HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > General Hockey Discussion > The Business of Hockey
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.

Back in 1994...

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
09-14-2004, 05:03 PM
  #1
ehc73
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Coquitlam, BC
Country: Canada
Posts: 5,943
vCash: 500
Send a message via ICQ to ehc73
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?

ehc73 is offline  
Old
09-14-2004, 06:41 PM
  #2
Buffaloed
Administrator
Webmaster
 
Buffaloed's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Buffalo, NY
Country: United States
Posts: 24,934
vCash: 1390
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.

Buffaloed is offline  
Old
09-14-2004, 06:49 PM
  #3
GKJ
Global Moderator
Entertainment
 
GKJ's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Do not trade plz
Country: United States
Posts: 109,895
vCash: 5792
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.

GKJ is offline  
Old
09-14-2004, 06:56 PM
  #4
John Flyers Fan
Registered User
 
John Flyers Fan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Country: United States
Posts: 22,345
vCash: 500
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.

John Flyers Fan is offline  
Old
09-14-2004, 07:23 PM
  #5
Buffaloed
Administrator
Webmaster
 
Buffaloed's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Buffalo, NY
Country: United States
Posts: 24,934
vCash: 1390
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.

Buffaloed is offline  
Old
09-14-2004, 07:27 PM
  #6
John Flyers Fan
Registered User
 
John Flyers Fan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Country: United States
Posts: 22,345
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Buffaloed
Not exactly, because there weren't 30 teams in 1994.
14 out of 26 is still more than 8.

John Flyers Fan is offline  
Old
09-14-2004, 07:34 PM
  #7
GKJ
Global Moderator
Entertainment
 
GKJ's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Do not trade plz
Country: United States
Posts: 109,895
vCash: 5792
needs is a present tense verb right?

GKJ is offline  
Old
09-14-2004, 07:36 PM
  #8
Buffaloed
Administrator
Webmaster
 
Buffaloed's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Buffalo, NY
Country: United States
Posts: 24,934
vCash: 1390
Quote:
Originally Posted by John Flyers Fan
14 out of 26 is still more than 8.
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.

Buffaloed 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 01:39 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.