The NHLPA is absolutely brilliant.

[Tib]

Two pucks. 'Nuff said.

[Bluenoser]

I don't agree with a luxury tax, not unless there are certain stipulations.

Baseball has proven that a luxury tax doesn't work. The Rangers, Leafs, Flyers (insert Yankees, Red Sox) will still spend while everyone else acts as their farm system. Yes, the have nots win occasionally, (Flames, Ducks/Angels, Marlins) but they don't stay competitive for very long. One good run and then they're back with the pack the next season. Of course in the Angels case they now have an owner who's not afraid to compete with the Jones's (Yankees/Red Sox), but that's a rare case.

One very important thing that has to come from a luxury tax is, any moneys given to other teams as a result must, and I do mean must, be gauranteed to be spent on improving the team, and not shoved in the owners pocket. That's one of the reasons the luxury tax isn't working in baseball. The Tax would also have to be quite high, otherwise it won't have any effect. Again, baseball has proven this.

Either way, we're in for a long Cold War. Owners aren't going to change their stance on cost certainty/salary cap anytime in the near future, and neither are the players. Both sides have money to tide them over for a while yet. Look for this thing to drag into Aug/Sep before they think about getting serious again.

[Long_Long_Name]

Originally Posted by BruceM

I don't agree with a luxury tax, not unless there are certain stipulations.

Baseball has proven that a luxury tax doesn't work. The Rangers, Leafs, Phillies (insert Yankees, Red Sox) will still spend while everyone else acts as their farm system.

I disagree with your statement. As rich as the Rangers and Leafs are, they're no Yankees and Red Sox, they still have some limits on the amount they can spend. Also, perhaps the luxury tax baseball has isn't the best system there is, perhaps Anachronism's suggestion for a much more punitive system would work.

[Anachronism]

BruceM - I agree that we can't have a luxury tax like MLB (i did state that ) We need a severe and harsh luxury tax where, for example, salaries after a certain point are taxed at 100% of the contract. And I also stated that in order to implement this type of solution, the NHL has to agree on a league minimum salary so that owners (like Wirtz in Chicago) just don't pocket transfer payments...

I know the owners hate it, but revenue sharing is a must IMO... sure, in the near future it affects the bottom line of the richers clubs - but in the distant future a healthier league will mean less in terms of transfer payments, and the money spent in earlier years could be recouped with a strong league through national TV contracts.

[Bluenoser]

Originally Posted by Long_Long_Name

I disagree with your statement. As rich as the Rangers and Leafs are, they're no Yankees and Red Sox, they still have some limits on the amount they can spend. Also, perhaps the luxury tax baseball has isn't the best system there is, perhaps Anachronism's suggestion for a much more punitive system would work.

You're right, they certainly aren't Yankees and Red Sox, but you didn't read the meaning in my post. As much as the Yankees and Red Sox are head and shoulders above the rest of the league, so are the Rangers and Leafs head and shoulders above the majority of the teams in the NHL. Same idea, just on a different scale.

Originally Posted by Anachronism

I know the owners hate it, but revenue sharing is a must IMO... sure, in the near future it affects the bottom line of the richers clubs - but in the distant future a healthier league will mean less in terms of transfer payments, and the money spent in earlier years could be recouped with a strong league through national TV contracts.

While I agree with you about revenue sharing, I just can't see it coming to pass. Take the owner of say the Rangers or Leafs. Why should he share his profits with the other teams? It's a selfish stance to take and it speaks volumes on thinking about their own team and not the good of the league. The problem is, all these owners are businessmen who come from strong business backgrounds, and therefore breaking that mold of thinking isn't something that will be easily accomplished. They don't share their profits outside of their hockey business, so why should they share them inside it? (I can easily answer that - because it's for the good of the league). I still say they need to contract to 24 teams, develop a system of revenue sharing and cost certainty. Build a solid foundation and make sure it's solid and works. Then think about adding teams. One of the owners biggest downfalls is their greed. They jumped at every chance for expansion in the past 20 years because all they could see was the $50 million - $100 million expansion fee lining their pockets. Now the expansion money is gone and they miss it. So now they want to recoup it through team profits and not share with the players. They want a gaurantee the money will keep flowing into their pockets.

That kind of thinking is a sure sign that revenue sharing or a luxury tax are two options that the owners want nothing to do with, nor will they be easily swayed to accept it.

[Falcon52]

Originally Posted by Anachronism

HELLO PEOPLE... wake up and smell the coffee...

Of course the NHLPA is brilliant, but not because of a "great offer" - because they KNOW that they've done little if anything to damage their position in the future.

All you people who believe that the 24% pay cut is a "great move" have been snowed by the NHLPA... sorry... it will do VERY little if anything. Most contracts in existance right now are less than 3 years... what that means is that in 3 years everyone will be making the same money once again.

There is NOTHING in the offer that will stop Toronto, or Philadelphia, or New York or any other team from offering super high contracts to players once again. I mean, if Mats Sundin was getting paid $9 million a year, why wouldn't he ask for $9 million again once his contract is up?

The 24% cut is salary is a smoke screen - and it looks like you guys fell for it. Of course the NHLPA can offer it, because they know that historically the owners can't control themselves, are capable of making STUPID signings, and will in a matter of a few short years escalate salaries right back up where they are currently. Then the NHLPA can shake their heads and say "well, we tried, but the owners again increased salaries!"

The NHLPA knows what there are doing... there is no gamble in this....

(and before someone slams me for being on the owner's side, I am not... I think the owner's are acting incredible stupid asking the players to carry the burdon for their own mistakes. I think the BEST solution to this mess is

1) PUNATIVE salary tax (like 50% to 100% of salaries over the cap)
2) REVENUE SHARING - the league has to share revenues to help smaller teams be competative
3) SALARY BASE - if you have revenue sharing, then you need to ensure that each team spends a minimum each year - otherwise owners like those in Chicago will just pocket the revenue sharing money....)

Agreed. If the NHL accepts this offer, then we'll be having this same discussion 5 years (or however long the agreement lasts) down the road again. Luxury taxes do very little, especially if the team who is "guilty" makes a lot of money to cover whatever tax they have to pay. If Toronto (haha yeah right) is at $49 million in payroll but feel that all they need to do to win the Cup is outbid the Oilers on a marque player, do you honestly think that the luxury tax is going to scare them away from paying $10 million for that marque player to sign him?

The best word I've seen used to describe this proposal is "smokescreen". That's all it is. The NHLPA knows that once you get past the surface of the deal, it's not really that good of a deal, but because the average fan won't dig deep into the proposal and are fixated on the 24% cut, they'll side with the players.

[boilermaker]

Well, I think this is probably the best deal the owners are likely to get from the union. Personally, I think they should scrap restricted free agency, so we don't have to worry about "qualifying offers" and such, as they artifically raise market prices. The luxury tax as proposed has the potential for being a real "soft" salary cap, if they're going to increase the tax rate for "repeat offenders".

As a fan, I tend to side with the owners in this debate, but this is the best deal the players are going to offer and they're talking in language ownership understands, so I gotta say that I agree with the original post: the ownership looks bad to me if they say no, outright.

[Skipaway]

Luxury tax wouldn't work not because it doesn't stop the rich teams. It's horrible because of teams like Brewers can earn tons of money doing nothing.

[Karros270]

Originally Posted by Skipaway

Luxury tax wouldn't work not because it doesn't stop the rich teams. It's horrible because of teams like Brewers can earn tons of money doing nothing.

Depends how you look at it. That's not horrible for the Brewers.

[Skipaway]

Originally Posted by Karros270

Depends how you look at it. That's not horrible for the Brewers.

But that's horrible for the sports and the league. That basically means money spend that doesn't go into the league.

And the system actually encourages teams to be lazy. It's the same for all those revenue sharing ideas.

It's communism!

Fixing the player/owner profit ratio isn't a bad idea, especially if the ratio can be reviewed every couple of years, and it's basically what NBA and NFL do. The only obstacle to do that is for the owners to open their books for the players to audit, in case they are hiding the profits. And apparently that's why MLB is against it, because they are hiding profits like crazy.

[GForce]

Apparently, the NHL doesn't think they're that brilliant.

http://sports.espn.go.com/nhl/news/story?id=1945492

GH

[Chappy]

Gary Bettman is a sick man.

The NHL wants a collective bargaining agreement that will tie salaries to revenues, and will accept no substitute.

Well I as a fan want ticket prices tied to the number of games the Canes win.

Seriously, here's an idea for the owners. Hire an accountant. Keep track of your revenue. Don't spend more than that much money the following year. I know it will be tough - you may not be able to offer $7 million a year to every modest free agent you come across - but you can do it. After all, you made enough money to buy a hockey team, so you can't be that dumb.

[canadiancreed]

unless the smart people are the serfs in the comapny that made them money (whichis a godo possiblity)

Either way, it'll be intresting

Well I as a fan want ticket prices tied to the number of games the Canes win.

If they did that ticket revenue wouldnt exist

[bulldog55]

Originally Posted by BruceM

The Rangers, Leafs, Phillies (insert Yankees, Red Sox) will still spend while everyone else acts as their farm system.

Man, that confused me for a very long time. I couldn't figure out what the Leafs had to do with the Texas Rangers and Philadelphia Phillies and why two underachieving franchises were the posterboys for why MLB's luxury tax doesn't work.

[Long_Long_Name]

Originally Posted by bulldog55

Man, that confused me for a very long time. I couldn't figure out what the Leafs had to do with the Texas Rangers and Philadelphia Phillies and why two underachieving franchises were the posterboys for why MLB's luxury tax doesn't work.

Don't worry, the Rangers and the Leafs (well, somewhat) are also underachieving. The Rangers finished second to last in their division (after the simply awful Penguins) and the Leafs *could* finsh second to last in their division (when the Habs' prospects pan out).

[Anachronism]

I don't know about the Leafs underachieving.... they've pretty much gone as far as I think they could with the talent they have over the past few years. We've never had a defensive core strong enough to content IMHO... and 5 90+ seasons including a season where they set the club record for points isn't bad at all.

Now, if you want to talk about the Ranger - then yes, there is an underacheiving team... and maybe also the Senators.

[Long_Long_Name]

The Senators don't have nearly the capacity to spend the Leafs do, though.

[Anachronism]

No... and yet in the last three years they've been slated to win the cup and have had expectations to do so... and each year they've fallen flat (usually at the hands of the old, tired, broken down Leafs).

To me, the fact that a team of geriatrics re-treads that are the Leafs can make it as far as they can in astounding. Gary Roberts is a miracle on ice, and if it weren't for absolutley outstanding goaltending we'd be done. (although I still think the contract awarded Belfour was nuts... should have cut bait on that one).

If there is a half season, however, it could be the Leafs best chance in ages since the team won't be battered and tired out...

[SoxWin]

Originally Posted by BruceM

While I agree with you about revenue sharing, I just can't see it coming to pass. Take the owner of say the Rangers or Leafs. Why should he share his profits with the other teams? It's a selfish stance to take and it speaks volumes on thinking about their own team and not the good of the league.

The good of the league would be best served by having 30 healthy franchises (if they really must, I still favor contraction) Teams going tits up like Ottawa a few years back and the Penguins any year now is a tremendous drag on the leagues competitiveness and it's legitamacy among fans.

Is it better for the league to have a cap of $40 million with the Rangers owners pocketing 10's of millions of dollars in profit while Calgary, Edmonton, Carolina, Nashville, et al can't even afford a $35 million payroll?

To ensure the long term viability of the NHL, the owners must share revenues, there is no other way. Many teams can't financially hit the cap numbers thrown out by the league now, so they won't be helped at all.

Lower the luxury tax thresholds 5 to 10 million each.
Bump the tax on the each threshold by 10 to 15%
Share the tax with the teams which didn't pay, lowest 15 payrolls, I'm not sure, but divvy it up somehow.
Install a salary floor to force reluctant tightwads like Wirtz to attempt to improve his team.
Lower the one time payroll rollback 5%.
Keep the lower proposed rookie cap, close all bonus loopholes, make it a firm contract which everyone is awhere of up front.

The most important issue of course is one that isn't at the negotiating table, but imo it's the real key to both mending some fences after this lockout and hopefully bringing new fans to the game. The NHL has to fix it's product. I'm a fan, and I see many games I can't even bear to watch. Too slow, too many defensive systems, too much obstruction.

Since the lockout has started, the local sports channel has been airing "classic" hockey games from the late 80's and throughout the 90's. It was weird to see both teams attacking constantly, even stranger to see open ice and guys thinking creatively. Todays game in comparison is a plodding mishmash of defensive systems, checking teams as opposed to checking lines, and 2-1 bore fests. If I, a die hard fan, have trouble stomaching what I'm watching, the league can never hope to attract fresh blood to its arenas.

The rest I'm not sure of, I think that covers most of the contentious issues. If both sides can't live with something like that. Goodbye NHL, been nice knowing you.

[Le Grande Orange]

The rumour mill is going full steam right now, and the speculation is the NHL is going to reject the NHLPA's latest offer. It will however present its counter-offer, which includes, apparently more "cost-certainty" measures in it. This can only mean some form of salary cap. The NHLPA has consistenly said it will reject any offer that has a salary cap in it.

It's a good bet the NHL 2004-05 season will be entirely cancelled.

What a shameful first in pro sports history, an entire season lost to a work stoppage...