View Single Post
Old
08-14-2012, 11:38 AM
  #110
Blueshirt Believer
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 6,913
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by CM PUNK View Post
first you know that those teams will spend over the limit...owners can't control themselves, there will be teams receiving the revenue sharing $$ trying to spend over the limit lol

but imo the league will NEVER give away the hardcap, that would mean gary bettman admitting that he was wrong and he trashed an entire season for a system that wasn't needed. not gonna happen...but you might be able to create a hybrid system where there is a soft cap that teams would get charged a luxury tax for going over and then a hard cap that would limit how high you can go over that...

lets say (for argument) that they set the soft cap at $55 mil and the hard cap at $70 mil. the small market teams only get $$ if the big market teams spend between $55-70 mil...but IF those teams don't want to pay the luxury tax and stop spending at $55 mil that makes the 'soft cap' act like a hard cap. the small market teams now have their severally reduced cap which is what they want in the nhl's proposal anyway. so the small market teams either get what they are asking for, or get additional $$ thru the luxury tax.

and right now 20 teams are already over $55 mil and a few others might go over after resigning guys...so you'd pretty much be guaranteed to max out the luxury tax $$ in year 1.
It still creates a problem of for the small market teams. They still won't be able to compete with the big markets due to tax penalties. They will never spend over the soft cap. It still doesn't create the parity that those teams want.

But, I will say that is probably the only realistic way you could implement a luxury tax in the NHL.

Blueshirt Believer is offline