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.

Brian Burke online reaction to NHLPA's proposal

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
12-11-2004, 12:04 AM
  #51
SwisshockeyAcademy
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Posts: 3,094
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by vanlady
That's funny because he is the father of all the leagues problems. Who negotiated the last CBA. That's right none other than Brian Burke. Let's face it, Burke wants to be a GM again so bad he can taste it. Half of Vancouver knows that and the other half isn't paying attention. Brian Burke is NOT going to say anything that will jeopardize his chances of being a GM again.
The father of all the leagues problems. That is a heavy ring to wear.

SwisshockeyAcademy is offline  
Old
12-11-2004, 02:49 AM
  #52
Freudian
Patty likes beef
 
Freudian's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Country: Sweden
Posts: 28,900
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fish on The Sand
I always respected Burke, and all I can say is wow. I wish he was in charge. Does anybody know if he wants to pursue the nhl front office again?
While he is a clever guy and he has been consistent in his actions in the past I think his biggest problem is his personality. He is pretty confrontational at times. When working in the front office you have to be diplomatic to agents/players/media.

I think he is good as a columnist/commentator though. He has clear thinking and would not have to avoid being confrontational. He also has a good knowledge for the sport and without a doubt a love for the game.

Freudian is offline  
Old
12-11-2004, 06:07 AM
  #53
Steve L*
Registered User
 
Steve L*'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Southampton, England
Country: England
Posts: 11,548
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by vanlady
I heard that phoney line of BS in 94 too. Amazing how the league is not only still around but bigger than before. Funny people fail to mention the the revenues of the league have quadrupled since then but player salaries have only tripled. It amazes me how many people know 0 about the 94 lockout and are swallowing the NHL party line hook line and sinker, when they fed us the same line of BS back then.
The league only survived through expansion fees, that cant go on forever, can it?
Quote:
Originally Posted by vanlady
Funny people fail to mention the the revenues of the league have quadrupled since then but player salaries have only tripled.
The NHL has added 4 teams, that might have something to do with the added revenue. Everyone knows average player salaries have outgrown average revenue but you twist words around to make it look like owners are getting more money and the players less by using average salaries and total revenue.


Last edited by Steve L*: 12-11-2004 at 06:17 AM.
Steve L* is offline  
Old
12-11-2004, 10:21 AM
  #54
Pepper
Registered User
 
Pepper's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 14,405
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Newsguyone
If it was soooooooooo terrible, then why did Bettman and Daly not say as much?

Get real. There is enough here to work with. All you have to do is look at Bettman and Daly's reaction.
They haven't been afraid to simply rip up past NHLPA negotiations within minutes.

So why did they act like there was something to work with this time?

Because there is.
Boy you're naive...Bettman and Daly can't rip up the proposal because they are currently negotiating and all public tantrums would make those negotiations much harder. So they can't do anything but to smile and say they will make an counterproposal.

The proposal IS a *step* in to the right direction but it really doesn't address the real problem which is the increasing salaries, a 20% tax is nothing but a poor joke. Do you seriously think that Ilitch or Dolan are going to worry about paying $6M for a $5M player??

Get real yourself.

Pepper is offline  
Old
12-11-2004, 10:36 AM
  #55
incawg
Registered User
 
incawg's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Canuckland
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,009
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by I in the Eye
First pitch by Goodenow - very small luxury tax %, very high rollback %... Next pitch by Bettman - very high luxury tax %, very low rollback %...
If Bettman and co. come back on Tuesday with any sort of proposal that includes a luxury tax instead of a hard cap, there is no doubt in my mind that there will be hockey this year. You would immediately get the negotiation process rolling and it would really just be an issue as to exactly where the final tax numbers end up. But I just don't see that happening; Bettman won't cave on the hard cap issue this quickly. Bettman did allude to the salary cap during the Q&A portion of his news conference, although he prefers to use the less objectionable phrases. My money is on the NHL coming back with another hard cap proposal, which will most likely lead to a stalemate. Ultimately the most logical conclusion to this mess is a very high luxury tax, but to get something on the scale that the owners will be looking for, I think they'll end up using the hard cap proposals as leverage for quite a while longer.

incawg is offline  
Old
12-11-2004, 10:43 AM
  #56
A Good Flying Bird*
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Ann Arbor
Country: Canada
Posts: 9,359
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by incawg
If Bettman and co. come back on Tuesday with any sort of proposal that includes a luxury tax instead of a hard cap, there is no doubt in my mind that there will be hockey this year. You would immediately get the negotiation process rolling and it would really just be an issue as to exactly where the final tax numbers end up. But I just don't see that happening; Bettman won't cave on the hard cap issue this quickly. Bettman did allude to the salary cap during the Q&A portion of his news conference, although he prefers to use the less objectionable phrases. My money is on the NHL coming back with another hard cap proposal, which will most likely lead to a stalemate. Ultimately the most logical conclusion to this mess is a very high luxury tax, but to get something on the scale that the owners will be looking for, I think they'll end up using the hard cap proposals as leverage for quite a while longer.
Exactly.
If Bettman crosses that line from hard cap to luxury tax, then the two sides can at least negotiate numbers ... which, wherever they end up, shouldn't be impossible.

If that happens, credit Goodenow for making an offer that got things moving.

But I don't think he'll cross that line yet.
My concern is this: If he doesn't cross it now, he may never do so.
That 24 percent offer was designed to shake things up. I'm not sure it's done that.

If Bettman comes back with the same old song, I think the players may just say "screw it" and walk away from the table.
Talk to Nik Lidstrom, who just offered $2.4 Million of next year's salary back to his boss.
Or how about some guy making $600,000.
That sounds like a ton to you and me, I suppose.
But I'm sure he's not thrilled about giving up $150,000.

Goodenow's offer was brilliant.
It put pressure on the league. It won some much needed PR. And if it is outright rejected, the players are going to be angry with the league, and have even more resolve, IMO.


Last edited by A Good Flying Bird*: 12-11-2004 at 10:49 AM.
A Good Flying Bird* is offline  
Old
12-11-2004, 12:23 PM
  #57
handtrick
Registered User
 
handtrick's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Chattanooga, TN
Posts: 3,090
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by incawg
If Bettman and co. come back on Tuesday with any sort of proposal that includes a luxury tax instead of a hard cap, there is no doubt in my mind that there will be hockey this year. You would immediately get the negotiation process rolling and it would really just be an issue as to exactly where the final tax numbers end up. But I just don't see that happening; Bettman won't cave on the hard cap issue this quickly. Bettman did allude to the salary cap during the Q&A portion of his news conference, although he prefers to use the less objectionable phrases. My money is on the NHL coming back with another hard cap proposal, which will most likely lead to a stalemate. Ultimately the most logical conclusion to this mess is a very high luxury tax, but to get something on the scale that the owners will be looking for, I think they'll end up using the hard cap proposals as leverage for quite a while longer.

Quote:
Originally Posted by I in the Eye
If it doesn't appeal to either the players or the league, then IMO, this is the middle ground... This is the fair deal...

If a stiff luxury tax isn't the solution, IMO, there will be no hockey this year - nor for the foreseeable future... However, IMO, the solution will likely be the luxury tax... The cues that I get from Bettman and Goodenow talking to the media, to me, it's almost like they are setting it up so that the luxury tax is the exit strategy for both of them...

For example, from what I remember (and I admit that video games in my youth made my attention span quite low) there was no mention from Bettman and Goodenow of the word 'salary cap' during their newsconferences - maybe I'm being immune to the word, or I subconsciously ignored it, hearing what I wanted to hear - but I did not hear the word spoken from their mouths - and I was trying to pay close attention to the words they chose to use... If this is true, then IMO, Bettman and Goodenow perhaps came to a cooperation during the meeting not to use that dirty word... If true, this is a positive... and this could be a sign that both sides are willing to give and take on the 'luxury tax' parameters - using the salary rollback % and the luxury tax % as the main bargaining chips...

First pitch by Goodenow - very small luxury tax %, very high rollback %... Next pitch by Bettman - very high luxury tax %, very low rollback %...

Final deal (I'm hoping and predicting), somewhere in the middle... Good enough that either side doesn't end up smiling and giving old white men high fives and thumbs up, and good enough that pro-owner and pro-player supporters are left underwhelmed... Much like watching a boring hockey game ending in a 1-1 tie...

One of you two guys is right......I think with my mind it will be incawg, but hope in my heart it will be I in the Eye.......

handtrick is offline  
Old
12-11-2004, 02:28 PM
  #58
Jazz
Registered User
 
Jazz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Vancouver, Canada
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,442
vCash: 500
Send a message via ICQ to Jazz
Quote:
Originally Posted by Oiler_Fan
Awesome man, great directions, thanks.
No worries! I'm glad you enjoyed it.

FYI - Both Brian Burke and Ray Ferarro will be on this program on Monday night (or Tuesday morn) (10pm PST, or 1am EST, or 7am CET). debating both sides of the issue. I'll post the live listen and then the audio-vault on Monday.

Jazz is offline  
Old
12-11-2004, 03:02 PM
  #59
I in the Eye
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Country:
Posts: 4,174
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by incawg
If Bettman and co. come back on Tuesday with any sort of proposal that includes a luxury tax instead of a hard cap, there is no doubt in my mind that there will be hockey this year. You would immediately get the negotiation process rolling and it would really just be an issue as to exactly where the final tax numbers end up. But I just don't see that happening; Bettman won't cave on the hard cap issue this quickly. Bettman did allude to the salary cap during the Q&A portion of his news conference, although he prefers to use the less objectionable phrases. My money is on the NHL coming back with another hard cap proposal, which will most likely lead to a stalemate. Ultimately the most logical conclusion to this mess is a very high luxury tax, but to get something on the scale that the owners will be looking for, I think they'll end up using the hard cap proposals as leverage for quite a while longer.
IMO, a luxury tax of say 100:1 over 40 million does the same thing as a hard cap As of this point, IMO, coming back with a 'hard cap' framework (when a high enough $ amount of a luxury tax can do the same thing) makes a 'hard cap' proposal now unproductive...

By going the 'luxury tax' route, IMO, it will appear that Bettman and the owners made a huge concession by agreeing to negotiate a luxury tax (i.e. by using the same framework that the NHLPA has proposed be used)... Just like it appears that Goodenow made a huge concession with the 24% rollback... It's all smoke and mirrors (since the size of the luxury tax could be so absurd that it acts like a hard cap), and it puts the ball back in Goodenow's court...

IMO, for this CBA, the luxury tax is the way to go... I'd be disappointed if the NHL went for a home run with a hard cap... IMO, it's not necessary...

For this CBA, the luxury tax is the solution, IMO... The NHL now has a defendable case that the 'free market' system doesn't work - thus, why the NHLPA is willing to negotiate a luxury tax system (whereas the NHLPA wasn't willing to negotiate this in the past)... Come next CBA, the NHL may have a defendable case that the 'luxury tax' system doesn't work - thus, IMO, the NHLPA would be much more willing to negotiate a cap system once history shows the results of the luxury tax system...

I'm hoping that the luxury tax system will right the ship, but if it doesn't, then the NHL is in a much better position to get a strict cap implemented come the next CBA...

IMO, league economics should be dealt with over time... not with a definitive blow... No one knows the ramifications of doing too much, too fast... Things can quickly spiral out of control... Slow, steady, controlled, logical steps will minimize negative impact, IMO...

And IMO, with a luxury tax framework on the table, it is not necessary for the league to go for the jugular (to do whatever it takes to get a hard cap implemented - kill the season, kill the NHLPA if necessary)... If the league wants to 'kill' the NHLPA if it gets in the way of a hard cap, give the NHLPA a rope to hang themselves with (agree to a variation of the luxury tax framework they proposed... prove that it doesn't work with real results)... It's cleaner, and you might get away with murder... The only problem is, it takes longer...

If I was a hard cap supporter (which I'm not), to try and get a hard cap right now, IMO, is not the optimal strategy... not if the goal is to win the war (not just a battle)... When you are going into court to try and break a union, you've got to make sure that you have exhausted all other alternatives first to have a fighting chance... It's not an easy thing to do, and it can backfire...

You can definitely be right, incawg... The NHL may be still going for the hard cap for quite a while longer... It wouldn't be too surprising to me if the NHL came back with a hard cap counter offer (only so that it appears that they are ultimately making a huge sacrifice to negotiate a strict luxury tax during the final hour to save the season)... Pretty dramatic, I know...

Who knows how this plays out, but ultimately, trying to get a hard cap implemented in this CBA doesn't make much sense to me (especially when considering - if I remember correctly - that only one of the league's proposals to the NHLPA contained a hard cap, so they were willing to explore other avenues than a hard cap)... But I could definitely be wrong...

I in the Eye is offline  
Old
12-11-2004, 04:18 PM
  #60
A Good Flying Bird*
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Ann Arbor
Country: Canada
Posts: 9,359
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pepper
Boy you're naive...Bettman and Daly can't rip up the proposal because they are currently negotiating and all public tantrums would make those negotiations much harder. So they can't do anything but to smile and say they will make an counterproposal.

The proposal IS a *step* in to the right direction but it really doesn't address the real problem which is the increasing salaries, a 20% tax is nothing but a poor joke. Do you seriously think that Ilitch or Dolan are going to worry about paying $6M for a $5M player??

Get real yourself.
So there is something to work with?
That's my point.
The first offer was essentially torn up in public.
This one is not.

There is something to work with.

A Good Flying Bird* is offline  
Old
12-11-2004, 04:32 PM
  #61
GoM
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Toronto
Country: Canada
Posts: 7,588
vCash: 500
Holy christ Burke is going to town

GoM is offline  
Old
12-12-2004, 12:41 AM
  #62
Scheme
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 261
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Newsguyone
If that happens, credit Goodenow for making an offer that got things moving.
I won't give Goodenow credit for anything. He could have made this proposal back when he made that joke of an offer - or anytime between then and now. We would be way farther along in negotiations (and closer to a season) if the NHLPA had not rocked its heels while members were stealing jobs from European players.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Newsguyone
Goodenow's offer was brilliant.
It put pressure on the league. It won some much needed PR. And if it is outright rejected, the players are going to be angry with the league, and have even more resolve, IMO.
And that's exactly what this offer is, a PR move - nothing more. A bribe to keep the current system going. If Bettman proposes a $30-$40 million hard cap with a 5% salary boost, it will prove to the public that for the players, it's not about the salary but all about the system. The players will fold like a cheap tent.

Scheme is offline  
Old
12-12-2004, 01:43 AM
  #63
OlliMackBjugStud
Registered User
 
OlliMackBjugStud's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,651
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by ceber
The mid and small market teams can try be as fiscally responsible as they want to be, but when a big market team decides it wants to go after some plapers, those small market teams will still have to struggle .
id like one example of how if STL signs Glen Murray to a 4 year 15 million dollar contract, how this would affect any specific CGY player ? how would it affect any specific NSH player ?

whats the alternative. lets say Murray isnt worth 15m, lets say he is worth 8m over4 years. this puts CGY and NSH in teh running for him ? ok, but both of them cant sign him, so its not like just because they can afford him, they will get him.

so shouldnt CGY have a plan in place that takes into consideration growth of their competitors team ? i mean Palffy, Murray, KOvalev etc are going to get contract even if they are cheap and CGY is going to have build their team as if they didnt sign each guy.

finally, who cares if your team is built of guys not named Pallfy, Murray, Kovalev, Nedved, Ricci or any of the other UFA signings. Big deal, its not a pre requisite to success.

dr

OlliMackBjugStud is offline  
Old
12-12-2004, 01:58 AM
  #64
OlliMackBjugStud
Registered User
 
OlliMackBjugStud's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,651
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by kerrly
Yeah because Burke will say anything to keep his job. Come on, judging by your name you fairly familiar with Burke. When has Burke said anything that isn't the honest to god truth. Burke is not the type of guy who will say things to further himself. He's probably the most honest guy in sports and speaks unbiased, he gives credit wear credit is due. You may not think he's unbiased because of his viewpoints, but if I would believe anyone about the league's problems its him.
huh ? Brian Burke is a great quote and a great speaker, but he has fully admited he will lie to the media if it furthers his cause. he was speaking in the context of managing the Canucks, but still is a known hot air blower.

dr

OlliMackBjugStud is offline  
Old
12-12-2004, 02:00 AM
  #65
OlliMackBjugStud
Registered User
 
OlliMackBjugStud's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,651
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by jcpenny
Bright comment, Ive been thinking that all along. Some teams just have more money than others, when they sign players they dont think about what the other Teams think about it. There was no way to prevent the contracts to get out of hand under the old CBA. Easy to say for the players that its the owners fault, its economy! It was bound to happen sooner or later but it happened too fast. Thats why they need more than just a 24% rollback cause it will get back to the same problem.
heavens, how has the NHL survived for 75+ years without one ? certainly, there has always been market differential.

dr

OlliMackBjugStud is offline  
Old
12-12-2004, 02:41 AM
  #66
FlyersFan10*
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Ottawa, Ontario
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,349
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by txpd
only a massively punitive luxury tax would have the required effect. if an nhl luxury tax turned out like the MLB tax, it would be a joke. it slows the red sox and the yankees down not at all. they dont win every year, but they are in the playoffs and make a deep run every year.

the rangers, leafs, flyers and red wings wouldn't break stride because of a luxury tax.
You know what, where do you people come up with this stuff? All this talk about the Rangers, Flyers, Leafs and Red Wings continuing to spend even with a luxury tax in place is just plain assinine. For starters, the main owner of the Maple Leafs (that would be the Ontario Teacher's Pension Fund) would under NO CIRCUMSTANCES do anything that would cost them profit in the future. You think they'd authorize paying a tax? Hey, my older sister is a high school teacher and she pays very close attention to the pension fund. And you can believe that they will not under any circumstances have some kind of payroll that would run them into luxury tax category. No way, no how.

As for the Flyers, Ed Snider didn't get rich by being an idiot. He got rich by spending his money wisely. And if you honestly think that Ed would want to pay tax as well, once again, you're grossly mistaken. Same goes for Mike Illitch. He also didn't get rich by spending money foolishly. Both men have excellent business minds and wouldn't try to do anything to possibly screw their bottom line.

As for the Rangers, they report to a board of governors. More importantly, because they're owned by VIACOM and VIACOM is a publicly traded company, they have to answer to share holders. And while the Rangers haven't been financially responsible over the past few years, you can bet all that will change once the new agreement is in place. Glen Sather also showed some fiscal responsibility last year when he had his firesale. I read somewhere that he managed to cut payroll by nearly $30 million after the gutting at the trade deadline. And according to reports, that was only the beginning.

So, that argument about the Flyers, Red Wings, Rangers, and Leafs all circumventing the system is nothing more than blowing smoke.

FlyersFan10* is offline  
Old
12-12-2004, 02:56 AM
  #67
Hasbro
HFBoards Sponsor
 
Hasbro's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: South Rectangle
Country: Sami
Posts: 29,757
vCash: 500
I hate Burke, but he is on the target on this.

Hasbro is offline  
Old
12-12-2004, 03:37 AM
  #68
me2
Seahawks 43
 
me2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Broncos 8
Country: Wallis & Futuna
Posts: 17,789
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by FlyersFan10
You know what, where do you people come up with this stuff? All this talk about the Rangers, Flyers, Leafs and Red Wings continuing to spend even with a luxury tax in place is just plain assinine. For starters, the main owner of the Maple Leafs (that would be the Ontario Teacher's Pension Fund) would under NO CIRCUMSTANCES do anything that would cost them profit in the future. You think they'd authorize paying a tax? Hey, my older sister is a high school teacher and she pays very close attention to the pension fund. And you can believe that they will not under any circumstances have some kind of payroll that would run them into luxury tax category. No way, no how.

As for the Flyers, Ed Snider didn't get rich by being an idiot. He got rich by spending his money wisely. And if you honestly think that Ed would want to pay tax as well, once again, you're grossly mistaken. Same goes for Mike Illitch. He also didn't get rich by spending money foolishly. Both men have excellent business minds and wouldn't try to do anything to possibly screw their bottom line.

As for the Rangers, they report to a board of governors. More importantly, because they're owned by VIACOM and VIACOM is a publicly traded company, they have to answer to share holders. And while the Rangers haven't been financially responsible over the past few years, you can bet all that will change once the new agreement is in place. Glen Sather also showed some fiscal responsibility last year when he had his firesale. I read somewhere that he managed to cut payroll by nearly $30 million after the gutting at the trade deadline. And according to reports, that was only the beginning.

So, that argument about the Flyers, Red Wings, Rangers, and Leafs all circumventing the system is nothing more than blowing smoke.

I'm sorry I can't agree. The Wings supposedly lost at least $16.4m last year (at least according to Forbes). Illitch is prepared to risk taking a big financial loss if he feels its worth it. So clearly some owners will lose money if it suits their desire to win.

As for the Flyers why would the be prepared to spend $65m this year but not next year? Whether that $65m is all salary or $55m salary + $10m tax it is still $65m. Leafs might have a hard time justifying it to the Pension fund but Flyers owners don't have to worry about such stuff. If a team is prepared to pay the tax they'll get a better deal because not as many other teams will bid.

If Sather, Clarke or Holland felt the difference between winning the cup and not was paying $4m in tax, then they'd pay it.

me2 is offline  
Old
12-12-2004, 05:18 AM
  #69
quat
intheDanRusseljungle
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Victoria BC
Posts: 8,924
vCash: 500
Send a message via ICQ to quat
Quote:
Originally Posted by DementedReality
heavens, how has the NHL survived for 75+ years without one ? certainly, there has always been market differential.

dr
Well, the fact the players were unable to enjoy any kind of salary demands for most of those 75 years has a lot to do with things.

I don't want to go back to a time when players were treated that poorly, but conversely, these days when compared to the income they generate, they seem to be proportionaly overpaid.

quat is offline  
Old
12-12-2004, 05:57 AM
  #70
kmad
Riot Survivor
 
kmad's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Vancouver
Country: Canada
Posts: 31,932
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by vanlady
Funny people fail to mention the the revenues of the league have quadrupled since then but player salaries have only tripled.
You just mentioned in the same paragraph that the league expanded. While the average salary multiplied by three, the amount of average salaries being paid out increased by 25%. That total is considerably more than simply three times the average salary. Surely you considered this?

kmad is offline  
Old
12-12-2004, 10:37 AM
  #71
ceber
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Wyoming, MN
Country: United States
Posts: 3,500
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by DementedReality
id like one example of how if STL signs Glen Murray to a 4 year 15 million dollar contract, how this would affect any specific CGY player ? how would it affect any specific NSH player ?

whats the alternative. lets say Murray isnt worth 15m, lets say he is worth 8m over4 years. this puts CGY and NSH in teh running for him ? ok, but both of them cant sign him, so its not like just because they can afford him, they will get him.

so shouldnt CGY have a plan in place that takes into consideration growth of their competitors team ? i mean Palffy, Murray, KOvalev etc are going to get contract even if they are cheap and CGY is going to have build their team as if they didnt sign each guy.

finally, who cares if your team is built of guys not named Pallfy, Murray, Kovalev, Nedved, Ricci or any of the other UFA signings. Big deal, its not a pre requisite to success.

dr
It's not about specific players, it's about salaries in general. Teams in better financial markets can bear to pay higher salaries. Players and agents will always push for the most they can get. I don't blame them one bit. I want to get paid as much as I can for what I do, too. Over time this has the effect of driving up salaries for all players beyond what they would be if all financial markets were average-sized, though. I have no idea how best to solve that problem. Revenue sharing and a beefy luxury tax might do it, who knows?

ceber is offline  
Old
12-12-2004, 11:31 AM
  #72
SENSible1*
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,543
vCash: 500
Quote:
So, that argument about the Flyers, Red Wings, Rangers, and Leafs all circumventing the system is nothing more than blowing smoke.
These franchises can blow the system out of whack AGAIN and still remain profitable.

Quote:
For starters, the main owner of the Maple Leafs (that would be the Ontario Teacher's Pension Fund) would under NO CIRCUMSTANCES do anything that would cost them profit in the future. You think they'd authorize paying a tax? Hey, my older sister is a high school teacher and she pays very close attention to the pension fund. And you can believe that they will not under any circumstances have some kind of payroll that would run them into luxury tax category. No way, no how
Complete and utter hogwash. The Leafs can remain profitable even while paying stiff luxury taxes. Ballard proved that the Leafs could ice a cheap crappy team and still sell out, so there was no incentive to improve the product and yet the pension fund ignored this lesson and iced one of the most expensive teams in the league. A weak luxury tax won't change that one bit.

A small luxury tax didn't slow the Yankees down one bit and it won't slow the big spenders in hockey either.


Last edited by SENSible1*: 12-12-2004 at 11:37 AM.
SENSible1* is offline  
Old
12-12-2004, 12:16 PM
  #73
OlliMackBjugStud
Registered User
 
OlliMackBjugStud's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,651
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Thunderstruck
A small luxury tax didn't slow the Yankees down one bit and it won't slow the big spenders in hockey either.
well take thay up with the owners. they dont want a luxury tax unless its one that will never be used.

the only tax they would consider is one that severly limits how much money they actually share. so that requires a very low tax.

the key being, they dont like a tax because they arent much interested in sharing revenues. certainly not to the levels of the NFL.

DR

OlliMackBjugStud is offline  
Old
12-12-2004, 12:18 PM
  #74
YellHockey*
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 2,830
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by ceber
Teams in better financial markets can bear to pay higher salaries. Players and agents will always push for the most they can get. I don't blame them one bit. I want to get paid as much as I can for what I do, too. Over time this has the effect of driving up salaries for all players beyond what they would be if all financial markets were average-sized, though.
Teams in weaker financial markets can't bear to pay average salaries. Owners and GMs will always push for the least they can pay. I don't blame them one bit. I want to pay out as little as I can for what my employees do, too. Over time this has the effect of driving down salaries for all players beyond what they would be if all financial markets were average-sized, though.

YellHockey* is offline  
Old
12-12-2004, 01:38 PM
  #75
Shane
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 12,974
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by kmad
You just mentioned in the same paragraph that the league expanded. While the average salary multiplied by three, the amount of average salaries being paid out increased by 25%. That total is considerably more than simply three times the average salary. Surely you considered this?
Obviously not.

Shane 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 09:48 PM.

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.