Stan Fischler's latest take on the lockout

Status
Not open for further replies.

CarlRacki

Registered User
Feb 9, 2004
1,442
2
ScottyBowman said:
http://www.nhlfa.com/CBA/cba_agreement21.asp

I had to look it up because I didn't believe you. $8000 CDN per year can not even feed my dog. I'd love to see someone try to support a family on that.

$8,000 a year to feed your dog? Hey look ... it's Mike Modano!

Seriously though, if you read the entire section you linked, it indicates that players can expect a $250K payout by the time they're 55 years old. This is in addition to Social Security benefits and whatever they (the smart ones, at least) have tucked away from the multi-million dollar salaries over the year.
Sorry, but if a former NHL player can't afford his retirement then he's an idiot.
 

RangerBoy

Dolan sucks!!!
Mar 3, 2002
44,912
21,238
New York
www.youtube.com
ScottyBowman said:
Using the NBA is a poor example. They have 12 men on the roster and they have a soft cap and the majority of teams are over the cap. Splitting $50 mil + over 12 players is nothing to complain about.

The NHL players received 75% of the gross revenue in 03-04.The NBA players received 58% of the gross revenue in 03-04 and the NFL players received 64% of the gross revenue in 03.The NHL is last in revenue and pays out the most in salaries.Is that fair?Does that make cents?The NBA and NFL have caps with both leagues having greater revenue than the NHL
 

nyr7andcounting

Registered User
Feb 24, 2004
1,919
0
CarlRacki said:
Since when did the PA offer cost certainty? And, more importantly, how can cost certainty be accomplished without a cap?

Well really cost certaity can be reached at any time by any sports owner, simply by saying "no", which apparently some owners can't do. But anyway, cost certainty via a CBA can be accomplished in more ways than one. There are numerous ways to assure that salaries stay at certain levels, there are many things the NHL can either change or implement into a new CBA that would put salaries at around 56%-60% of the net. The NHL didn't get to this point because of not having a cap, they got to this point because of all the salary triggers present in the last CBA. If you fix those triggers to keep salaries steady rather than inflate them on a yearly basis and you rollback salaries at the current time to whatever percentage of the net you want them at, than there really should not be a problem keeping those salaries there.

Roll back salaries immidiately to let's say 60% of the net revenue of the NHL. Essentially, we are starting over. Salaries are now at the right level, so all you need to do is devise a way to keep them there. Well, changes to entry level salaries, a cap on entry level salaries, major changes in the arbitration process-if not abolishing it completely, changes to the RFA process by which currently players of any standing are due a 10% raise-at the least, implementation of a luxury tax which is not too violent that it increases spending but not to soft that no one cares about it, and a high high hard cap just to ensure that the biggest of markets don't continue to spend whatever they want(like the Yanks)... all things that would help and a combo, if not all, of these things would keep salaries at their current level(which after the rollback would be 60% of net, or whatever they agreed upon)

There are a million things you could do to put and/or keep salaries at a certain level. An absolute hard cap at the level you want, all though it would put salaries there, would put way to much money in some owners pockets, not that they would mind, but that doesn't seem right to me. Obviously a hard cap could work, but it is not needed to have a working system. The idea that a hard cap is the only way to put salaries at a certain level is ridiculous.
 

ScottyBowman

Registered User
Mar 10, 2003
2,361
0
Detroit
Visit site
CarlRacki said:
$8,000 a year to feed your dog? Hey look ... it's Mike Modano!

Seriously though, if you read the entire section you linked, it indicates that players can expect a $250K payout by the time they're 55 years old. This is in addition to Social Security benefits and whatever they (the smart ones, at least) have tucked away from the multi-million dollar salaries over the year.
Sorry, but if a former NHL player can't afford his retirement then he's an idiot.

Eye was trying to tell me how generous the owners were and that you'd be set for life after a few years just with the pension. I agree you'd be a complete idiot if you made millions but he vastly overrated the pension. In another link I found,
http://www.lapresrupture.qc.ca/cpa2July23_GlenMcGreggor.html

It says that you don't get your pension until you turn 65.
 

nyr7andcounting

Registered User
Feb 24, 2004
1,919
0
RangerBoy said:
The NHL players received 75% of the gross revenue in 03-04.The NBA players received 58% of the gross revenue in 03-04 and the NFL players received 64% of the gross revenue in 03.The NHL is last in revenue and pays out the most in salaries.Is that fair?Does that make cents?The NBA and NFL have caps with both leagues having greater revenue than the NHL

The NFL is not comparable to the NHL. The NBA is though. So let's say you decrease NHL salaries by whatever % that would put total salaries at 58% of the net, like the NBA. Than use a system like the NBA has, with a soft cap and cap exceptions. By making the comparison to the NBA are you saying that you want a system like that? The players would go for it I think. Unfortunetly though the NHL won't budge from the $30-something million hard cap.
 

Oilers Ent

Registered User
Aug 31, 2002
1,665
0
Burnaby, BC
robandgen.blogspot.com
Newsguyone said:
How so?
The owners last offer wasn't an offer.
There was nothing meaningful in it.

They had the audacity to take the players offer, spin the numbers around in a smarmy attempt to divide the union, and then add a salary cap.
You call that an offer?

Not that the PA's offer was an offer that was going to get this done. But it was a significant move, at least in terms of getting some movement.

Or do you have another reason why this is in the PA's court?


Bob?
 

CarlRacki

Registered User
Feb 9, 2004
1,442
2
nyr7andcounting said:
The NFL is not comparable to the NHL. The NBA is though. So let's say you decrease NHL salaries by whatever % that would put total salaries at 58% of the net, like the NBA. Than use a system like the NBA has, with a soft cap and cap exceptions. By making the comparison to the NBA are you saying that you want a system like that? The players would go for it I think. Unfortunetly though the NHL won't budge from the $30-something million hard cap.

1. If the players would go for it then they should offer it instead of running around saying they'll never, ever, ever work under a cap.
2. As a fan, I see an NBA-style system as ideal with a couple minor changes, i.e. a ban on sign-and-trades which may be the primary culprit for teams over the cap. Not that I have any influence over things in real life, but I've been advocating it around these boards for weeks.
3. Again, another person who claims to know what the NHL will and won't do. How do you know? Are you an owner? Bill Daly? Does your ouija board say so?
 

ScottyBowman

Registered User
Mar 10, 2003
2,361
0
Detroit
Visit site
RangerBoy said:
The NHL players received 75% of the gross revenue in 03-04.The NBA players received 58% of the gross revenue in 03-04 and the NFL players received 64% of the gross revenue in 03.The NHL is last in revenue and pays out the most in salaries.Is that fair?Does that make cents?The NBA and NFL have caps with both leagues having greater revenue than the NHL

The cap in the nba is set at $44 mil according to gross revenue. Got it? Good.

Now look at this link which shows each teams salaries

http://www.hoopshype.com/salaries.htm

How many teams are under the cap? Very few.

Do you want that kind of cap in the NHL? I bet the players do.
 

nyr7andcounting

Registered User
Feb 24, 2004
1,919
0
CarlRacki said:
1. If the players would go for it then they should offer it instead of running around saying they'll never, ever, ever work under a cap.
2. As a fan, I see an NBA-style system as ideal with a couple minor changes, i.e. a ban on sign-and-trades which may be the primary culprit for teams over the cap. Not that I have any influence over things in real life, but I've been advocating it around these boards for weeks.
3. Again, another person who claims to know what the NHL will and won't do. How do you know? Are you an owner? Bill Daly? Does your ouija board say so?

1. I think they should to, and hopefully if they did the NHL would be willing to take a soft cap.
2. I agree, the NBA has a pretty good system. So we agree you don't need an absolute hard cap in order to have a good system?
3. What are you talking about? Don't you read anything, listen to anything? They have SAID that they won't accept anything but cost certainty via a hard cap. How do I know? Because Bettman has said that about a thousand times over the last 4 months that they won't accept this, they will only accept that. Now I can only go on what the NHL says, so really I don't know exactly what they will and won't do. They coulda changed their minds, who knows. All I know is that the only info the NHL has made avalible to me is that they will only accept cost certainty via a hard cap.

And you didn't reply to the last thing I said to you, why not? Do you agree with me that a hard cap is not the only way to put salaries at a certain level and keep them there? You certaintly agree with the NBA system, which would support my claim that you don't.
 

CarlRacki

Registered User
Feb 9, 2004
1,442
2
nyr7andcounting said:
1. I think they should to, and hopefully if they did the NHL would be willing to take a soft cap.
2. I agree, the NBA has a pretty good system. So we agree you don't need an absolute hard cap in order to have a good system?
3. What are you talking about? Don't you read anything, listen to anything? They have SAID that they won't accept anything but cost certainty via a hard cap. How do I know? Because Bettman has said that about a thousand times over the last 4 months that they won't accept this, they will only accept that. Now I can only go on what the NHL says, so really I don't know exactly what they will and won't do. They coulda changed their minds, who knows. All I know is that the only info the NHL has made avalible to me is that they will only accept cost certainty via a hard cap.

And you didn't reply to the last thing I said to you, why not? Do you agree with me that a hard cap is not the only way to put salaries at a certain level and keep them there? You certaintly agree with the NBA system, which would support my claim that you don't.

I don't believe I've ever advocated for a firm hard cap. I will argue that it could work as it does in the NFL, but I don't think that's going to happen without an even more protracted lockout (2 years?). I see the NBA system as a fair compromise.
Do I believe the hard cap is the only sure way to set salaries at a certain level? Yes. Economic principle would dictate that, as would collusion regulations. Do I believe a hard cap is the only way to instill fiscal responsibility in a league and restore more competitive balance? No. A soft cap won't cure all that ails the game, but it's a step in the right direction and better than what exists now.
I've asked (others) but yet to be provided with a link, newspaper clip, sound clip or anything else in which Bettman has said "We will not accept an NBA-style system" or "We will not accept anything but a hard cap." If you can provide one, I'll tip my hat to you. Fact is, the NHL brought Bettman in 10+ years ago for the express purpose of establishing an NBA-style system in the league and he failed in '94 when the owners blinked first.
 

CarlRacki

Registered User
Feb 9, 2004
1,442
2
ScottyBowman said:
The cap in the nba is set at $44 mil according to gross revenue. Got it? Good.

Now look at this link which shows each teams salaries

http://www.hoopshype.com/salaries.htm

How many teams are under the cap? Very few.

Do you want that kind of cap in the NHL? I bet the players do.

Well, if the players want it why don't the offer it? Because they don't want it. They don't want a cap of any sort. Isn't that what they've been saying for years now?
There are several reasons many NBA teams are over the cap that could easily be avoided under a similar system in the NHL.
One reason so many teams in the NBA are over the cap is "sign-and-trades" which should be eliminated and hopefully would not be part of any NHL system.
The other reason is that the cap is not set at $44 million to keep teams from spending more than $44 million. It's set at a level that will keep revenue-heavy teams from having an advantage when it comes to other clubs' free agents. In fact, the NBA system puts those teams at a disadvantage by allowing them to spend less than the players' current team.
 

FlyersFan10*

Guest
The only issue I have with the owner's proposal is that their proposal brings hockey back to the 1950's once again. Fact of the matter is that there are some owners who are really good owners and are open and honest with the players in terms of money that they make. However, for every honest owner, you get a Bill Wirtz and a Jeremy Jacobs. Those two couldn't be trusted if your life depended on them.

Fact of the matter is this. The good owners are far outnumbered by the bad owners. Because of that, players aren't going to trust the owners. Let me ask all of you a question. When you take a look at the owner's negotiating committee, why is it that no one from the Toronto Maple Leafs, Philadelphia Flyers, Detroit Red Wings, etc...aren't represented? Why is it that the owner's team consists of Harley Hotchkiss, Lou Lamorello, Jeremy Jacobs, Craig Leppert? Why is it that none of the big spending teams are represented? To me, that speaks in volumes. If an Ed Snider or Mike Illitch were on the team, then the owners say would carry some weight.

Fact is this. Bettman's goal is to split the union. That's all what it is. Once that's done, then everything else falls into place. I do like what Ted Saskin said awhile back when he asked Bill Daly to submit the list of teams that are losing money, but Daly refused. If the NHL is claiming that the bloodletting is so severe, then why didn't they release the names of the franchises who are losing money? Once again, that also speaks in volumes.

In order for this deal to get done, it's going to require some forward thinking businessmen and players. I still believe they should have brought in a mediator though because the mediator would have been able to cut through the bs by both sides and get an agreement done that's acceptable to both parties.
 

John Flyers Fan

Registered User
Feb 27, 2002
22,416
16
Visit site
CarlRacki said:
What difference does the size of the roster have to do with anything? It doesn't.
The fact remains the NBA lives under a system in which salaries largely are tied to revenues. The fact is NBA revenues permit a $50 million cap. The fact is NHL revenues do not permit a $50 million cap.
Your argument seems to be that if the NHL generated more revenue the players would gladly accept a cap. That's not true. The players aren't objecting to the level of the cap, they're objecting to the cap itself.

The NBA cap is a complete joke and not a real cap at all. 26 of the 29 teams in the NBA ar over the cap, with some teams being over the cap by as much as $40 million.
 

John Flyers Fan

Registered User
Feb 27, 2002
22,416
16
Visit site
CarlRacki said:
1. If the players would go for it then they should offer it instead of running around saying they'll never, ever, ever work under a cap.
2. As a fan, I see an NBA-style system as ideal with a couple minor changes, i.e. a ban on sign-and-trades which may be the primary culprit for teams over the cap. Not that I have any influence over things in real life, but I've been advocating it around these boards for weeks.
3. Again, another person who claims to know what the NHL will and won't do. How do you know? Are you an owner? Bill Daly? Does your ouija board say so?

I've heard Bettman in radio interviews say that he wants absolutely NOTHING to do with an NBA style cap. Specifically in interviews on WFAN in NY.
 

nyr7andcounting

Registered User
Feb 24, 2004
1,919
0
CarlRacki said:
I don't believe I've ever advocated for a firm hard cap. I will argue that it could work as it does in the NFL, but I don't think that's going to happen without an even more protracted lockout (2 years?). I see the NBA system as a fair compromise.
Do I believe the hard cap is the only sure way to set salaries at a certain level? Yes. Economic principle would dictate that, as would collusion regulations. Do I believe a hard cap is the only way to instill fiscal responsibility in a league and restore more competitive balance? No. A soft cap won't cure all that ails the game, but it's a step in the right direction and better than what exists now.
I've asked (others) but yet to be provided with a link, newspaper clip, sound clip or anything else in which Bettman has said "We will not accept an NBA-style system" or "We will not accept anything but a hard cap." If you can provide one, I'll tip my hat to you. Fact is, the NHL brought Bettman in 10+ years ago for the express purpose of establishing an NBA-style system in the league and he failed in '94 when the owners blinked first.

If you support the NHL's stance, than you are advocating for a hard cap. That's all they have talked about, that's all they have proposed. If you agree with their proposal, than you agree that a hard cap is the only viable system to impose.

I disagree that a hard cap is the only sure way to set salaries at a certain level, it isn't. But it's not worth talking about this point it would take too much research and number crunching to even make an argument either way. Needless to say, I do believe there are economic systems for leagues that can keep salaries steady.

Lastly, it is evident that the NHL will only accept a hard cap because that's all they've proposed. THEY locked the players out, THEY have a problem with the situation, and the only thing they've proposed is a cap at a certain level of revenues. If they were willing to accept anything else, such as an NBA style soft cap, they would have proposed it by now. If they are willing to lose a whole season, and maybe more, in order to obtain a hard cap, than that certaintly must be the only thing they will accept. That is obvious to anyone. I am not going to go look for quotes or video clips in order to give you info on something that is obvious.
 

CarlRacki

Registered User
Feb 9, 2004
1,442
2
nyr7andcounting said:
I disagree that a hard cap is the only sure way to set salaries at a certain level, it isn't. But it's not worth talking about this point it would take too much research and number crunching to even make an argument either way. Needless to say, I do believe there are economic systems for leagues that can keep salaries steady.

Lastly, it is evident that the NHL will only accept a hard cap because that's all they've proposed. THEY locked the players out, THEY have a problem with the situation, and the only thing they've proposed is a cap at a certain level of revenues. If they were willing to accept anything else, such as an NBA style soft cap, they would have proposed it by now. If they are willing to lose a whole season, and maybe more, in order to obtain a hard cap, than that certaintly must be the only thing they will accept. That is obvious to anyone. I am not going to go look for quotes or video clips in order to give you info on something that is obvious.

Actually, it wouldn't take a lot of numbers crunching at all. Basic economic principle dictates that the labor market will follow the money and what management is willing to pay. If just one owner out there is willing to pay more than the others, that sets the standard for the rest of the market. This is why the argument "all the owners have to do is say no" doesn't work. If Team A gives a 40-goal scorer $8 million a year, then another 40-goal scorer on Team B will demand the same either through free agency or arbitration. If Team B "says no" they eventually lose said 40-goal scorer and struggle to field a competitive team. This is exactly why the NHLPA keeps a complex salary database ... so players and agents know exactly what similarly skilled players are getting and can demand similar contracts.
So, what is the only way a league can ensure that one or two owners don't upset the system for every other team? A cap. A luxury tax can discourage such behavior. It can punish such behavior. It can even lessen it. But it cannot stop it. If an owner is willing or can afford to suffer the punishment, he will.

Second, arguing that the owners won't accept anything but a hard cap because that's all they offered is not logical. It's like arguing that the players won't accept a higher luxury tax because they haven't offered one. So why haven't the owners proposed a soft cap? Quite simply, they don't have to. They have the upper hand in these negotiations. They have a realistic shot at an impasse. And they believe if they can hold out longer than the players they'll do even better with a hard cap. It's up to the PA to recognize the landscape and put on the table the best salary cap (i.e. NBA-style) proposal they can get before they get stuck with a much worse system.
 

CarlRacki

Registered User
Feb 9, 2004
1,442
2
FlyersFan10 said:
The only issue I have with the owner's proposal is that their proposal brings hockey back to the 1950's once again. Fact of the matter is that there are some owners who are really good owners and are open and honest with the players in terms of money that they make. However, for every honest owner, you get a Bill Wirtz and a Jeremy Jacobs. Those two couldn't be trusted if your life depended on them.

Fact of the matter is this. The good owners are far outnumbered by the bad owners. Because of that, players aren't going to trust the owners. Let me ask all of you a question. When you take a look at the owner's negotiating committee, why is it that no one from the Toronto Maple Leafs, Philadelphia Flyers, Detroit Red Wings, etc...aren't represented? Why is it that the owner's team consists of Harley Hotchkiss, Lou Lamorello, Jeremy Jacobs, Craig Leppert? Why is it that none of the big spending teams are represented? To me, that speaks in volumes. If an Ed Snider or Mike Illitch were on the team, then the owners say would carry some weight.

Fact is this. Bettman's goal is to split the union. That's all what it is. Once that's done, then everything else falls into place. I do like what Ted Saskin said awhile back when he asked Bill Daly to submit the list of teams that are losing money, but Daly refused. If the NHL is claiming that the bloodletting is so severe, then why didn't they release the names of the franchises who are losing money? Once again, that also speaks in volumes.

In order for this deal to get done, it's going to require some forward thinking businessmen and players. I still believe they should have brought in a mediator though because the mediator would have been able to cut through the bs by both sides and get an agreement done that's acceptable to both parties.

If the players agree to a capped system under which they're guaranteed a certain percentage of revenue, there will be no need to trust the owners. Negotiate a CBA that clearly defines the revenues then hire independent auditors annually to determine how much goes into the players pot. It works pretty well for the NFL and there's no reason to believe it couldn't for the NHL.
 

SuperUnknown

Registered User
Mar 14, 2002
4,890
0
Visit site
ScottyBowman said:
Eye was trying to tell me how generous the owners were and that you'd be set for life after a few years just with the pension. I agree you'd be a complete idiot if you made millions but he vastly overrated the pension. In another link I found,
http://www.lapresrupture.qc.ca/cpa2July23_GlenMcGreggor.html

It says that you don't get your pension until you turn 65.

In Canada, pension laws make it harder to redeem money before 65. There are workarounds, but you don't get the full amount before 65. Might be different in the USA
 

RangerBoy

Dolan sucks!!!
Mar 3, 2002
44,912
21,238
New York
www.youtube.com
ScottyBowman said:
The cap in the nba is set at $44 mil according to gross revenue. Got it? Good.

Now look at this link which shows each teams salaries

http://www.hoopshype.com/salaries.htm

How many teams are under the cap? Very few.

Do you want that kind of cap in the NHL? I bet the players do.

Got what?

I don't need you to tell me about the NBA cap which is not a cap and how it works.The Knicks have been $50 million over the cap forever

The NBA cap for 04-05 is set at $43.87 million.However,the NBA has a luxury tax which kicked in for the 03-04 season at $54.6 million with every dollar over that figure taxed at 100%.12 teams paid the tax last year
 
Last edited:

Pepper

Registered User
Aug 30, 2004
14,693
269
Newsguyone said:
How so?
The owners last offer wasn't an offer.
There was nothing meaningful in it.

They had the audacity to take the players offer, spin the numbers around in a smarmy attempt to divide the union, and then add a salary cap.
You call that an offer?

Not that the PA's offer was an offer that was going to get this done. But it was a significant move, at least in terms of getting some movement.

Or do you have another reason why this is in the PA's court?

Man that's rich...

NHL didn't offer anything and PA's offer was reasonable??

Another PA apologist in full propaganda mode, it's useless to even start arguing with you.

Let's come back when PA makes the first REAL offer with some system that curbs the ever-rising player salaries, so far they have offered nothing but short-term fixes, they haven't addressed the core problems in any way.
 

Seachd

Registered User
Mar 16, 2002
24,937
8,946
Regardless of who made the last "offer", it's clear that the Union has to make the next move, or at least the biggest move. They're stuck, and they're going to have to do something significant to get out. Even pro-NHLPA writers like Mike Brophy are saying it's time for them to give in, because the owners' latest offer is as good as it's going to get. Realize that, and we can save this season.
 

Gary

Registered User
CarlRacki said:
$8,000 a year to feed your dog? Hey look ... it's Mike Modano!

Seriously though, if you read the entire section you linked, it indicates that players can expect a $250K payout by the time they're 55 years old. This is in addition to Social Security benefits and whatever they (the smart ones, at least) have tucked away from the multi-million dollar salaries over the year.
Sorry, but if a former NHL player can't afford his retirement then he's an idiot.

and if they're still in dire straights they can summon up their agents and get a gig with trident or goodyear for a few extra hundred thousand...or just MAYBE get real workable jobs like the rest of us...
 

NYIsles1*

Guest
RangerBoy said:
What does it say for the players union that their two biggest backers in the media are Larry Brooks and Al Strachan :help:
Strachan at least has THE major market sport in his city so he will always have a lot to write. Brooks needs rumors of superstars coming to Manhattan or he just has nothing else to offer anymore. He got very lazy the last few years with his column because he used to take time to report on the Islanders and Devils and the league in general. It seems like baseball changed the Post (and the other papers) in how they cover hockey. Unless it's rumors of all-stars coming here it's just not significant news.

RangerBoy said:
Can't wait to read the latest crap from Brooks tomorrow.Brooks has blamed everything wrong in the world on Bettman except the tsunami.He will probably do that tomorrow
That's pretty good. Brooks has put on a sad show every week now. He could not even be bothered with the news on Blackburn or the WJC.
 

nyr7andcounting

Registered User
Feb 24, 2004
1,919
0
CarlRacki said:
Actually, it wouldn't take a lot of numbers crunching at all. Basic economic principle dictates that the labor market will follow the money and what management is willing to pay. If just one owner out there is willing to pay more than the others, that sets the standard for the rest of the market. This is why the argument "all the owners have to do is say no" doesn't work. If Team A gives a 40-goal scorer $8 million a year, then another 40-goal scorer on Team B will demand the same either through free agency or arbitration. If Team B "says no" they eventually lose said 40-goal scorer and struggle to field a competitive team. This is exactly why the NHLPA keeps a complex salary database ... so players and agents know exactly what similarly skilled players are getting and can demand similar contracts.
So, what is the only way a league can ensure that one or two owners don't upset the system for every other team? A cap. A luxury tax can discourage such behavior. It can punish such behavior. It can even lessen it. But it cannot stop it. If an owner is willing or can afford to suffer the punishment, he will.

Second, arguing that the owners won't accept anything but a hard cap because that's all they offered is not logical. It's like arguing that the players won't accept a higher luxury tax because they haven't offered one. So why haven't the owners proposed a soft cap? Quite simply, they don't have to. They have the upper hand in these negotiations. They have a realistic shot at an impasse. And they believe if they can hold out longer than the players they'll do even better with a hard cap. It's up to the PA to recognize the landscape and put on the table the best salary cap (i.e. NBA-style) proposal they can get before they get stuck with a much worse system.

It would take a lot of number crunching because I am saying that a luxury tax would stop spending above a certain level all together. However, in order to actually put forth what kind of luxury tax would work effectively it would take a ton of number crunching.

"A luxury tax can discourage such behavior. It can punish such behavior. It can even lessen it. But it cannot stop it. If an owner is willing or can afford to suffer the punishment, he will."

Well that's what you are looking for in order to solve the problem. A luxury tax will discourage, lessen and punish spending over a certain amount, let's say $38 million. What is wrong with that? The only problem here is the smaller market teams who are losing money and/or don't have enough to sign their own players...a luxury tax will solve both those problems. And don't give me ******** like, 'oh a luxury tax is inflationary', that's what Bettman would tell you and it's wrong. This brings me back to the point about how it would take a ton of number crunching...if the NHL went through all the numbers they could figure out a luxury tax level that would help small market teams without allowing them to spend out of control. If the luxury tax prevents the top team from spending out of control and the amount that gets kicked back is not too much or too little, than it works perfectly. And you know, if an owner is willing to or can afford to spend over the luxury tax, what's wrong with that. What's wrong with putting money into your team? Now I understand the situation with the Yankees is a bad one, because the tax doesn't work because their owner is so willing to spend no matter what...but in order to prevent that type of situation you could put a cap above the luxury tax. A cap simply to prevent big market teams from spending 70 million when the rest of the league is afraid to go above 40. Your situation with Team A signing a player to $8 million would be null because not only would they be paying a tax, but if you put a cap after the tax than you would prevent the biggest teams from setting the whole market too high for half the league.

Start a luxury tax at $38 million and put a hard cap at $48-$50 million. Why not? Small market teams aren't priced completely out of the market as they are now, but owners are also rewarded for making money and can spend a little more than the average team if they want to.

And about a post you made earlier, there are 2 distinct times in which Bettman has said the NHL will not accept a NBA style cap, or presumable a soft cap of any kind.

NHL won't accept a luxury tax: http://www.nhlcbanews.com/transcripts/bettman_120904.html
Also in that same set of transcipts is where Bettman said the NHL won't accept a deal like the NBA has. I read that yesterday though and don't feel like going back through there and looking for it. Also as another poster said, he has stated they won't accept a system like the NBA on the fan in NY, you can go to their site and they usually have clips of all the major interviews. So there are a couple of places where, yes, Bettman does say they won't accept a NBA-style cap or even a luxury tax.
 

NYIsles1*

Guest
FlyersFan10 said:
Fact of the matter is this. The good owners are far outnumbered by the bad owners. Because of that, players aren't going to trust the owners.
So your view of a good owner is based upon spending? Say what you will about Jacobs or Wirtz and how they run a franchise and I will likely not dispute it. But these people have owned teams for a generation, they should not have to lose tens of millions to continue to operate or keep their teams.

FlyersFan10 said:
Let me ask all of you a question. When you take a look at the owner's negotiating committee, why is it that no one from the Toronto Maple Leafs, Philadelphia Flyers, Detroit Red Wings, etc...aren't represented? Why is it that the owner's team consists of Harley Hotchkiss, Lou Lamorello, Jeremy Jacobs, Craig Leppert? Why is it that none of the big spending teams are represented? To me, that speaks in volumes. If an Ed Snider or Mike Illitch were on the team, then the owners say would carry some weight
Lou Lamoriello is the President of a team that is spending over fifty million dollars and still cannot keep his team together. Why isn't Illitch represented? Between claiming he has to go to the finals to break even vs losing nineteen million last year (Forbes) why would anyone want someone like that?

Same for Snyder who's team goes to the seventh game of the conference finals in a modern building and for a few years now claims to be losing revenue? Dolan is in the same boat also, big corporation, hockey operation that lost money?

The parameter for owning a team should not be a big corporation where losing ten or twenty million (or more in some cases) each is hardly significant and just an expense on the corporate bottom line.

These three, the people who run the Blues, Kings, Avs should keep as quiet as possible because they are the biggest reasons why the game is shutdown. Wang and Lenosis should have little to say also after what they paid Yashin and Jagr.

FlyersFan10 said:
Fact is this. Bettman's goal is to split the union. That's all what it is. Once that's done, then everything else falls into place.
If this union cannot be reasonable in this they do not deserved to be kept together, when are these players going to acknowledge the product failed on their watch and there is no middle ground when a sport is in this much trouble in
so many areas. Are the television companies also lying about the ratings for hockey, are the people who do the marketing?

FlyersFan10 said:
In order for this deal to get done, it's going to require some forward thinking businessmen and players. I still believe they should have brought in a mediator though because the mediator would have been able to cut through the bs by both sides and get an agreement done that's acceptable to both parties.
This is not a compromise situtation any longer for the league and neither side would accept mediation or binding arbirtration. Personally I think any player with a contract of two years or less would agree to a hundred percent reduction in their salaries to keep this current system of esculation. It works for them and Goodenow knows it will drive salaries right back up because fans pressure owners to sign star players.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad

-->