HFBoards

HFBoards (http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/index.php)
-   New York Rangers (http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/forumdisplay.php?f=24)
-   -   From TSN... (http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/showthread.php?t=107136)

Fletch 10-05-2004 10:17 AM

From TSN...
 
http://www.tsn.ca/nhl/news_story.asp...97&hubName=nhl

Interesting points...including $6 million hard cap on payers' salary. Luxury tax of 100% over $40 million. Qualifying offers to RFAs at [75%], not 110%. UFA to start at 30, not 31. Entry level salary to be lower.

I actually think it's not such a bad proposal, and is a better working proposal compared to what the league and the NHLPA have proposed. There is both the essence of a hard cap and the ability to freely spend. Yeah, it doesn't stop teams from offering Martin Lapointe $5 million, unless they are at $40 million in payroll and Martin Lapointe now costs $10 million, and every incremental player costs twice as much [Dale Purinton would now cost over $1 million].

Of course, TSN's proposal gets us nowhere - it was all in fun, just like what we've done.

DARTH SATHER 10-05-2004 12:33 PM

Looks good to me. I probably would go with a 7 mil cap on player's salary. I like the fact that they only redistribute to teams that have a payroll of over 30 million to basically force teams to spend money. Lower the UFA age to 29 or 28 since they would be capping their salary.

Fish 10-05-2004 12:39 PM

Actually the hockey rodent has some good reasons why these two things aren't particularly useful in a new CBA:

http://www.hockeyrodent.com/r1081.htm

Fletch 10-05-2004 12:54 PM

They are...
 
although on one point - in regards to the range of payrolls in which teams would receive $$ - it does incentivize teams to spent more (which sits well with the players), but doesn't necessarily have to break the bank. If one team spent an extra $3 million (to get to $30 million), and received $18 million to do so as a result of the taxes, I think they'd be OK with that. But in reality, you cannot base the proposal on prior years' salaries. I don't think that, if there were a cap at $40 million, and a 100% luxury tax over that, that the Rangers would spend $80 million, which is really $120 million. Not even MSG is that stupid. So things would have to adjust. As I said in another post, it's a framework from which to work that eliminates a 'hard' cap, but would curb free spending. Currently the sides are not negotiating because they are dead-set on what they want and what they don't want. There can't be a negotiation when there's non-starters on both ends, which we've come to know so well.

Fish 10-05-2004 01:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fletch
although on one point - in regards to the range of payrolls in which teams would receive $$ - it does incentivize teams to spent more (which sits well with the players), but doesn't necessarily have to break the bank. If one team spent an extra $3 million (to get to $30 million), and received $18 million to do so as a result of the taxes, I think they'd be OK with that. But in reality, you cannot base the proposal on prior years' salaries. I don't think that, if there were a cap at $40 million, and a 100% luxury tax over that, that the Rangers would spend $80 million, which is really $120 million. Not even MSG is that stupid. So things would have to adjust. As I said in another post, it's a framework from which to work that eliminates a 'hard' cap, but would curb free spending. Currently the sides are not negotiating because they are dead-set on what they want and what they don't want. There can't be a negotiation when there's non-starters on both ends, which we've come to know so well.

I take a slightly different tact...suggesting that any revenue sharing goes back to the teams towards covering salary increases over the past season, but with a minimum investment in the salary. In other words if a team had 30 million in salary this year, and they wanted to go to 35 million next year they'd be able to receive up to 5 million in revenue sharing.


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 11:19 PM.

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.