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, NHL revenues, relocation and expansion.

75% on 40m ???

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
12-09-2004, 06:57 PM
  #1
trahans99
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Home of the 2005 Memorial Cup
Posts: 1,443
vCash: 500
75% on 40m ???

What happend to the reported 75% tax on payrolls over $40m.

Even with the huge concessions of 24% salary rollback the 20% tax on $45m is not stiff enough. Maybe with 20% rollback and 75% on 40m that may keep the talks going.

trahans99 is offline  
Old
12-09-2004, 07:05 PM
  #2
Riggins
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Vancouver, BC
Country: Canada
Posts: 5,400
vCash: 500
20 cents on the dollar over $45 is just crap. That won't prevent the big budget teams from spending.

It has to go up, $0.75 on 40 and a 20% rollback would be nice. Though I'd like to see a full dollar at 40 million.

Riggins is offline  
Old
12-09-2004, 07:07 PM
  #3
A Good Flying Bird*
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Ann Arbor
Country: Canada
Posts: 9,359
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by trahans99
What happend to the reported 75% tax on payrolls over $40m.

Even with the huge concessions of 24% salary rollback the 20% tax on $45m is not stiff enough. Maybe with 20% rollback and 75% on 40m that may keep the talks going.
My guess is that you'll see the rollback come down toward 10-15 percent and the luxury tax go to about 70 percent on 44 Million or more.

At least that's what I'm hoping.

A Good Flying Bird* is offline  
Old
12-09-2004, 07:11 PM
  #4
Go Flames Go*
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 943
vCash: 500
The .20 on a 45 payroll is not even worth considering. What was Goodenow thinking. By there projections avaliable at NHLPA.com the total payroll tax money paid under current contracts would be a pinch to the teams over spending, 1.608 million which makes me laugh out loud.

Go Flames Go* is offline  
Old
12-09-2004, 07:14 PM
  #5
kerrly
Registered User
 
kerrly's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Regina
Country: Canada
Posts: 806
vCash: 500
Send a message via MSN to kerrly
Quote:
Originally Posted by Newsguyone
My guess is that you'll see the rollback come down toward 10-15 percent and the luxury tax go to about 70 percent on 44 Million or more.

At least that's what I'm hoping.
I'm sure that is a fair bet. I think they will use the huge roll-back as a bargaining chip against the higher luxury tax. I'm sure the owners would be more than willing to give back the whole roll-back if there is a much stiffer tax put in place.

kerrly is offline  
Old
12-09-2004, 08:55 PM
  #6
trahans99
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Home of the 2005 Memorial Cup
Posts: 1,443
vCash: 500
I'd say go with dollar for dollar over 40million, 20% rollback and a very stiff penalty of 2:1 or something at 50-60 million. I know all that is probably wishful thinking but if the NHLPA won't accept a hard cap they better be prepared to accept something close.

trahans99 is offline  
Old
12-09-2004, 10:18 PM
  #7
SENSible1*
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,543
vCash: 500
This offer will not be the basis of any settlement. Discussing it in detail is pointless.

The entire signifacance of the offer was in the fact that the players finally admitted the game has serious financial problems.

SENSible1* is offline  
Old
12-09-2004, 10:49 PM
  #8
me2
Seahawks 43
 
me2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Broncos 8
Country: Wallis & Futuna
Posts: 22,642
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by Go Flames Go
The .20 on a 45 payroll is not even worth considering. What was Goodenow thinking.
That the 24% reduction would be won back in 2-3 years when rich teams go on shoping sprees for younger UFAs using the extra 24% they now have in the pockets.

me2 is offline  
Old
12-10-2004, 12:14 AM
  #9
two out of three*
 
two out of three*'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Newbury Park, CA
Country: United States
Posts: 4,829
vCash: 500
Send a message via ICQ to two out of three* Send a message via AIM to two out of three*
Will GB even take into consideration a 75% luxury tax? After all he says "he doesn't believe in them." What a do*che.

two out of three* is offline  
Old
12-10-2004, 01:16 AM
  #10
Digger12
Gold Fever
 
Digger12's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Back o' beyond
Posts: 15,571
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Newsguyone
My guess is that you'll see the rollback come down toward 10-15 percent and the luxury tax go to about 70 percent on 44 Million or more.

At least that's what I'm hoping.
IMO this is what the NHLPA hopes will be the next logical step in the bargaining process. Whether the NHL decides to play ball will be interesting to watch.

Digger12 is offline  
Old
12-10-2004, 01:23 AM
  #11
Pepper
Registered User
 
Pepper's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 14,515
vCash: 500
Major, major disappointment. Had the proposal been really the 75% after $40M I would have been very optimistic. This proposal, while a step in the right direction, is really too little too late. It doesn't do anything to prevent Rangers, Wings and Stars to spend 60-70M per year, the taxes are way too low.

I'm not optimistc anymore.

Pepper is offline  
Old
12-10-2004, 07:58 AM
  #12
triggrman
HFBoards Sponsor
 
triggrman's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Murfreesboro, TN
Country: United States
Posts: 19,100
vCash: 500
What if they offer this same deal but do away with arbitration rights? That's a true "free market" system the players are talking about.

IMHO, salary arbitration is the most detrimental obstacle the fiscally responsible or "small market" owners.

triggrman is offline  
Old
12-10-2004, 08:06 AM
  #13
Fish on The Sand
Untouchable
 
Fish on The Sand's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Nanaimo
Country: Canada
Posts: 52,469
vCash: 500
you know what, any sort of rollback is crap. I wouldn't mind seeing any rollback at all if it meant a good system, that being said, a much smaller rollback, at say 10% in addition to a hard cap would be nice. Also, do away with arbitration rights, and reduce the RFA raise to 5%. Come to think of it, screw the union. They aren't even a true union by traditional standards. Unions are supposed to work for the employee. Collective bargaining right? That means they should back the players in negotiations, not agents, and that means they should focus on working conditions. The whole issue of a salary cap shouldn't even have to go through the union, because if the nhl is a true business, then each team is a separte department, and in real business, the union has no say in department spending/budget.

Fish on The Sand is offline  
Old
12-10-2004, 08:33 AM
  #14
A Good Flying Bird*
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Ann Arbor
Country: Canada
Posts: 9,359
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fish on The Sand
you know what, any sort of rollback is crap. I wouldn't mind seeing any rollback at all if it meant a good system, that being said, a much smaller rollback, at say 10% in addition to a hard cap would be nice. Also, do away with arbitration rights, and reduce the RFA raise to 5%. Come to think of it, screw the union. They aren't even a true union by traditional standards. Unions are supposed to work for the employee. Collective bargaining right? That means they should back the players in negotiations, not agents, and that means they should focus on working conditions. The whole issue of a salary cap shouldn't even have to go through the union, because if the nhl is a true business, then each team is a separte department, and in real business, the union has no say in department spending/budget.
Look. I hear what you're saying.
But think about it. When you say you don't want rollbacks but that you do want a cap, or something close to it, you are still saying "yes, I want a roll back"
Because most caps or strict luxury taxes talked about will reduce salaries by 20-35 percent.
So let's be honest.

A Good Flying Bird* is offline  
Old
12-10-2004, 09:42 AM
  #15
SENSible1*
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,543
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Newsguyone
Look. I hear what you're saying.
But think about it. When you say you don't want rollbacks but that you do want a cap, or something close to it, you are still saying "yes, I want a roll back"
Because most caps or strict luxury taxes talked about will reduce salaries by 20-35 percent.
So let's be honest.
Yes, let's be honest. The NHL and the majority of fans want the 35% rollback to be permanent.

The NHLPA wants a temporary rollback on the road to higher salaries. The fact that they are willing to attempt this big a bribe to maintain the inflationary system should tell you everything you need to know about their intentions.

SENSible1* is offline  
Old
12-10-2004, 10:24 AM
  #16
GKJ
Global Moderator
Entertainment
 
GKJ's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Do not trade plz
Country: United States
Posts: 115,992
vCash: 625
Quote:
Originally Posted by Thunderstruck
Yes, let's be honest. The NHL and the majority of fans want the 35% rollback to be permanent.

The NHL owners can keep it that way by not letting salaries get out of control.

GKJ is offline  
Old
12-10-2004, 10:30 AM
  #17
i am dave
Registered User
 
i am dave's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Corner of 1st & 1st
Country: United States
Posts: 2,182
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by go kim johnsson
The NHL owners can keep it that way by not letting salaries get out of control.
Just to play devil's advocate, would that not be grounds for the PA to scream "collusion?"

i am dave is offline  
Old
12-10-2004, 10:32 AM
  #18
usiel
Registered User
 
usiel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Malaz City
Country: San Marino
Posts: 10,221
vCash: 878
Send a message via MSN to usiel
Quote:
Originally Posted by Thunderstruck
Yes, let's be honest. The NHL and the majority of fans want the 35% rollback to be permanent.

The NHLPA wants a temporary rollback on the road to higher salaries. The fact that they are willing to attempt this big a bribe to maintain the inflationary system should tell you everything you need to know about their intentions.
well said.

usiel is offline  
Old
12-10-2004, 10:33 AM
  #19
vanlady
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 810
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by PitkanenPower
Just to play devil's advocate, would that not be grounds for the PA to scream "collusion?"
Hmmm no actually it is called a budget. It can also be called fiscal responsibility if a team decides not to go over the luxury tax level. It would also be great if the NHL actually enforced it's fiscal responsibility clause.

vanlady is offline  
Old
12-10-2004, 10:36 AM
  #20
GKJ
Global Moderator
Entertainment
 
GKJ's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Do not trade plz
Country: United States
Posts: 115,992
vCash: 625
Quote:
Originally Posted by PitkanenPower
Just to play devil's advocate, would that not be grounds for the PA to scream "collusion?"

They can scream collusion all they want. If 30 NHL owners don't want to spend $5M a year on Martin Lapointe then they don't have to. It's collusion if 30 NHL owners are telling each other to not spend the money. But If Jaromir Jage was to become a free agent and is demanding $11M a year and no one wants to give him any more than 6 then that's their preogative.

GKJ is offline  
Old
12-10-2004, 10:48 AM
  #21
vanlady
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 810
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Thunderstruck
Yes, let's be honest. The NHL and the majority of fans want the 35% rollback to be permanent.

The NHLPA wants a temporary rollback on the road to higher salaries. The fact that they are willing to attempt this big a bribe to maintain the inflationary system should tell you everything you need to know about their intentions.
This boggles my mind, how are these rollbacks not permanent? The primary inflator over the last 5 years has been arbitration and hold outs. OK so now owners can take players to arbitration so hold outs are taken care of. Oh and all arbitration awards are now a high low system combine that with the 24% rollback on the contracts used in the arbitration awards and bingo you get a permanent solution

Everyone here say 4 years and the salaries will be right back where they are. Well it has taken 6 years under the inflationary system to get to this point. With all the new changes in arbitration alone you are looking at a 10 year recovery period not 4. By then let's face it if the league cannot drive revenue by then fold the league.

vanlady is offline  
Old
12-10-2004, 11:30 AM
  #22
FLYLine24
The Mac Truck
 
FLYLine24's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: NY
Country: United States
Posts: 32,355
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Thunderstruck
Yes, let's be honest. The NHL and the majority of fans want the 35% rollback to be permanent.

The NHLPA wants a temporary rollback on the road to higher salaries. The fact that they are willing to attempt this big a bribe to maintain the inflationary system should tell you everything you need to know about their intentions.
Earth to Thunder...the OWNERS would be 100% Responsible for ANY increase in salaries after the roleback...not the NHLPA.

FLYLine24 is offline  
Old
12-10-2004, 11:30 AM
  #23
SENSible1*
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,543
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by vanlady
This boggles my mind, how are these rollbacks not permanent? The primary inflator over the last 5 years has been arbitration and hold outs. OK so now owners can take players to arbitration so hold outs are taken care of. Oh and all arbitration awards are now a high low system combine that with the 24% rollback on the contracts used in the arbitration awards and bingo you get a permanent solution

Everyone here say 4 years and the salaries will be right back where they are. Well it has taken 6 years under the inflationary system to get to this point. With all the new changes in arbitration alone you are looking at a 10 year recovery period not 4. By then let's face it if the league cannot drive revenue by then fold the league.

Hold outs over???? Will the arbitrator follow the players around holding a gun to the players head forcing them to play and give 100%? Players can withhold their sevices at any time, just ask Yashin.

Salary escalation will begin almost immediately as the money freed up for the big spenders would be used in a bidding war for the host of free agents currently available.

Are you seriously trying to suggest that the players would give up $600M in guaranteed money for the "good of the game?

They did it in a desperate attempt to keep the current inflationary system or as close as they can get. If not, why not set a hard cap at the $60M mark, since their rollback will get all teams under that mark?

SENSible1* is offline  
Old
12-10-2004, 11:36 AM
  #24
SENSible1*
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,543
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by FLYLine4LIFE
Earth to Thunder...the OWNERS would be 100% Responsible for ANY increase in salaries after the roleback...not the NHLPA.
According to the crap you've been spewing here for the past couple of months, the owners have always been responsible for ANY increase in salaries.

What you fail to see or acknowlege is that the system itself creates inflationary pressure. The only time the owners can act as a group to establish their mutual interests is during CBA negotiations. During the application of the system, the owners compete for relatively scarce resources, thus driving up the price.

The NHLPA and their agents will use EVERY tool available to drive up salaries. It's their job. To pretend that they have no role is ridiculous.

SENSible1* is offline  
Old
12-10-2004, 11:38 AM
  #25
vanlady
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 810
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Thunderstruck
Hold outs over???? Will the arbitrator follow the players around holding a gun to the players head forcing them to play and give 100%? Players can withhold their sevices at any time, just ask Yashin.

Salary escalation will begin almost immediately as the money freed up for the big spenders would be used in a bidding war for the host of free agents currently available.

Are you seriously trying to suggest that the players would give up $600M in guaranteed money for the "good of the game?

They did it in a desperate attempt to keep the current inflationary system or as close as they can get. If not, why not set a hard cap at the $60M mark, since their rollback will get all teams under that mark?
Do you understand that when players sign there initial contract that the automatically make themselves subject to the CBA? This means that players agree that owners can take them to arbitration. If a player then refuses to play after a arbitrated settlement, the player can now be taken to court, sanctioned and fined. Players are not going to risk that, the money they could lose is far greater than what they would gain.

Actually yes the players would give up 600 million to get back to work. The strong majority of these guys just want to play hockey.

Got a question for you, how are you going to like it when under a hard cap, when your team is hit by the injury bug and you have 4 or 5 guys on IR, when you go to replace them off the open market, you now have to trade your best player to make cap room? Happens all the time in the NFL

vanlady 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 05:35 AM.

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

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. 2015 All Rights Reserved.