven't grasped the fact that the actions of the New York Rangers negatively effect every other team inthe league?

because they dont ....

why havent you grasped the fact that NYR can sign all the Holiks they want for 500 billion dollars per shift and it wont make them any better, nor would it have any affect on the RFA market.

dr

 

[WC Handy*]

because they dont ....

why havent you grasped the fact that NYR can sign all the Holiks they want for 500 billion dollars per shift and it wont make them any better, nor would it have any affect on the RFA market.

dr

I haven't grasped that fact because it's entirely innaccurate. Every single signing regardless of their free agency status has an effect on the player market.

 

[Brent Burns Beard]

I haven't grasped that fact because it's entirely innaccurate. Every single signing regardless of their free agency status has an effect on the player market.

oh really .. and what team was affected by the Darius Kasperitus signing or the Alexei Yashin signing.

dr

 

[mooseOAK*]

oh really .. and what team was affected by the Darius Kasperitus signing or the Alexei Yashin signing.

dr

Every team who signed a free agent or had to go through arbitration afterwards.

 

[Brent Burns Beard]

Every team who signed a free agent or had to go through arbitration afterwards.

1) UFA are not elegible as comparisons in arbitration ... so Kasperitus has no effect
2) any GM who can be swayed by an agent saying "Kasper or Yashin" make this much so my player should be paid relative ... . deserves to pay the contract.

seriously, you think anyone would take an agent seriously comparing his player to Yashin in contract talks ?

dr

 

[Mess]

Every team who signed a free agent or had to go through arbitration afterwards.

Yet even with a Hard Cap that does still not prevent this from happening ..

Arbitration is not going to look at CAP room when awarding Salaries in the future .. These same bad contracts NEW or OLD CBA will have the same effect ..

The only difference now in a Hard Cap world if the Team wants to keep the player and accept the award then they have to cut other players and fill the bottom of their roster with Glorifed AHLers to now fit under a Cap.

Each bad contract in the New CBA weakens a team on the ice, where as before it just weakened the pocket book of the owner that gave out the bad contract.

 

[AM]

?

This is why it is pointless to even discuss salary cap issues.

I suppose the Red Wings were guilty of ruining the league.
Yet, never once did they go out and sign a UFA still coveted by his old team. Nearly all the UFAs signed by the Wings were guys at the end of their career.

Never once did the Wings go out and offer a huge contract to an RFA, unlike the the "responsible" small market owners like Karmanos, who is might just be the dumbest SOB involved in the lockout. (He moves a struggling team to Carolina??? Then he makes one of the most inflationary contract offers in recent league history. And now he says it's not fair??? Pshaw!)

Nope. Illitch turned around a franchise that was struggling for 30 years. In the process, he helped bring much needed life to downtown Detroit (without the success of the Wings, the Lions would still be out in the suburbs).
And guess what? Detroit isn't some mega market.
In baseball, it's a medium to small market. In football, it's a medium market.
Chicago or Boston could have done every thing Detroit did, quite easily.

All Detroit did was MARKET THE HELL out of its hockey team. And it paid off.
Wings tickets are still the hottest item in town. ANd fans willing to pay the big bucks are gauranteed to see one of the most talented teams in the league.

Thank god the league is getting a salary cap, so this never happens again.

Youre saying the players the Wings purchase arnt coveted by their old teams?

How much do they get them for? A jock strap?

 

[Brent Burns Beard]

Youre saying the players the Wings purchase arnt coveted by their old teams?

How much do they get them for? A jock strap?

\

i dunno ... do you think the team that lost Uwe Krupp for 16m was crying about it ?

the wings have never purchased anyone anhyhow ... unless you consider buying Draper from WPG for $1.00, i suppose thats one purchase.

but in the context you refer to, did CGY purchase Brad Werenka when they signed him away from PIT for 2.5m per season ?

dr

 

[AM]

no that dosnt make sense

In real poker no, you sit at a table with whatever you have and start playing On TV they are only equal because they all buy in the same amount. World Series of Poker is a 10k buy-in for everyone who wants to be in it, and no matter who you are it costs you that much to get in.

In the NHL the buy in prices are not the same. Big market teams cost almost double what small market teams would cost, maybe even more. If you want all the NHL owners to have the same amount, the NHL is going to need to sell all the franchises for the same amount. If you want the Leafs to spend as much as the Preds, than the Preds and Leafs owners need to make the same investment when they come into the league. Since that's basically impossible, it would make sense that owners who pay more to get into the league and make a higher-risk investment are allowed to have a little more cash or spending power than owners who payed less.

They are selling a competative league.

Where's the competition if one team is the farm team of the other.... for ever?

This is the reason the NHL and NHLPA are still at impass.

 

[AM]

sure

Making all teams equal is not what this lockout is about..


This lockout is about $..

I dare anyone to say otherwize

but alot of teams have recognized that they cant make money if they cant field a competative team.....

 

[mooseOAK*]

1) UFA are not elegible as comparisons in arbitration ... so Kasperitus has no effect
2) any GM who can be swayed by an agent saying "Kasper or Yashin" make this much so my player should be paid relative ... . deserves to pay the contract.

seriously, you think anyone would take an agent seriously comparing his player to Yashin in contract talks ?

dr

Whether you think that an agent is going to be taken seriously comparing his player to Yashin they sure are going to do it. They are all going to be using the highest paid comparable player when trying to negotiate their guy's contact, that is the way the NHLPA and the agents work it.

 

[Brent Burns Beard]

Whether you think that an agent is going to be taken seriously comparing his player to Yashin they sure are going to do it. They are all going to be using the highest paid comparable player when trying to negotiate their guy's contact, that is the way the NHLPA and the agents work it.

except that Yashin sucks and is a pariah.

i completly disagree that any GM worth having an NHL job would accept Yashin as a comparable at contract time. if you want to compare your player to Yashin, i wouldnt want him on my team.

hell, Wade Brookbank is better for your team than Yashin is.

dr