ken_valyi
08-18-2004, 08:06 AM
Most recent BS (http://tsn.ca/nhl/news_story.asp?ID=95233&hubName=nhl)
Choice bits from the story-
The NHL feels it pressed the issue in a bargaining session July 21 by introducing six new ideas for a new system but the NHLPA translated all six as salary cap mechanisms - something the union says it will never accept.
``The union today formally rejected the six concept proposals we had made,'' Daly said.
The NHLPA did propose a system back on Oct. 1 that included a luxury tax, revenue sharing, a one-time five per cent rollback in salaries and some changes to the entry-level system.
The union's luxury tax proposal would have seen more than half of the league's 30 clubs pay up in 2003-04, the threshold being a $40-million US payroll.
It's a luxury tax that would have more teeth than Major League Baseball's, where only the New York Yankees paid up in 2003.
``I still think that's a framework that addresses the issues but at this point they've shown no interest in that,'' said Saskin.
League commissioner Gary Bettman said Aug. 4 he had absolutely no interest in a luxury tax.
So in a free market society such as ours, which of these groups are at all in touch with reality. The owners who want to set an maximum limit on what teams can pay out in salaries, or the players who set no limits but charge a tax on free-spending owners that gets distributed amongst the teams that stay within the proposed untaxable limit.
The salary cap can be worked around by even the not-so savy owner, with a personal services contract that isn't related to the sport and/or salary deferal, which leaves no course of action or compensation for the poorer teams. A salary tax does that, teams that want to open the bank will pay the price to everyone... and that's why it's not going to happen, no team wants to pay the price.
Unless they resolve this before the end of the World Cup, this season, and possibly the NHL is a bust. C'est la vie.
Choice bits from the story-
The NHL feels it pressed the issue in a bargaining session July 21 by introducing six new ideas for a new system but the NHLPA translated all six as salary cap mechanisms - something the union says it will never accept.
``The union today formally rejected the six concept proposals we had made,'' Daly said.
The NHLPA did propose a system back on Oct. 1 that included a luxury tax, revenue sharing, a one-time five per cent rollback in salaries and some changes to the entry-level system.
The union's luxury tax proposal would have seen more than half of the league's 30 clubs pay up in 2003-04, the threshold being a $40-million US payroll.
It's a luxury tax that would have more teeth than Major League Baseball's, where only the New York Yankees paid up in 2003.
``I still think that's a framework that addresses the issues but at this point they've shown no interest in that,'' said Saskin.
League commissioner Gary Bettman said Aug. 4 he had absolutely no interest in a luxury tax.
So in a free market society such as ours, which of these groups are at all in touch with reality. The owners who want to set an maximum limit on what teams can pay out in salaries, or the players who set no limits but charge a tax on free-spending owners that gets distributed amongst the teams that stay within the proposed untaxable limit.
The salary cap can be worked around by even the not-so savy owner, with a personal services contract that isn't related to the sport and/or salary deferal, which leaves no course of action or compensation for the poorer teams. A salary tax does that, teams that want to open the bank will pay the price to everyone... and that's why it's not going to happen, no team wants to pay the price.
Unless they resolve this before the end of the World Cup, this season, and possibly the NHL is a bust. C'est la vie.