• Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
stevkrause

Luxury Tax System

Rate this topic

62 posts in this topic

The NBA has a luxury tax system, and its always the same few teams that contend for the title. This year's NBA playoffs have been awful, with teams getting blown out left and right. The NHL playoffs on the other hand have been exciting.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The NBA has a luxury tax system, and its always the same few teams that contend for the title. This year's NBA playoffs have been awful, with teams getting blown out left and right. The NHL playoffs on the other hand have been exciting.

Well, seeing LeBron and C-Word get eliminated in the same week made me pretty damn happy. It was very exciting to me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, seeing LeBron and C-Word get eliminated in the same week made me pretty damn happy. It was very exciting to me.

yea, lebron got eliminated the evening after C-word. best 2 evenings of the month for sure. but other than that, a lot of the series in the NBA have been sweeps

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Couldn't agree more with this. One thing it will help combat is players leaving for other leagues, as we saw Huds do last year. I know for a fact Rugby here in England has to compete with the open markets in Europe, with a lot of players leaving due to the cap (they have a maximum wage as well which I don't really agree with), and then soccer... well that's just soccer. I think give the teams some flexibility, so that they can keep the players they have drafted and helped nurture, so they don't chase the gravy train.

What I don't like is that often it is not primarily good scouting but crappy performance that allows a team to get a top 5 picks three or four years in a row. They continue to suck so they continue to get players that have a very high likelihood of being great.

With this in mind, you think it should just be a lottery? Teams chose a pick number at random? Would encourage GMs to actually build a decent team to compete instead of waiting a few years for well drafted players. Off topic I know but just caught my attention.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm always impressed with how well thought out and presented your ideas are. The problem that I have always had with a luxury tax is that it makes it easy for big well financed teams, the Lakers for an NBA example, to constantly put out one of the best products because they can charge more for tickets, make more from merchandise, etc. so they can always afford to pay a lot more than say the Timber Wolves. If tickets in LA cost the same as tickets in Minnesota it might work but LA, NY (although they are proof that tons of cash doesn't necessarily mean a good team), Boston, etc. always have more money to play with. Add to that the fact that some teams have owners that have so much cash that they don't care about the luxury tax, a la Dallas, and it just makes a threshold that some teams can't compete with. There is a reason that the same NBA teams are always paying luxury tax (with a few others in one year and out the next). Compound that with the fact that when your team is winning you generally get more ticket and merchandise sales and it makes it even harder to crack into that group of good teams if you start out with a lot less cash. However, as far as luxury taxes go I think yours is better than the NBA model.

What I don't like is that often it is not primarily good scouting but crappy performance that allows a team to get a top 5 picks three or four years in a row. They continue to suck so they continue to get players that have a very high likelihood of being great.

The point is, it would still be a step up from the current system... at bare minimum, if they're going to do a hard cap, they need to DRASTICALLY lower max contracts, one player should not be able to take up 15+% of your cap in a hard cap world...

Couldn't agree more with this. One thing it will help combat is players leaving for other leagues, as we saw Huds do last year. I know for a fact Rugby here in England has to compete with the open markets in Europe, with a lot of players leaving due to the cap (they have a maximum wage as well which I don't really agree with), and then soccer... well that's just soccer. I think give the teams some flexibility, so that they can keep the players they have drafted and helped nurture, so they don't chase the gravy train.

EXACTLY.

The NBA has a luxury tax system, and its always the same few teams that contend for the title. This year's NBA playoffs have been awful, with teams getting blown out left and right. The NHL playoffs on the other hand have been exciting.

The NBA's luxury tax system is basically a free for all though and doesn't funnel back into other teams improving their ON-COURT product, thus creating this... the system I proposed does the opposite...

I agree, the examples as described just shows total salaries increasing across the board. So, more money to players, but no more revenues to the league. Not sure how the owners would feel about that.

But the money is not coming out of the owners pockets who do want it to, so essentially it gives them a better on-ice product, at the same cost

same cost + better on ice product = better attendance and merchandise sales/more profit at same cost

look at it from the broad scope...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The NBA has a luxury tax system, and its always the same few teams that contend for the title. This year's NBA playoffs have been awful, with teams getting blown out left and right. The NHL playoffs on the other hand have been exciting.

Hockey and basketball are two very different sports. Hockey is much more of a team sport for sure. Look at the difference a Shaq or Lebron makes in a team's on court performance. You do not see that in hockey, so there is bound to be more parity in hockey, or baseball and football for that matter.

One can argue that since the cap, there have been dominant teams in the NHL. The same has become the case for the NFL over the last decade.

I like the ideas presented in this post for the reason that they would allow teams to keep their talented players that they drafted. It would reward good organizations rather than punish them. Despite the cap, you still have teams like Nashville and Phoenix barely staying afloat.

stevkrause likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think there's anything wrong with the OP's idea other than this- integration into the current cap system (unless you scrap the whole thing and start over), and it's more changes after a mere 5 years of the league running under the current cap situation (or close to, it's probably been slightly modified idk).

Other than that I like it, it's a nice comprimise between the old 'spend it if ya got it' system and the current hard cap. I would like to see a luxury tax system adopted in the next 5 years if all continues to go well enough, provided it doesn't have wide-open loopholes for circumventing it.

The other thing to consider is this- there's economic factors far out of the control of the league. Such as the fact that there's a minority of franchises that operate with a different currency which brings a number of fortunate/unfortunate turns on either side of the border, and the broad economic impact on each franchises' total revenue. Tinkering with things in poor or unfavorable conditions when applied to either of the above can have a much more drastic effect for better or worse.

And I'm not really confident in the league's ability to get it right the first time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm always impressed with how well thought out and presented your ideas are. The problem that I have always had with a luxury tax is that it makes it easy for big well financed teams, the Lakers for an NBA example, to constantly put out one of the best products because they can charge more for tickets, make more from merchandise, etc. so they can always afford to pay a lot more than say the Timber Wolves. If tickets in LA cost the same as tickets in Minnesota it might work but LA, NY (although they are proof that tons of cash doesn't necessarily mean a good team), Boston, etc. always have more money to play with. Add to that the fact that some teams have owners that have so much cash that they don't care about the luxury tax, a la Dallas, and it just makes a threshold that some teams can't compete with. There is a reason that the same NBA teams are always paying luxury tax (with a few others in one year and out the next). Compound that with the fact that when your team is winning you generally get more ticket and merchandise sales and it makes it even harder to crack into that group of good teams if you start out with a lot less cash. However, as far as luxury taxes go I think yours is better than the NBA model.

I believe there are simply too many teams in the NHL. Successful, historied franchises in hockey states will always have numerous advantages and I really dislike the league doing so much to hobble them in order for some crap franchise in the south, that should not even be there in the first place, to have a chance. I swear, it is like the unsuccessful franchises are now running the NHL.

If a team has succeeded in generating a large, supportive fan base that will pay good money for their product, those fans deserve to get their money's worth. While I am not against the New York Yankees being reigned in a bit - the fact is, baseball benefits as a whole from rabid Yankee fans having a competitive team to spend their money on each and every year.

A hard cap simply ensures the owners of these large franchises rake in more and more, while the fans continue to see an inferior product on the ice.

I think it sucks. Fans in Detroit this year got to watch essentially a $35m team iced for most of the season, because the cap prevented management from bringing in any free agents to alleviate the injuries.

I do not want the cap thrown out, but some of these minor tweaks better be explored in order to ensure revenue-producing teams can ice a great product for their fans.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I see 2 major problems with this:

1. Teams within the luxury tax pool who will receive the pool have to spend the money but how can anyone dictate just how that money is spent? Say they have contract negotiations with Player X (RFA) and initially were to sign him for $3M/yr but now that they've gotten their luxury tax money they agree to sign him for $4M/yr to avoid a potential hold out situation. They haven't improved their team because 99% that RFA was going to be back anyways but they've just spent more money. This luxury tax money could potentially just escalate RFA salaries.

2. The biggest potential problem is say the Lightning (for example) are due luxury tax money this season (just barely) and they receive $4M from the pool. They then go out stupidly and sign Player Y for $4M/y for 3 years but next season because of this new contract they no longer fall into range to be owed luxury tax pool money. Now in year two they have to come up with the funds to pay that contract. Throw in the distinct possibility that they lost a bunch of money in operating revenue in year one and suddenly they're in trouble. It just creates a cycle

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I see 2 major problems with this:

1. Teams within the luxury tax pool who will receive the pool have to spend the money but how can anyone dictate just how that money is spent? Say they have contract negotiations with Player X (RFA) and initially were to sign him for $3M/yr but now that they've gotten their luxury tax money they agree to sign him for $4M/yr to avoid a potential hold out situation. They haven't improved their team because 99% that RFA was going to be back anyways but they've just spent more money. This luxury tax money could potentially just escalate RFA salaries.

2. The biggest potential problem is say the Lightning (for example) are due luxury tax money this season (just barely) and they receive $4M from the pool. They then go out stupidly and sign Player Y for $4M/y for 3 years but next season because of this new contract they no longer fall into range to be owed luxury tax pool money. Now in year two they have to come up with the funds to pay that contract. Throw in the distinct possibility that they lost a bunch of money in operating revenue in year one and suddenly they're in trouble. It just creates a cycle

1. No team is going to spend more on its own RFA's than they have to and there are no "hold outs" in the NHL today under the new CBA - Worst case scenario, it goes to arbitration and they choose to keep the player, or he is now an UFA.... Any team which would purposely jack up the salary of an RFA to "use their luxury tax money" should fire their GM, because obviously, he doesn't know how to manage a team and is wasting money which could go to better use...

2. Same as I stated in part 1 - If a team doesn't know how to manage its cap and finances, that is a team issue, not a league issue and the owner of said team should then put the proper people in place who DO know how to manage the team given the guidelines... that's like saying that drinking should be illegal, because some people don't know how to handle their booze and may kill someone because they didn't plan ahead and get behind a wheel after putting down a case...

Also note in my rules, I very clearly state that a team can opt out of the pool money, or choose only a percentage of it, so they don't HAVE to use it - Please re-read my proposal...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The whole idea of a cap is ridiculous in the first place. A luxury tax would be better than what we currently have, but it's not a solution. Basically, teams should be able to spend what ever they want. Big market teams should not be penalized because hockey is a big deal in their cities. If a team has a rabid fan base, and can dish out tens of millions more than their competition then they should be able to do so.

QFT!!

:clap:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've always been in favour of a luxury tax with a "hefty" fine for those whom go over it.

I'm certain a fair number of teams, and of course the Donald Fehr led NHLPA would prefer it over the hard cap as well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think when it's all said and done, after the next CBA, there will be a Luxury Tax. I don't think the current system can go on much longer without bankrupting 1/3 of the league within the next 5 years or less.

If the NHL wants to continue with 30 teams they have to get rid of the Floor.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The whole idea of a cap is ridiculous in the first place. A luxury tax would be better than what we currently have, but it's not a solution. Basically, teams should be able to spend what ever they want. Big market teams should not be penalized because hockey is a big deal in their cities. If a team has a rabid fan base, and can dish out tens of millions more than their competition then they should be able to do so.

The problem with that is that the NHL wants to GROW the sport. By only focusing on teams that are big markets NOW, you lose out on teams that COULD be big markets. As much as I hate it, the success of the Pens, Hawks and to a lesser extant LA and Washington have created growing markets. In 2003, Pittsburgh would have folded, now they're in the top of the league in terms of income. With a revenue sharing luxury tax system, teams like Detroit help to build competitive teams in markets that otherwise may fold. There will always be teams that won't do well financially, but Winnipeg or Quebec would be able to grow a team with this, while not damaging the teams who are already strong. By fostering the weaker teams, the NHL becomes stronger by having more competitive teams, instead of the same 5 or so.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm all for it. I've always thought the same thing. The NBA has it, seems to work for them.

That's iffy in a way. I don't keep up with NBA news often but from what I read in the past the NBA has lost millions in the past few years. I'm not sure as to why or what the specific reason is but they have lost money.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The problem with that is that the NHL wants to GROW the sport. By only focusing on teams that are big markets NOW, you lose out on teams that COULD be big markets. As much as I hate it, the success of the Pens, Hawks and to a lesser extant LA and Washington have created growing markets. In 2003, Pittsburgh would have folded, now they're in the top of the league in terms of income. With a revenue sharing luxury tax system, teams like Detroit help to build competitive teams in markets that otherwise may fold. There will always be teams that won't do well financially, but Winnipeg or Quebec would be able to grow a team with this, while not damaging the teams who are already strong. By fostering the weaker teams, the NHL becomes stronger by having more competitive teams, instead of the same 5 or so.

The Hawks are an original 6 team, the Penguins have been a club since 1967 and come from a VERY strong hockey market, the Capitals as well, come from a strong hockey market and have been around since 1974... LA was one of the first "non-traditional" hockey markets the NHL expanded into and with transplants in LA and the amount of disposable income out there, was a very safe and calculated expansion (also around since 1967 and there were the California Seals out there as well at the time)... also, this system would only pump MORE revenue into those expanding markets and allow them to grow... ALSO Winnipeg AND Quebec deserve teams, but already had teams before...

This question is asked in 100% seriousness and not meant to be disrespectful, but how long have you been following NHL hockey? A few of your recent posts lead me to believe you're a very new fan and if so, that's COMPLETELY fine and GREAT - the game needs new fans, I was just wondering...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's iffy in a way. I don't keep up with NBA news often but from what I read in the past the NBA has lost millions in the past few years. I'm not sure as to why or what the specific reason is but they have lost money.

Because it's become a miserable product with the final 2 minutes of every game taking 5 hours and the game is filled with societal abortions of human beings... it's hard to back a game with so many low-lives in it... the league needs to stop marketing d-bags like Lebron and Kobe and market higher quality human beings that are intelligent, valuable members of society like Chauncy Billups (maybe moreso in his hayday as his quality of play has decreased with age), Chris Paul, Joe Johnson and Tim Duncan...

Also, the game is run by a joke of a commissioner... which just so happens to be Bettman's mentor.. surprise, huh?

Edited by stevkrause
F.Michael likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1. No team is going to spend more on its own RFA's than they have to and there are no "hold outs" in the NHL today under the new CBA - Worst case scenario, it goes to arbitration and they choose to keep the player, or he is now an UFA.... Any team which would purposely jack up the salary of an RFA to "use their luxury tax money" should fire their GM, because obviously, he doesn't know how to manage a team and is wasting money which could go to better use...

2. Same as I stated in part 1 - If a team doesn't know how to manage its cap and finances, that is a team issue, not a league issue and the owner of said team should then put the proper people in place who DO know how to manage the team given the guidelines... that's like saying that drinking should be illegal, because some people don't know how to handle their booze and may kill someone because they didn't plan ahead and get behind a wheel after putting down a case...

Also note in my rules, I very clearly state that a team can opt out of the pool money, or choose only a percentage of it, so they don't HAVE to use it - Please re-read my proposal...

Your proposal is ignoring the fact that many teams just don't have the revenue to be profitable even under the current system. And if I'm understanding correctly, you would actually make that worse by requiring even higher spending in order to be eligible for revenue sharing.

Part of the problem is that teams are already allowed to spend more than they really should. The system now allows something like 57% of revenues to be spent on player salaries, but the actual salary cap is higher than that. The league projects revenues, takes 54-57% (sliding scale depending on projected revenues) of that, subtracts the cost of benefits to get the players share, then divides that share by 30 to get the midpoint. The salary cap is $8 million above that point, the floor $8 million below. But total league-wise player compensation (actual salaries and bonuses, including all time on IR) can not be more (or less) than the players share. The remaining share is supposed to pay for the costs of operating a franchise with any left-over being profit.

Currently, average revenues are expected to be about $90 million per team. Operating costs seem to be in the $35-40 million range (though a few teams seem to be a lot lower, and some significantly higher). In theory, a team making $90 would spend about $51.5 on salaries, and come close to breaking even or turn a nice profit if their non-player expenses are well managed. Teams making a lot of money can spend to the cap while still maintaining a profit, while teams with low incomes can spend less. But there are some teams that aren't generating enough revenue to spend even league minimum and still make a profit, and many teams still spending more than they can really afford on players. And current revenue sharing isn't enough to make up the difference.

While I don't have much sympathy for a poorly managed team, I think for the good of the league as a whole, we still need to keep spending in check for a while. I'd love to see a luxury tax system, but right now I think it would hurt more than help. We're close though, a good increase in revenues this year and next (similar to what we've been seeing post-lockout) and maybe relocating a few teams could maybe get us there by the time the next CBA comes around.

Once we get to that point, we need a cap/revenue sharing system that allows a team to spend what it wants, but encourages spending within their budget. The details would need to be a lot more involved than what I'm willing to figure.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1. No team is going to spend more on its own RFA's than they have to and there are no "hold outs" in the NHL today under the new CBA - Worst case scenario, it goes to arbitration and they choose to keep the player, or he is now an UFA.... Any team which would purposely jack up the salary of an RFA to "use their luxury tax money" should fire their GM, because obviously, he doesn't know how to manage a team and is wasting money which could go to better use...

2. Same as I stated in part 1 - If a team doesn't know how to manage its cap and finances, that is a team issue, not a league issue and the owner of said team should then put the proper people in place who DO know how to manage the team given the guidelines... that's like saying that drinking should be illegal, because some people don't know how to handle their booze and may kill someone because they didn't plan ahead and get behind a wheel after putting down a case...

Also note in my rules, I very clearly state that a team can opt out of the pool money, or choose only a percentage of it, so they don't HAVE to use it - Please re-read my proposal...

First and foremost you need to take a breath and not take any post that isn't 100% in agreement with your idea personally. In actuality I in fact agree with your idea and think a luxury tax system is a good idea and for the most part you've hit the nail on the head. But if you think that the two points I mentioned wouldn't happen, well I just think you're wrong.

The NHL has more teams than good management personel available to run them. There will always be some teams/GMs who will over spend when they have the ability. Take Clarke McArthur for example. If Atlanta had been granted luxury tax pool money it's very possible that they would have accepted his arbitrator's awarded salary and grossly overpaid him this season as opposed to letting him walk while they get nothing in return. This then has a ripple effect because then next summer when another team's RFA goes to arbitration they'll use McArthur's contract as a basis for their hearing.

Unfortunately teams are still mismanaged and the entire purpose of the salary cap TODAY is to try and put some form of limitations and control on teams. Obviously when you say mismanagement of a team is a 'team issue' it is but only in part. Poor management of a team doesn't only affect that team, it affects the entire league. Every bad contract a team gives out has an effect league wide. The NHL has a whole has an interest in the success and failures, the good and bad decisions of each team (ideally anyways).

So, take a breath, realize I'm not saying your idea is crap. I think it's good but not perfect. I dont need to re-read your initial post so you can get off your high horse and stop preaching to everyone bud.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The NHL should make the Swiss league their official "land of misfit hockey players", and whenever a GM grossly overpays - he has the option of banishing that player...I'm sure the Blackhawks would be game :rolleyes:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

First and foremost you need to take a breath and not take any post that isn't 100% in agreement with your idea personally. In actuality I in fact agree with your idea and think a luxury tax system is a good idea and for the most part you've hit the nail on the head. But if you think that the two points I mentioned wouldn't happen, well I just think you're wrong.

The NHL has more teams than good management personel available to run them. There will always be some teams/GMs who will over spend when they have the ability. Take Clarke McArthur for example. If Atlanta had been granted luxury tax pool money it's very possible that they would have accepted his arbitrator's awarded salary and grossly overpaid him this season as opposed to letting him walk while they get nothing in return. This then has a ripple effect because then next summer when another team's RFA goes to arbitration they'll use McArthur's contract as a basis for their hearing.

Unfortunately teams are still mismanaged and the entire purpose of the salary cap TODAY is to try and put some form of limitations and control on teams. Obviously when you say mismanagement of a team is a 'team issue' it is but only in part. Poor management of a team doesn't only affect that team, it affects the entire league. Every bad contract a team gives out has an effect league wide. The NHL has a whole has an interest in the success and failures, the good and bad decisions of each team (ideally anyways).

So, take a breath, realize I'm not saying your idea is crap. I think it's good but not perfect. I dont need to re-read your initial post so you can get off your high horse and stop preaching to everyone bud.

What did I take personally? I was merely offering a rebuttal to your points - that is what a solid debate is... I at no point got defensive, or insulted your points... I think maybe you're taking my replies too personally if that is how you interpreted it and should take a step back and look in the mirror before slinging insults of your own....

Back to the point at hand, as I stated above, the league should not be responsible for protecting a team from it's own poor management. The only repsonsibility the league has is to give teams every opportunity to grow their team and put a good product on the ice, which then leads to more excitement, more playoffs, more competition and therefore, more revenue.

In all aspects of life, putting constraints on the majority to appease the minority is a poor practice and this is no different...

Your proposal is ignoring the fact that many teams just don't have the revenue to be profitable even under the current system. And if I'm understanding correctly, you would actually make that worse by requiring even higher spending in order to be eligible for revenue sharing.

Part of the problem is that teams are already allowed to spend more than they really should. The system now allows something like 57% of revenues to be spent on player salaries, but the actual salary cap is higher than that. The league projects revenues, takes 54-57% (sliding scale depending on projected revenues) of that, subtracts the cost of benefits to get the players share, then divides that share by 30 to get the midpoint. The salary cap is $8 million above that point, the floor $8 million below. But total league-wise player compensation (actual salaries and bonuses, including all time on IR) can not be more (or less) than the players share. The remaining share is supposed to pay for the costs of operating a franchise with any left-over being profit.

Currently, average revenues are expected to be about $90 million per team. Operating costs seem to be in the $35-40 million range (though a few teams seem to be a lot lower, and some significantly higher). In theory, a team making $90 would spend about $51.5 on salaries, and come close to breaking even or turn a nice profit if their non-player expenses are well managed. Teams making a lot of money can spend to the cap while still maintaining a profit, while teams with low incomes can spend less. But there are some teams that aren't generating enough revenue to spend even league minimum and still make a profit, and many teams still spending more than they can really afford on players. And current revenue sharing isn't enough to make up the difference.

While I don't have much sympathy for a poorly managed team, I think for the good of the league as a whole, we still need to keep spending in check for a while. I'd love to see a luxury tax system, but right now I think it would hurt more than help. We're close though, a good increase in revenues this year and next (similar to what we've been seeing post-lockout) and maybe relocating a few teams could maybe get us there by the time the next CBA comes around.

Once we get to that point, we need a cap/revenue sharing system that allows a team to spend what it wants, but encourages spending within their budget. The details would need to be a lot more involved than what I'm willing to figure.

That is part of the problem though - a hard cap still does not allow for this... until there is no floor as well, the teams that do not generate as much revenue are still in no better shape, at least a luxury tax puts some more revenue in their pockets towards operating expenses... also, as I said in the proposal, any unclaimed luxury tax revenue would then get dispersed to all teams evenly and this would go back into the pockets of the owners, also adding to profit margins... as I've said all along, I understand my proposal isn't perfect, but I think it's a step in the right direction and something that the league needs to start seriously considering...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What did I take personally? I was merely offering a rebuttal to your points - that is what a solid debate is... I at no point got defensive, or insulted your points... I think maybe you're taking my replies too personally if that is how you interpreted it and should take a step back and look in the mirror before slinging insults of your own....

Back to the point at hand, as I stated above, the league should not be responsible for protecting a team from it's own poor management. The only repsonsibility the league has is to give teams every opportunity to grow their team and put a good product on the ice, which then leads to more excitement, more playoffs, more competition and therefore, more revenue.

In all aspects of life, putting constraints on the majority to appease the minority is a poor practice and this is no different...

That is part of the problem though - a hard cap still does not allow for this... until there is no floor as well, the teams that do not generate as much revenue are still in no better shape, at least a luxury tax puts some more revenue in their pockets towards operating expenses... also, as I said in the proposal, any unclaimed luxury tax revenue would then get dispersed to all teams evenly and this would go back into the pockets of the owners, also adding to profit margins... as I've said all along, I understand my proposal isn't perfect, but I think it's a step in the right direction and something that the league needs to start seriously considering...

When you condescendingly tell someone to re-read your OP as if they didn't understand it when all they did was point out what they believe to be it's short comings, to me that seems like you were being defensive. If not, no harm no foul.

The bolded part is exactly what the current salary cap does. The NHL implemented the system to restrain teams because of the situation they were in prior to the lockout. It's true, each individual team needs to be accountable for their actions but when a fair number of them are not being run well enough the league steps in. The salary cap was their answer to limit over spending and to put constraints on the majority to appease the minority. Again, I personally think a luxury tax system would be an improvement on the current cap system but just like the circumvention aspect of the current CBA needed to be addressed, what I see as deficiencies in your proposal, would also need to be addressed for it to work.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When you condescendingly tell someone to re-read your OP as if they didn't understand it when all they did was point out what they believe to be it's short comings, to me that seems like you were being defensive. If not, no harm no foul.

The bolded part is exactly what the current salary cap does. The NHL implemented the system to restrain teams because of the situation they were in prior to the lockout. It's true, each individual team needs to be accountable for their actions but when a fair number of them are not being run well enough the league steps in. The salary cap was their answer to limit over spending and to put constraints on the majority to appease the minority. Again, I personally think a luxury tax system would be an improvement on the current cap system but just like the circumvention aspect of the current CBA needed to be addressed, what I see as deficiencies in your proposal, would also need to be addressed for it to work.

Chalk it up to a mis-understanding then, because I was implying that I thought you may have missed a part, not that you did not understand it...

The details would most certainly need to be worked out by someone who understands the economics of the league and finances as a whole on a MUCH deeper level than this for sure, but my point is, that I think these are very salient and feasible jumping off points and the general idea is what I'm most concerned with...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Chalk it up to a mis-understanding then, because I was implying that I thought you may have missed a part, not that you did not understand it...

The details would most certainly need to be worked out by someone who understands the economics of the league and finances as a whole on a MUCH deeper level than this for sure, but my point is, that I think these are very salient and feasible jumping off points and the general idea is what I'm most concerned with...

yeah, as I said I agree in principle with your idea (as I normally do) I just think the two points I mentioned would need to be ironed out. We see it every day in the NHL. So many teams are poorly managed - just look at the terrible contracts handed out every year even under the current hard cap system. If teams had 'free' money from the luxury tax pool to play with spending would be easier and it doesnt mean the money would be spent responsibly. Salaries could very easily escalate similarly to how they did pre-cap.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0