HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > General Hockey Discussion > The Business of Hockey
Mobile Hockey's Future Become a Sponsor Site Rules Support Forum vBookie Page 2
The Business of Hockey Discuss the financial and business aspects of the NHL. Topics may include the CBA, work stoppages, broadcast contracts, franchise sales, and NHL revenues.

No Hard Cap

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
12-11-2004, 05:26 PM
  #26
I in the Eye
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Country:
Posts: 4,197
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by txpd
I think there is WAY too much wishful thinking going in this thread. The NHL has said they need it fixed right. they need cost certainty and are willing to wait a season or two for it. the PA makes a proposal that is based on a one time salary give back and you are convinced that the league will cave in.
IMO, the NHL giving in on their 'cost certainty' stance will be their major concession in these negotiations - paving the way to justify a strict luxury tax...

Just like with the NHLPA's proposal, the NHL was able to say - the NHLPA admits with their proposal that salaries escalated much too high... After the NHL's counter-proposal, the NHLPA will be able to say - the NHL admits with their proposal that they do not need cost certainty...

Once the NHLPA admits that salaries escalated too high, and the NHL admits that cost certainty is not a 'need to have' (but rather a 'nice to have') feature, then we're starting to get somewhere that is fair...

IMO, to fix this right means significant changes to arbitration, etc., not necessarily cost certainty...

But, as you say, all of this could just be wishful thinking...

I in the Eye is offline  
Old
12-11-2004, 05:26 PM
  #27
SENSible1*
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,543
vCash: 500
The NHL doesn't need to come of their cost certainty stance to be bargaining in good faith. They will need to present a full proposal to the PA, which they will do on Tue., but the NHL doesn't need to compromise based on the PA's bribe to be demonstrating "good faith".

SENSible1* is offline  
Old
12-11-2004, 06:01 PM
  #28
Trottier
Very Random
 
Trottier's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: San Diego
Posts: 28,108
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by txpd
I think there is WAY too much wishful thinking going in this thread.

Perhaps.

However, on the other hand, there is also a high degree of cynicism, pessimism, and willingness to throw out the entire basic concept of free enterprise.


Example #1:

that 24% savings is misdirection. it wont last. sergei gonchar's contract runs out after this season. is there anyone here that believes that gonchar as a ufa will get $3.75m or less?? there is no chance of that happening.

Example #2:

...you will see continued growth in prices of players with those new contracts.

Some us do not think all owners are incapable of fiscal restraint, nor do we see the liklihood that some will continue to spend excessively as ruining the competitiveness within the sport. Not when as recent as this June, two <$40M teams competed for the Cup. Just because the Yankees went out today and spent <$50 on a less-than-outstanding picher doesn't mean every other club should or will. Especially not when the Yankees astronomical spending has resulted in no championships in the last four years. Likewise with NYR, Toronto, Philly, etc. in the NHL. Big bucks, big splash signings...and less Finals appearances than Anaheim, Carolina, TB and Calgary.

Likewise, some of us do not see anything wrong with players having future ability to earn as much as the market will allow. In fact, anything less than that basic right is very wrong.

We simply disagree. Some of us are wishful thinkers. Others are cynics who think "the system" should control outcomes, as oppposed to allowing the market to naturally dictate circumstances.

Trottier is offline  
Old
12-11-2004, 06:11 PM
  #29
SENSible1*
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,543
vCash: 500
The market was not determining player’s salaries. A flawed CBA was.


Last edited by SENSible1*: 12-11-2004 at 06:22 PM.
SENSible1* is offline  
Old
12-11-2004, 06:16 PM
  #30
porknbeans
Registered User
 
porknbeans's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Ottawa
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,738
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Thunderstruck
The market was not determening players salaries. A flawed CBA was.

LOL. Nice argument. :lol

porknbeans is offline  
Old
12-11-2004, 06:25 PM
  #31
Kaiped Krusader
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Rylan up the Opposition
Posts: 248
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Trottier
Can you imagine that?! Players actually would like the future ability to earn more money, as opposed to staying at the same salary level! The gall they have!
Who said anything about a hard cap that won't move? My understanding is that owners want a link between revenues and salaries, meaning if revenues increase down the road, so will salaries. Salaries are still potentially limitless, they're just more closely tied with revenues. The players will actually become partners in the league. That's the system I'd like to see. Of course, they won't go for it because they know the league's prospects aren't that rosy.

Kaiped Krusader is offline  
Old
12-11-2004, 07:37 PM
  #32
txpd
Registered User
 
txpd's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 41,842
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by I in the Eye
IMO, the NHL giving in on their 'cost certainty' stance will be their major concession in these negotiations - paving the way to justify a strict luxury tax...

Just like with the NHLPA's proposal, the NHL was able to say - the NHLPA admits with their proposal that salaries escalated much too high... After the NHL's counter-proposal, the NHLPA will be able to say - the NHL admits with their proposal that they do not need cost certainty...

Once the NHLPA admits that salaries escalated too high, and the NHL admits that cost certainty is not a 'need to have' (but rather a 'nice to have') feature, then we're starting to get somewhere that is fair...

IMO, to fix this right means significant changes to arbitration, etc., not necessarily cost certainty...

But, as you say, all of this could just be wishful thinking...
I don't see a "strict" luxury tax in the works that will drastically change how the Wings, Rangers, Leags, Lanche and couple others do business. Just like the Yankees and the Red Sox in baseball, they will just pay the tax and move on.

Unfortunately the way I read this proposal is that the players will regain the money they gave back in about 2 years. when this cba runs out the salary levels will be betwee $1.8 and $2m and the salary cap will be back on the table and the next lockout scheduled. NHL has taken the cap off the table twice before and been burned bad for doing it each time.

let me ask an honest question. how many on this thread posting in favor of a luxury tax are at present preferring a salary cap?

txpd is online now  
Old
12-11-2004, 07:50 PM
  #33
I in the Eye
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Country:
Posts: 4,197
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by txpd
let me ask an honest question. how many on this thread posting in favor of a luxury tax are at present preferring a salary cap?
I'm in preference of this proposal, created by GoCoyotes and presented in this thread:
http://www.hfboards.com/showthread.php?t=105446

The way that negotiations are playing out, I think it still has a good chance of being implemented as well

I in the Eye is offline  
Old
12-11-2004, 09:54 PM
  #34
PecaFan
Registered User
 
PecaFan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Ottawa (Go 'Nucks)
Posts: 8,912
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Trottier
Can you imagine that?! Players actually would like the future ability to earn more money, as opposed to staying at the same salary level! The gall they have!

One wonders if some here have ever held a job, and if they have, if they would like a cap on their earning ability.
But that's not the case. It's a *collective* cap, not an individual one. Each individual is still able to able to get raises each contract. You make it sound like each player will forever be locked at the same rate as today.

And technically, players have been capped all along. They can only get paid what their team can afford, right?

And for most of us, that's exactly the same as real life. Every job I've ever had had a ceiling, or stratas.

PecaFan is offline  
Old
12-11-2004, 10:06 PM
  #35
handtrick
Registered User
 
handtrick's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Chattanooga, TN
Posts: 3,111
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by I in the Eye
IMO, the NHL giving in on their 'cost certainty' stance will be their major concession in these negotiations - paving the way to justify a strict luxury tax...

Just like with the NHLPA's proposal, the NHL was able to say - the NHLPA admits with their proposal that salaries escalated much too high... After the NHL's counter-proposal, the NHLPA will be able to say - the NHL admits with their proposal that they do not need cost certainty...

Once the NHLPA admits that salaries escalated too high, and the NHL admits that cost certainty is not a 'need to have' (but rather a 'nice to have') feature, then we're starting to get somewhere that is fair...

IMO, to fix this right means significant changes to arbitration, etc., not necessarily cost certainty...

But, as you say, all of this could just be wishful thinking...

The key to any negotiated solution in collective bargaining is each side being able to save face and declare at least some victory in order to have their constiuency approve it [at least that is what my dad who negotiated for 20 years in labor relation agreements between General Motors and the UAW always told me].

I in the Eye....I have to think that the ultimate solution will be along the lines you mention above.

The bottom line.....if Bettman comes off the hard cap at all Tuesday..we will play hockey this season.........if he does not....their will be none for the foreseable future.

handtrick is offline  
Old
12-11-2004, 10:13 PM
  #36
quat
winsome, loathsome
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Victoria BC
Posts: 9,293
vCash: 500
Send a message via ICQ to quat
Quote:
Originally Posted by OTTSENS
I am certain that the NHL won't propose a hard cap in their counter-proposal here's why? By offering a 24% rollback on their salaries the players have demonstrate that they are willing to nogociate in good faith. The NHL on the other hand have not in my opinion shown the same willingness to nogociate in good faith until now. If they come back tuesday with a hard cap knowing full well in advance that it will be rejected, how can they say they are negociating in good faith? Why do you think the NHLPA luxury tax is only 20% because it's something that is negociable. Do you really think the owners want to give back the 24% rollbacks? Absoluteny not! Bettman said that the rollback was essential to be able to implement a new system and that new system will be a stiffer luxury tax.
Your definition of good faith seems incorrect to me.

If you have a family and are having trouble putting food on the table because your job doesn't pay you enough, and the Govnt comes along and gives you a three year lease on a NEW CAR.... sure it's a nice gift, and it does cost a lot, but it doesn't do anything to solve your problem.

I think what the NHLPA has offered was good for them (PR wise), and was certainly a big cash give back, but that only proves that they are willing to negotiate what they want to negotiate... ie: nothing that ties salaries to revenue.

If the owners come back with a reasonable proposal that the NHLPA sees as a cap senario, it doesn't mean the owners aren't negotiating in good faith. They both are presenting differing solutions.

quat is offline  
Old
12-11-2004, 10:27 PM
  #37
quat
winsome, loathsome
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Victoria BC
Posts: 9,293
vCash: 500
Send a message via ICQ to quat
Quote:
Originally Posted by Trottier
Can you imagine that?! Players actually would like the future ability to earn more money, as opposed to staying at the same salary level! The gall they have!

One wonders if some here have ever held a job, and if they have, if they would like a cap on their earning ability.

(And don't come back with "they make a lot more money than us, so they should be willing to...ya-da, ya-da." Its all relative. Just because Mats Sundin earns a lot more than Joe Fan does not mean he should have to give up his basic free-market earning power.)

Regardless of whether one favors a strict luxury tax (I do) or a hardcap ( ), workers should always have the right to earn to their potential. Whether they are making $10 an hour or $25,000 a game.
I usually enjoy reading your posts, but recently you've kind of got me scratching my head.

If Salaries are tied to a percentage of revenue, that still gives players the opportunity to earn more as the league becomes more successful.

Certainly the kind of system the owners seem to want would greatly level off spending on salaries, but it would hardly have the ruinous effect that you are suggesting.

You seem to act as if having the players somewhat responsible for the health of their work place is an onerous proposition.

quat is offline  
Old
12-12-2004, 12:21 AM
  #38
me2
Seahawks 43
 
me2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Broncos 8
Country: Wallis & Futuna
Posts: 19,350
vCash: 1000
Quote:
Originally Posted by Trottier
Can you imagine that?! Players actually would like the future ability to earn more money, as opposed to staying at the same salary level! The gall they have!

One wonders if some here have ever held a job, and if they have, if they would like a cap on their earning ability.

(And don't come back with "they make a lot more money than us, so they should be willing to...ya-da, ya-da." Its all relative. Just because Mats Sundin earns a lot more than Joe Fan does not mean he should have to give up his basic free-market earning power.)

Regardless of whether one favors a strict luxury tax (I do) or a hardcap ( ), workers should always have the right to earn to their potential. Whether they are making $10 an hour or $25,000 a game.

While there is a draft and a reserve system there is no free market. If the NHLPA wants a free market it needs to kill off both of those. That way the players will earn what they are worth, youngsters won't have underpayed contracts and UFAs won't be able to cash in.


Last edited by me2: 12-12-2004 at 12:57 AM.
me2 is offline  
Old
12-12-2004, 12:54 AM
  #39
LaLaLaprise
lalalaprise -twitter
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Halifax, Nova Scotia
Posts: 8,717
vCash: 500
Only way it will work is if the luxury taxes are set at:

40 million + = 50 cents on the dollar
48 million + = 1 dollar on the dollar
56 million + = 2 dollars on the dollar

20 cents is a HUGE joke, but the PA knows that, its a starting point to start negotiations.

The luxury tax model needs to have serious teeth to detur teams from over spending.

Say a team has a payroll of 65 million...it will actually cost them:

65 M
4 M ( 8 M x .50)
8 M ( 8 M x 1.00)
18 M ( 9 M x 2.00)

Grand Total: 95 M

Seems extreme but its the only way to stop dumb ass owners from shelling out loads of money.

LaLaLaprise is offline  
Old
12-12-2004, 01:54 AM
  #40
Trottier
Very Random
 
Trottier's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: San Diego
Posts: 28,108
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by quat
I usually enjoy reading your posts, but recently you've kind of got me scratching my head.


I am in favor of a softcap tied to league revenues, with a strict luxury tax. I am not for a hardcap for reasons too long to go into here.

Regardless, I make big distinction between those seeking to ensure the financial health of the league overall, and those who transparently wish to punish the better-run teams and wealthy players.

We can all agree that Alexei Yashin makes an obscene salary. However, taking away his or any other player's future right to earn even more - as absurd as that may $ound - is not a basis for a CBA. Perhaps a bit of an ideologue on this, but when anyone tries suggesting that anyone else is making too much $$$ or "should not be allowed to earn more," this capitalist gets a bit squimish.

No "pro-player" fan here. More like "pro-smart owners," and acknowledge that NHLPA concessions must be made. However, definitely not one who believes that the system should be made "dummy-owner" proof either.

(For the record: This coming from one who owns a business and pay employees, and who has never belonged to a union.)


Last edited by Trottier: 12-12-2004 at 01:59 PM.
Trottier is offline  
Old
12-12-2004, 02:12 AM
  #41
Go Flames Go*
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 943
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by La-La-Laprise
Only way it will work is if the luxury taxes are set at:

40 million + = 50 cents on the dollar
48 million + = 1 dollar on the dollar
56 million + = 2 dollars on the dollar

20 cents is a HUGE joke, but the PA knows that, its a starting point to start negotiations.

The luxury tax model needs to have serious teeth to detur teams from over spending.

Say a team has a payroll of 65 million...it will actually cost them:

65 M
4 M ( 8 M x .50)
8 M ( 8 M x 1.00)
18 M ( 9 M x 2.00)

Grand Total: 95 M

Seems extreme but its the only way to stop dumb ass owners from shelling out loads of money.
These numbers are not hard enough for a Luxury tax to work. Maybe try $35 million 100% $38 million 150%, $40 million 200%, anything above $42 million 500%

This proposal is a joke the NHLPA made, its there choice take a small pay cut now, and move on or face harsh paycuts and even worse % of revenues 2-3 years down the road, because there will be a cap no matter what Bob Goodenow tries.

Go Flames Go* is offline  
Old
12-12-2004, 06:22 AM
  #42
quat
winsome, loathsome
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Victoria BC
Posts: 9,293
vCash: 500
Send a message via ICQ to quat
Quote:
Originally Posted by Trottier


I am in favor of a softcap tied to league revenues, with a strict luxury tax. I am not for a hardcap for reasons too long to go into here.

Regardless, I make big distinction between those seeking to ensure the financial health of the league overall, and those who transparently wish to punish the better-run teams and wealthy players.

We can all agree that Alexei Yashin makes an obscene salary. However, taking away his for any other player's future right to earn even more - as absurd as that may $ound - is not a basis for a CBA. Perhaps a bit of an ideologue on this, but when anyone tries suggesting that anyone else is making too much $$$ or "should not be allowed to earn more," this capitalist gets a bit squimish.

No "pro-player" fan here. More like "pro-smart owners," and acknowledge that NHLPA concessions must be made. However, definitely not one who believes that the system should be made "dummy-owner" proof either.

(For the record: This coming from one who owns a business and pay employees, and who has never belonged to a union.)
Now this is the kind of post one can spend sometime thinking about! The world is right again

quat is offline  
Old
12-12-2004, 09:23 AM
  #43
Pepper
Registered User
 
Pepper's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 14,456
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Trottier
Can you imagine that?! Players actually would like the future ability to earn more money, as opposed to staying at the same salary level! The gall they have!

One wonders if some here have ever held a job, and if they have, if they would like a cap on their earning ability.
Nobody is denying any player the right to get better pay and a stiff luxury-tax doesn't do that. Those who deserve a payrise will still get it, no matter what.

Stiff luxury tax just prevents salaries from escalating as fast as they have done in the last 5 years.

Pepper is offline  
Old
12-12-2004, 02:01 PM
  #44
Trottier
Very Random
 
Trottier's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: San Diego
Posts: 28,108
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pepper
Nobody is denying any player the right to get better pay and a stiff luxury-tax doesn't do that. Those who deserve a payrise will still get it, no matter what.

Stiff luxury tax just prevents salaries from escalating as fast as they have done in the last 5 years.
We are in total agreement in that regard.

***

"Don't make the mistake of thinking they (owners) care about the fans. This isn't about reducing ticket prices. This isn't about ensuring parity in a league that's attained it through evolution...." - Larry Brooks, 12/12/04

Sure, shoot (defame) the messenger, he's open to some criticism. But he is spot on with these comments. Which begs the following questions to all the pro-hardcappers on this board:

As a fan, how exactly would a hardcap in the NHL enhance your viewing pleasure of the NHL?

Would love to know. Seriously.


Last edited by Trottier: 12-12-2004 at 02:18 PM.
Trottier is offline  
Old
12-12-2004, 03:13 PM
  #45
Pepper
Registered User
 
Pepper's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 14,456
vCash: 500
With $32M cap I would know that my team wouldn't have to trade away star players because they are asking for money that big teams are able to pay but small teams can't. I would enjoy it because I would know that my team is not disadvantaged from the start because they can pay only half the salaries that big teams can pay.

So in short, it would mean a lot to many small team fans. Not that I expect Larry Brooks to get the point.

Pepper is offline  
Old
12-12-2004, 03:19 PM
  #46
djhn579
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Tonawanda, NY
Country: United States
Posts: 1,747
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Trottier
As a fan, how exactly would a hardcap in the NHL enhance your viewing pleasure of the NHL?

Would love to know. Seriously.

Seriously...

A hard cap would enhance my viewing pleasure because my team would actually have the same opportunity to go after free agents as any other team in the league, as opposed to what happens now where we wait for the top free agents to be signed, then the next best free agents see they are not going to get a job on one of the big market teams so they consider the rest of the league.

Also, my team would have a much better chance of retaining our best players as opposed to what we have now where they hold out for more than my team can afford and end up forcing a trade in which we get young unproven players that will do exactly the same thing when they become better.

You complain that too many teams would have a hard time holding on to their players under a hard cap, but that is the reality now for many teams and that is not how a league is supposed to be.

djhn579 is offline  
Closed Thread

Forum Jump


Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 12:17 AM.

monitoring_string = "e4251c93e2ba248d29da988d93bf5144"
Contact Us - HFBoards - Archive - Privacy Statement - Terms of Use - Advertise - Top - AdChoices

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. ©2014 All Rights Reserved.