HFBoards

HFBoards (http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/index.php)
-   The Business of Hockey (http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/forumdisplay.php?f=124)
-   -   It says here Players talking of $60 million luxury tax threshold (http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/showthread.php?t=101673)

fan mao rong 09-04-2004 10:52 AM

It says here Players talking of $60 million luxury tax threshold
 
Foxsports Some people might find this of interest. I don't think alot check up on this source so here it is. Stan Fischler's column on Fox Sports says that through a high team official he was told players are talking in the area of a $60 million luxury tax threshold. Another item I found of interest is Bryant Marchment has started a business coating the back of pick-up trucks. The piece says he uses his parents as labor and does not pay them. NOTE: I see the link doesn't work, but it's there as of now. If you can't find through the link you can go to FoxSports Hockey Page, and look at Fischler's column found under the picture of Mathieu Schneider.

190Octane 09-04-2004 10:57 AM

45 million and you have a deal... 60 wouldn't make a difference.

wint 09-04-2004 11:31 AM

I assume this is the PA's proposal after going over all the team finances last week. At least they'll finally start talking luxury tax. IMO, it's been obvious for a year that, when the 2 sides finally come to terms, it will be based primarily on a luxury tax scheme. The league would probably be fine with a 100% tax over 35 million, the players with a 25% tax over 60 million. But at least they can argue over numbers now instead of discussing proposals the other side would never accept.

txpd 09-04-2004 12:42 PM

I am always leary of anything coming from NY media, because there is so much competition to get something new and exclusive. I think a luxury tax is very unlikely unless the tax is a. prohibitive and b. at a reasonably low threshold.

I don't think the players will allow that. I also don't think the nhlpa would be stupid enough to put the threshold at $60m were only 4 or 5 teams can afford to go.
That would be a PR disaster.

Shoalzie 09-04-2004 02:50 PM

$60 million is way too high...only a few teams are at that amount. I like Vishinator05's number of $45 million better.

Benji Frank 09-04-2004 03:52 PM

Earlier rumour was 1$ for 1$ penalty over 40 mill & 2$ for each 1$ over 50 million. I think that would have a whole lot more bight and garner a whole lot more attention & consideration. I think their stat at these rates said 17 of 30 teams would still be penalized even after the 5% rollback!!

Maybe 60 mill is for this year and then it gets lowered over the next few so as not to penalize teams who've already set themselves up in accordance with the current agreement?? :dunno:

NYI 09-04-2004 03:54 PM

I say they should make a 40 million dollar luxury tax limit, but graduate into that amount over 3 years(make it something like you have to pay 50% on the first 15 million over, and 100% on anything over that). If you go at 45 million, you would have to make it 100%

OlliMackBjugStud 09-04-2004 04:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by NYI
I say they should make a 40 million dollar luxury tax limit, but graduate into that amount over 3 years(make it something like you have to pay 50% on the first 15 million over, and 100% on anything over that). If you go at 45 million, you would have to make it 100%

i say they keep the CBA exactly how it is and make smarter decisions with the contracts they offer.

dr

NYI 09-04-2004 04:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DementedReality
i say they keep the CBA exactly how it is and make smarter decisions with the contracts they offer.

dr

the problem is, that for the New York Rangers and Some other teams, they are making "smart moves" because they can afford giving huge salaries, it makes it unfair to lower teams that have to overspend to survive.

I would argue that although it screws mostly ever other team, what Dolan is doing is best for his business and makes him the most money. As long as he can sell out MSG and have good ratings for local TV, it's smart for him to go out and create a sense of excitement(trade for high priced players).

The Luxury tax would even it out for lower level teams, while still allowing Dolan to go out and overpay players.

Malakhov 09-04-2004 04:17 PM

The salary cut they proprosed and a luxury tax would be great. Make it above 40-45 millions though, not 60.

Quote:

i say they keep the CBA exactly how it is and make smarter decisions with the contracts they offer.

dr
And then the NHL will crumble into ruins!

Sorry but the CBA has to change or nothing will stop some teams to give ridiculous contracts, just look at Toronto this summer.

Psycho Papa Joe 09-04-2004 04:43 PM

IMO the NBA system with a combination of a luxury tax, salary cap and Larry Bird type clause would be the best solution. Say a NBA style cap of approximately 60% of revenue (signing your own free agents don't count against cap per Bird clause), a luxury tax threshold of 50% if revenue and the money raised via the tax would be used to prop up lower revenue teams.

littleHossa 09-04-2004 04:50 PM

A Luxury tax doesn't help the owners in any way. The only thing that a luxury tax will accomplish is having the owners of the rich teams be forced to pay more money for their players.

This doesn't lower the player salaries, it doesn't regulate them either, as any owner who wants to sign a player isn't going to stop because of a luxury tax. The reason why a salary cap was suggested by the owners was that it would create a solid wall for free spending GMs and thus all 30 GMs would have to give out smart contract to players.

A luxury tax won't make the GMs any wiser than they are right now, and they will continue to spend the same amount on players on top of losing more money because of that luxury tax.

For the players to suggest a luxury tax really decreases my respect for their union, a luxury tax would do nothing more than make the owners shell out more money, and those are the kind of changes that the players will be looking to get with the new CBA.

FlyersProspect2 09-04-2004 04:59 PM

It seems like it should be more simpler. IMO a salery cap is the only way to achieve ulitmate competitiveness and both the owners and players want that, but neither are willing to give up anything to get that. Whenever this is all said and done we better have the best way to manage contracts in all of sports because this took so damn long to make up.

Trottier 09-04-2004 05:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by littleHossa
This [luxury tax] doesn't lower the player salaries, it doesn't regulate them either, as any owner who wants to sign a player isn't going to stop because of a luxury tax.

Hard evidence to the contrary: it's working in Major League Baseball. Look it up. Salaries overall have decreased 3% since the luxury tax was implemented in the 2002 CBA. With one notable exception - the team in NY that hasn't won anything since 2000 - not one team has ventured over the luxury tax threshold.

Of course, that may not impress those wishing draconian steps, with the fantasy of turning back salaries to yesteryear.

Quote:

Originally Posted by FlyersProspect2
a salery cap is the only way to achieve ulitmate competitiveness...

The NHL is lacking competiveness? Wonder if they are saying that in Anaheim, Carolina, Calgary, TB, etc. Let me guess: fan of a non-contender?

There are valid reasons for clamoring for changes to the CBA (though a hardcap is the worse thing that could happen to the NHL and its fans). But the idea that the league needs more competitivness (parity :shakehead ) is without merit. All one needs to do is check the tightness of regular season standings, check the closeness of individual games on a nightly basis. Then, check the varied results of recent playoff seasons. The NHL is as competitive as any sports league can be without being watered down with medicority, er, parity.

CH 09-04-2004 05:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by NYI
the problem is, that for the New York Rangers and Some other teams, they are making "smart moves" because they can afford giving huge salaries, it makes it unfair to lower teams that have to overspend to survive.

I would argue that although it screws mostly ever other team, what Dolan is doing is best for his business and makes him the most money. As long as he can sell out MSG and have good ratings for local TV, it's smart for him to go out and create a sense of excitement(trade for high priced players).

Really? Having a high priced team that consistently misses the playoffs is best for business in New York?

Wouldn't they be in a better place in terms of business if they had a cheaper younger team like Tampa or Calgary or San Jose or Ottawa?

littleHossa 09-04-2004 05:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Trottier
Hard evidence to the contrary: it's working in Major League Baseball. Look it up. Salaries overall have decreased 3% since the luxury tax was implemented in the 2002 CBA. With one notable exception - the team in NY that hasn't won anything since 2000 - not one team has ventured over the luxury tax threshold.

Of course, that may not impress those wishing draconian steps, with the fantasy of turning back salaries to yesteryear.

I've seen an economist talk about the CBA and the NHL, and he used some examples from the MLB, and that league is in big trouble. During the 90s, both revenues and salaries were rising at about the same rate, but in the 21st century there has been a huge increase in salary while revenues have barely increased. The luxury tax won't fix their problems.

Randall Graves* 09-04-2004 05:29 PM

I wouldn't mind an NBA like system where you can only give a max amount to each level.

for instance the cap on per year rookie contracts could be 1.5-2 million for the years, from years 3-6 or 7 there is a maximum number of 4-5-6 million and after 7 you may not go higher than 9. I don't think the NHL will be having anymore 10 million a year players other than the ones that are there now, everything will have to be 8 million and below.

Benji Frank 09-04-2004 05:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by littleHossa
A Luxury tax doesn't help the owners in any way. The only thing that a luxury tax will accomplish is having the owners of the rich teams be forced to pay more money for their players.

I still think even the dumbest of owners would realize paying a Bobby Holik 8 mill per when it puts them 5 or 6 mill over a cap and thus turning the contract into 13 or 14 mill per is a poor decision. I think a luxury tax would certainly do the trick. IMO the teams would shy away from signing the stars, but still look long and hard at signing the superstar marquee guys ... Calgary knows what a J.Iginla brings to their team. If they need to go a mill or two over the cap to retain him, they can and pay the penalty. IMO, a player who can put fans in the stands shouldn't be limited to playing for a team who otherwise has a pile of plumbers. And that's what'll happen if a team possessing a Peter Forsberg, J.Iginla, J.Thornton, etc has to do so within a Solid Cap scenario......

NYI 09-04-2004 05:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CH
Really? Having a high priced team that consistently misses the playoffs is best for business in New York?

Wouldn't they be in a better place in terms of business if they had a cheaper younger team like Tampa or Calgary or San Jose or Ottawa?

in theorory yes, but Dolan owns MSG and the TV station that shows most ranger games. As long as that stadium is full, and people are watching TV, he is raking in the bucks(you can say he triple dips into the profits owning the team, sadium and tv station). In order to make sure he keeps people interested, he has to make them excited for some reason or another. That's why he goes out and signs a big named player or trades for players who have large contracts. Neil Smith has said on many occasions that he was basically forced from management to sign players.

If the Rangers went on a 6-7 year rebuilding progam, ticket sales would decrease as the impatient NY fanbase would find other way to entertain themself(ie tv revenues would decrease). People would complain the owners are not interested in putting on a winning team and inturn not show up to games. Going about it the way they do now, sure the team will never win the stanley cup, but they will always give the people something to be interested in(as bad as it is)

Licentia 09-04-2004 05:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vishinator05
45 million and you have a deal... 60 wouldn't make a difference.

Maybe in 20-30 years it would (inflation). Then the players would have to strike again to re-negotiate. :joker:

Licentia 09-04-2004 06:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by NYI
the problem is, that for the New York Rangers and Some other teams, they are making "smart moves" because they can afford giving huge salaries, it makes it unfair to lower teams that have to overspend to survive.

I would argue that although it screws mostly every other team, what Dolan is doing is best for his business and makes him the most money. As long as he can sell out MSG and have good ratings for local TV, it's smart for him to go out and create a sense of excitement(trade for high priced players).

The Luxury tax would even it out for lower level teams, while still allowing Dolan to go out and overpay players.

Yep, it's true. What's smart for a small market team is different than what is smart for a large market team. That's the problem. The league cannot survive with the system the way it is currently, due to the gap between rich and poor.

hockeytown9321 09-04-2004 06:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by NYI
the problem is, that for the New York Rangers and Some other teams, they are making "smart moves" because they can afford giving huge salaries, it makes it unfair to lower teams that have to overspend to survive.

I would argue that although it screws mostly ever other team, what Dolan is doing is best for his business and makes him the most money. As long as he can sell out MSG and have good ratings for local TV, it's smart for him to go out and create a sense of excitement(trade for high priced players).

The Luxury tax would even it out for lower level teams, while still allowing Dolan to go out and overpay players.

But under a hard salary cap, a player developing into a superstar on any team is not going to be able to stay. Lets say Calgary was $2 million under a cap right now. How could they resign Iginla, unless he was willing to take $5 million (and I know salries would go down in theory, but this is hypothetical) less to stay there? He would have to go to another team that had the available cap room.

NYI 09-04-2004 06:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by hockeytown9321
But under a hard salary cap, a player developing into a superstar on any team is not going to be able to stay. Lets say Calgary was $2 million under a cap right now. How could they resign Iginla, unless he was willing to take $5 million (and I know salries would go down in theory, but this is hypothetical) less to stay there? He would have to go to another team that had the available cap room.

that's why i prefer the luxury tax(it's sort of liek robin hood, taking from the rich and giving to the poor). I personally think the Owners are playing hardball right now because they know the players won't settle for a hard cap, they want to drive the luxury tax numbers low(35-40ish) when they settle

Licentia 09-04-2004 06:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by hockeytown9321
But under a hard salary cap, a player developing into a superstar on any team is not going to be able to stay. Lets say Calgary was $2 million under a cap right now. How could they resign Iginla, unless he was willing to take $5 million (and I know salries would go down in theory, but this is hypothetical) less to stay there? He would have to go to another team that had the available cap room.

They would have to make room on their roster or let him go. Or, if there is no other team that has room for him, then he would have to accept less pay. Or they could go over the cap at a steep penalty. Trust me, if there is a cap, the average salary will no longer be 1.8 million or whatever it is. More players will be making 6 digit salaries.

OlliMackBjugStud 09-04-2004 06:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Licentia
They would have to make room on their roster or let him go. Or, if there is no other team that has room for him, then he would have to accept less pay. Or they could go over the cap at a steep penalty. Trust me, if there is a cap, the average salary will no longer be 1.8 million or whatever it is. More players will be making 6 digit salaries.

so your idea of fair is a team like OTT would have to let someone else go in order to keep Spezza ? they built up a good young team THE RIGHT way and you want them to be penalized so teams like NYR and CHI and BOS and FLA or whoever else runs their team like crap can pick off these guys ?

under todays system, a team like OTT can keep their team together for as long as they choose too. under a system with a hard cap, it would be impossible.

the reason the owners want a cap is because it will help the teams like TOR, NYR and PHI who have had ZERO success catch up to the teams that keep popping up out of no where (CRL, ANA, CGY, TBY, BUF, MIN etc ..) and killing any chance of making an imprint in the USA market.

you guys are sheep.

dr


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 05:17 AM.

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com, A property of CraveOnline, a division of AtomicOnline LLC ©2009 CraveOnline Media, LLC. All Rights Reserved.