HFBoards

HFBoards (http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/index.php)
-   The Business of Hockey (http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/forumdisplay.php?f=124)
-   -   Back in 1994... (http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/showthread.php?t=103504)

ehc73 09-14-2004 05:03 PM

Back in 1994...
 
I read in the Vancouver Sun today that 10 years ago, the owners wanted a luxury tax system in the NHL. Back then, they were complaining that the avg salary of over $500k a year was too much. Back then, the big point producers were the only ones who were millionaires.

10 years ago, I was still in elementary school, so I didn't really pay attention to the business dealings...I just knew that the two sides were bickering and couldn't reach an agreement. For those of you who do remember the issues at hand, I have a question: why did the players oppose a luxury tax system back then? And do you think it would've prevented the trouble the NHL currently faces?

Buffaloed 09-14-2004 06:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ehc73
I read in the Vancouver Sun today that 10 years ago, the owners wanted a luxury tax system in the NHL. Back then, they were complaining that the avg salary of over $500k a year was too much. Back then, the big point producers were the only ones who were millionaires.

10 years ago, I was still in elementary school, so I didn't really pay attention to the business dealings...I just knew that the two sides were bickering and couldn't reach an agreement. For those of you who do remember the issues at hand, I have a question: why did the players oppose a luxury tax system back then? And do you think it would've prevented the trouble the NHL currently faces?

If that's what the Vancouver Sun says it's incorrect. It was the players who proposed a luxury tax 10 years ago in response to the owners demand for a cap. The owners wanted no part of revenue sharing. It's almost exactly the same situation we have today. The major difference now is that Bettman has veto power so the owners can't ram another bad CBA down his throat. That's the owners way of acknowledging that Bettman was right 10 years ago, and they were wrong.

GKJ 09-14-2004 06:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Buffaloed
If that's what the Vancouver Sun says it's incorrect. It was the players who proposed a luxury tax 10 years ago in response to the owners demand for a cap. The owners wanted no part of revenue sharing. It's almost exactly the same situation we have today. The major difference now is that Bettman has veto power so the owners can't ram another bad CBA down his throat. That's the owners way of acknowledging that Bettman was right 10 years ago, and they were wrong.

Was Bettman not the commish in 1994? He still needs the same 8 owners on his side.

John Flyers Fan 09-14-2004 06:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by go kim johnsson
Was Bettman not the commish in 1994? He still needs the same 8 owners on his side.


Back then Bettman needed alot more than 8 owners to get his way. He needed at least a majority if not 2/3rds.

Buffaloed 09-14-2004 07:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by John Flyers Fan
Back then Bettman needed alot more than 8 owners to get his way. He needed at least a majority if not 2/3rds.

Not exactly, because there weren't 30 teams in 1994. :D

John Flyers Fan 09-14-2004 07:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Buffaloed
Not exactly, because there weren't 30 teams in 1994. :D

14 out of 26 is still more than 8. :razz:

GKJ 09-14-2004 07:34 PM

needs is a present tense verb right? :rolly:

Buffaloed 09-14-2004 07:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by John Flyers Fan
14 out of 26 is still more than 8. :razz:

That's true, but 9 is a lot closer to 8, and only 9 dissenters were needed to reject a CBA proposal in 1994. A 2/3rds majority is required for approval. :p:


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 12:15 AM.

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com, A property of CraveOnline, a division of AtomicOnline LLC ©2009 CraveOnline Media, LLC. All Rights Reserved.