Saskin calls Burke plan a de facto salary cap

[Jim Bob 0]

http://msn.foxsports.com/story/3033206

Countered Saskin, "I did see that the type of tax rates that he is proposing are similar to those he proposed in 1994 when he was working for the owners in the negotiations. Everybody at that point understood at that time that if the tax rates were too punitive and confiscatory they amount to a de facto cap."

Why am I not surpised by that response?

[Chadd 916]

I agree with him, the penalties are so severe that few teams would consider a payroll where you would have to paya a tax.

[Jim Bob 0]

Silly me, but I think there should be some serious teeth to a luxury tax. If there isn't, then the tax won't do a darn bit of good in slowing down the escalation of player salaries.

Just look at how the payrolls for the Yankees and Red Sox haven't slowed down one bit in MLB.

Let's just say that I believe Burke's proposed luxury tax set up will go a lot farther towards fixing the economic problems in the NHL than the NHLPA's idea of a luxury tax of ten cents on the dollar that kicks in at $50 million.

[Chadd 916]

The max tax in MLB is 40 cents on the dollar, Burke's is $5 for every dollar at the top end. it has to be somewhere in the middle. It should start at 1 for 1 and increase it, in my opinion.

[Jim Bob 0]

I definitely think that Burke's tax progesses to high and too fast.

Personally, I'd start at a dollar for dollar and bump it up maybe another doller per $10 million you go up.

For example:

$35 to 45 million - $1/$ over $35 million

$45 to 55 million - $10 million + $2/$ over $45 million

$55 to 65 million - $30 million + $3/$ over $55 million

But the whole 10 cents on the dollar thing is a joke to me.

[Eazy_b97 1]

My concern as a fan and season ticket holder is that this will only futher seperate the top teams from the bottom teams and raise ticket prices. Teams with a strong fan base will continue to spend whatever amounts they like and pass the extra cost onto the fans. This lockout is working out well for us though, at least the teams seem to be trying to kep the fans happy. Looks like I may skate at the ACC and they will entertain some more Pro-season ticket holder things.

[MDE3 0]

One more time......

Different Plan

Owners put up $40 m. in salary "bond" for the season, this includes players coaches trainers etc.

Every game the teams play for 100% of the official "gate", as established by an auditing team jointly made up from the NHL as well as the NHLPA( other earnings from local TV sales, merchandise, concessions etc. etc. belong exclusively to the owners)

Regular Season gate is split 66.66% to the winners, 33.333% to the loser.

Play-offs split 75% to the winners, 25% to the losers(to help prevent trying to drag out a series to 7 games to make more money)

Also every player recieves an annual base salary on the following schedule:

Entry level: $100,000

2 - 5 years $150,000

5 - + years $200,000

Coaches as well:

Head coach..same as players

Assistant coach: 50% 0f head coach

Bonus schedule as well

Gate earnings are paid at the end of the month..after the cumulative base salaries are deducted. The surplus earnings from the gate after fixed salaries are deducted, are divided into 50 shares. Every player on the team who saw active duty in a game gets one share per game played. Inactive players get .25 shares per game. Injured players are to be paid 75% of their average earnings for the previous 30 days.

Bonus shares are awarded for goals: 1 share

for assists: 1 share

for 1st star of the game: 1 share

for 2cnd star of the game: .75 share

for 3rd star of the game: .5 share

for hits: .1 share per hit

for plus minus points: .5 shares per plus

- .5 shares per minus

Goalies get 1 additional share for having the highest save percentage win or lose/game

Teams vote after each game for "player of the game" among themselves..cannot vote for self...1 share to POG.

Penalties..deduct .5 shares per penalty, whole share if goal is scored on ensuing power play.

Surplus shares are saved for a year end bonus.

Obviously this may need some tweaking to be fair to all players, but in principle, think what it does...a player can earn "unlimited" money based strictly on actual performance. Owners get cost certainty. By having deductions for penalties...players would be more cautious about infractions..as would teams..due to coaching bonus penalties based on total game penalties. Every game would be "meaningfull". Players who complain that their fat salaries are being lost....well all they have to do is go out there and prove that they deserve those salaries by earning the bonuses....

Just a thought..for the third time.....

[Chadd 916]

All of these plans that include convoluted formulas for "performance bonuses" won't work. First, they have far too many issues to haggle over. Second, they don't encourage team play. Third, neither side would want it.

[MDE3 0]

When a winning share is worth twice as much as a losing share...I beg to differ...I think team play would definitely be a major issue in the locker room...as for convoluted.....well iit's already "convoluted" but we do not see all the bonus clauses in the detailed contract, so we do not see how it actually is at present. In fact when there are different bonus rules for each player's contract under the present agreement....there is much more "convolution" to worry about already.

[Chadd 916]

What about the players that are punished by playing for an owner that doesn't field a competitive team? How many free agents will willingly play for a team that is at the bottom of the standings? All you will do is create a group of teams that are stacked as the players will want to go where they can win every game.

A simple luxury tax, revamped arbitration and some revenue sharing will resolve the issue without resorting to things that will be 50x more difficult to manage.

[MDE3 0]

Except the exceptional player can make a lot of extra performance bonuses when playing for a weaker team.....plus there is not the big carrot of a guaranteed contract to capture those players in the first place, and free agency rules remain in effect...then a player must get sold on the teams performance not a giant salary signing bonus. In addition teams that were already winners would not be prone to make too many changes being afraid to upset the status quo....

In fact good players who feel that they could "shine" better on a weaker team..and thus maybe make more.... might be prone to take that chance.

The incentive for winning would now be more on the players and less on the team owners..other than the fact that winning teams tend to draw a bit better..but certainly not exclusively so. Certainly each game would be a lot more intense, and players would have a lot more say on whom they wanted into the "mix"...I think team owners and players might even get a lot closer under this system.

The biggest losers in this deal would be the agents...who would have to get paid based on a percentage of the players earnings..not a huge lump up front...they would become it's biggest opponents...the need for agents "selling" their players would tend to be greatly reduced...

[Chadd 916]

If the pool of funds is based on winning or losing you aren't going to get many stars willing to go to bad teams. There is no way it's a viable option in this situation. It's even more restrictive and less market-based than the systems the owners are hoping to force on the NHLPA.

[MDE3 0]

If you look carefully there are 50 shares available for each game with which to dispurse the money...between coaches players and goals, stars, hit etc, an average game would assign about 30 - 35 shares. This would allow a certain discretionary allowance. By skewing the the share awards for player of the game..1st star etc. etc. an incentive could be there in a weaker team for a standout player..more so even than on a stronger team.

Based on say a $1 m. purse per game...irrespective of the gate, then a total salary potential for say an 80 game regular season, would be $53.33 m. based on winning 100% of your games.

A 50 win 30 loss season would net a salary base of about 43,333,333.

a 40/40 win loss season would "earn" $40,000,000.

The owners would only be exposed to a cost of $40m. no more no less. How much of this went to their own team or to others..would depend on the team's record for the year.

This money would not go 100% to the players if the total of the bonus points possible..4000 for an 80 game season....were not all used up. The decision on how to pay out this money would not be the exclusiove right of the owners, but in a system decided jointly with the the players..maybe some paid out as a team bonus, maybe some put aside as signing bonus' to strengthen the team with some new blood. But the players and coaches would decide along with management. In a losing season the percentage of the "surplus" to be paid to the existing team as a season end bonus would be limited to say 30% of the surplus, but any payouts would be pro rated based soley on shares earned. The balance could be used to attract new talent through a system of limited signing bonuses.

Weaker teams would have more discretionary money to apply to signing bonuses.

The goalies would be under a different bonus system....a share per game played, 2 shares additional for a win, 10 shares for a shut out(plus the 5 for the win). Four additional shares per game for having the best save percentage..win or lose. This would allow goalies to achieve major salaries for their performances..even on weaker teams.

[Cannon12 0]

I don't understand why players get paid for what they've done last season. "I had a career year last year and now I want 10 million per season", fine, they get the contract then completly shit the bed and don't do ANYTHING the next season, because there is no incentive to do anything. They have thier cash and thats all that matters to most of them. Try to find a single player that increased thier output in the season following a big contract signing. :( You wont find that many.

[Chadd 916]

I repeat, the players will never accept that. Nor will the owners as some teams have significantly larger incomes for home games than other teams. There's no need to radically change everything and make a very complex process out of the payroll system.

[MDE3 0]

I repeat, the players will never accept that.  Nor will the owners as some teams have significantly larger incomes for home games than other teams. There's no need to radically change everything and make a very complex process out of the payroll system.

Yes of course..that's why the current system is working so well.....and I repeat..the current system is already very complex..given all the different bonus agreements in every players contract....we just never see those details.....out of sight out of mind.

The gates may vary, but there would be one common denominator..owners would have to put up a fixed fee of $40 M.(that's $1m./per every home game) if we base it on an 80 game regular season(this is for example) under my proposal..a bond guaranteeing that they can meet a $40m. dollar payroll...I changed it from my original proposal where the players play for 100% of the gate..for the reasons you observe.

Every owner would have the same payroll risk, but a players/coaching group(although we might call this group a "team" it is not the coporate entity) could "earn" more than that amount or less than that amount based on performance.....But no owner would be at risk for more than 40M in salaries. The individual organizations would have some discretionary latitude beyond the basic bonus system in how the 50 shares per game are awarded..and it will never happen that all 50 shares would be awarded every game...hence there could be incentive variations within the system...but the players would have a major say in how this "surplus" money was to be disbursed.

In some cases it could be used to pay a signing bonus to acquire a player to improve the team for the following season, in other cases it could be used to pay a "reward" bonus at season's end to help assure that a major contributor during the season remained with the team...it could all be rolled into the next seaons potential earnings, it may be needed to pay the salaries for the play-offs..etc etc.

What would remain true, is that for a player to earn the major bucks that some now command..they would do so only by having one hell of a season in the year played...not based on a pie in the sky assumption on season's to come.

[Chadd 916]

A team like Pittsburgh or Carolina can't afford anywhere near $40M in salary. Where does the extra money come from? Forcing every team to pay $40M regardless of talent and income if even worse than the current system. Under your plan you are forcing teams like Nashville and the others mentioned into losing more money.

[MDE3 0]

ahh,,,heh heh heh.....you do understand my logic of attrition.....only locations that can support this kind of salary could continue to field teams....What fairer way to determine who stays and who goes in this streamlined version of the league. Maybe two teams would "merge" and move into a region with more promise..maybe some owners feel that they are good enough marketeers to grow the business quickly enough to risk putting up with a loss up front..if not..Saianara

We have all come to similar conclusions on what we need for a long term fix for NHL pro hockey..and most of those conclusions..in here as well....agree that better placed teams, and more exciting games are at the root of the current problems..not really the CBA..that is only a symptom of the disease..not the cause of it. Just tweaking the existing agreement so that the league can get back to the season, is not the real solution....I think this current impasse should be used for a major revamp of the sport,,and so my proposal is tendered in that light.

[Chadd 916]

Say goodbye to Calgary, Nashville, Pittsburgh, Carolina, Florida, Edmonton, Columbus and Anaheim.

Getting rid of 1/3 of the Canadian teams is an interesting arguement. All plans have flaws but this is a radical revamping that hurts far, far more than it could help. It's ok, we all make mistakes.

[MDE3 0]

Actually you will find that both Calgary and Edmonton have access to resources much greater than other small market teams.... and remember that this is a bond..not the actual annual expenditure..that is the worst case scenario in salary exposure. In many cases that actual annual expenditure might be less than the current one. The surplus could well be rolled into the next season. Salary shares could be used to purchase corporate team shares as well....thus paying dividends from the corporate earnings too.

The concept is simple..players earn their money based purely on performance..not "mythical" gate drawing power...players on a particular team are involved in the long term strategies of investment in the team's potential through a voting system on the disposition of excess salary shares, not just on the ice. The system is designed to improve a "team concept" not break it apart..which the current system is much more prone to do..Players negotiate only on what is best for themselves in today's system, where under this system what is best for the players will be to a degree what is also best for the team.

[kosydar 0]

Interesting, of the eight teams Chadd listed, three were in the Finals the past three years. Nashville put together a pretty good year this year. Florida is going to be a strong team within the next few years, and you could say the same about Columbus. Edmonton, eh, nothing seems to be good for them, and well, Pittsburgh....

[Chadd 916]

The system rewards numbers, you're plan turns hockey into accounting. Let's be honest, the plan you suggested is far more obtuse than any proposal either side has proposed and neither one would have any interest in it.

If Calgary and Edmonton had access to additional funds, why would they be trading away proven players for younger, cheaper players every time one is ready to collect bigger bucks? Sure Calgary is paying for Iggy but they have let other players leave in order to make room in their budget.