Lafleur blows off steam...

[LegoDoom 0]

They need to get it right this time. $49M was simply too much.

There was room to fiddle with luxury tax amounts up to whatever hard cap they could agree to. The only reason there was no agreement is because the individuals had to make it about winning and not about finding common ground.

I don't think a lux tax supports parity and I generally don't think it's a good idea.

[Smith 0]

They need to get it right this time. $49M was simply too much.

There was room to fiddle with luxury tax amounts up to whatever hard cap they could agree to. The only reason there was no agreement is because the individuals had to make it about winning and not about finding common ground.

Yes there has to be rev sharing for a cap to work, I agree 100%, I dont think it is about winning. Right now they all lost, and they are all going to be losing for the next few years at least.

[Chadd 916]

They need to get it right this time. $49M was simply too much.

There was room to fiddle with luxury tax amounts up to whatever hard cap they could agree to. The only reason there was no agreement is because the individuals had to make it about winning and not about finding common ground.

I don't think a lux tax supports parity and I generally don't think it's a good idea.

You don't like the fact there was a tax under the hard cap?

[LegoDoom 0]

Yes there has to be rev sharing for a cap to work, I agree 100%, I dont think it is about winning. Right now they all lost, and they are all going to be losing for the next few years at least.

I don't know if I agree with that either. If you take the $30M that some teams payrolls were and put them up to some of the big clubs that spent $70M, then have the big clubs trim close to $30M in players and see how things play out.

[LegoDoom 0]

You don't like the fact there was a tax under the hard cap?

The way that the PA was proposing it up to $57M? No, definitely not. If your average team spends $40M, then it's basically just a modified luxury tax system, which I'm not a fan of.

[Chadd 916]

$49M with up to 10% over on two occasions over the six year term of the CBA. 150% tax over $49m when they go over. The tax started around $35M or so and increased every few million.

[LegoDoom 0]

Theo, I was combining the statement you made about it was clear that the PA wanted a season more with the one in the post before that:

The biggest is accepting a salary capwhich was what actually started real negotiations.  Because the NHL showed no sense of negotiations before that.  It was their way or the highway.  And that is not how CBA work.  Both sides should have an equal influence.

To me, you were saying that the PA wanted the season more because they had the biggest step. It doesn't make sense to me because it just isn't true. The salary cap proposal came on the heels of the league backing off linkage. I don't know how you can say the league showed no signs of negotiations when it seems they initiated the last ditch efforts.

I was not commenting that the league pushed harder than the PA, just that the PA did not try harder at the end by submitting to a cap. That all started with the league's offer, Goodenow said as much. If anything, that shows the league gave way first and tried to get negotiations for a season going.

[LegoDoom 0]

$49M with up to 10% over on two occasions over the six year term of the CBA. 150% tax over $49m when they go over. The tax started around $35M or so and increased every few million.

I will admit that I haven't looked over the last few offers in depth, I just haven't had time, but that doesn't seem like a hard cap to me.

[Chadd 916]

$49M with up to 10% over on two occasions over the six year term of the CBA. 150% tax over $49m when they go over. The tax started around $35M or so and increased every few million.

I will admit that I haven't looked over the last few offers in depth, I just haven't had time, but that doesn't seem like a hard cap to me.

I like the fact it had a little wiggle room in it. Not enough for a team to blow the whole thing apart for everyone else, but enough to keep a good team together if the team has the funds to do so.

[Jim Bob 0]

Half the arena's are half full

http://sports.espn.go.com/nhl/attendance?s...y_avg&year=2004

Any arguement you make that is not supported by facts really hurts your credibility

Those numbers are worthless unless you know the average price per ticket to generate the average ticket revenue per game.

To inflate attendance numbers most teams report comped tickets in their attendance figures. Along with all the below face price discounted deals that teams that struggle to draw fans have to do every year as well.

[ktang 34]

To get away from this bickering for a minute, Anyone else have a problem with the standard lockout Icon TSN used during this on their site?

A pic of Bettman and Goodenow Facing each other saying something like: NHL VS NHLPA.

I didn't like the "vs." Makes it sound like a competition or winner type thing. of course it ended like that, but I don't think that should have been their icon. Negotiations and CBA deals should not be a "vs."

I thought that the "vs" was appropriate.

If we were in a more socialist society, like Sweden (e.g. when their shipbuilding industry could no longer compete with SE Asia, the unions and the shipbuilders worked together to retrain the union members for other industries), then the NHL and NHLPA would have worked together and we would have been watching NHL games in Oct 2004.

However, in this more capitalist society, workers and employers have a more antagonistic approach.

A lot of everybody's points were very good about which side gave up more, what is fair and not fair, and what is right and not right. However, there is a saying about business negotiations: you get what you negotiate, not what is fair or right. Hence, the "vs" was appropriate. In the end, the stronger side wins, not the side that is "right" or idealistic.

[Chadd 916]

Half the arena's are half full

http://sports.espn.go.com/nhl/attendance?s...y_avg&year=2004

Any arguement you make that is not supported by facts really hurts your credibility

Those numbers are worthless unless you know the average price per ticket to generate the average ticket revenue per game.

To inflate attendance numbers most teams report comped tickets in their attendance figures. Along with all the below face price discounted deals that teams that struggle to draw fans have to do every year as well.

Comped tickets won't add significantly to attendance figures and luxury suite rates will ensure the average price stays high.