Gary Bettman-No team by team caps

[gary69]

You're so totally & completely lost here that I'm not gonna bother to explain it anymore.

Let's just say that you might want to think your theory again using the old 'chicken & egg' -dilemma as a starting point.

Well, if you gonna argue that wrong teams and players won it because of salaries, you better say who should've won it in your opinion and what they should have been paid. And be prepared to say also which players should have been paid less.

It's pretty cheap to say that something was wrong without being specific and without saying how it should have been (with a help of hindsight, of course).

You just generally seem to have a distorted view of things, but I guess that it's not that suprising considering your social upbringing (Nordic socialist societies).

 

[Munchausen]

but I guess that it's not that suprising considering your social upbringing (Nordic socialist societies).

The hell was that? Talk about the supreme argument from left field... I must say I haven't followed or cared about the debate too much, but that little gem is just plain Pejorative Slured. What kind of crap is this? Just for fun, care to expand on that one, so we can all have a good laugh?

 

[gary69]

The hell was that? Talk about the supreme argument from left field... I must say I haven't followed or cared about the debate too much, but that little gem is just plain Pejorative Slured. What kind of crap is this? Just for fun, care to expand on that one, so we can all have a good laugh?

Not really, since it would be better suited for The Lounge's politics discussion. I just reminded of the context of that poster (Pepper), who I believe is of Finnish origin (or is it Swedish ).

Now then, if his nationality or the political system of Scandinavian countries make you laugh like you say, feel free to do so, I won't stop you.

 

[Pepper]

With him shelving this reported break-thru (which I do believe the story to be viable) he didn't like what they had worked out because it's not a league wide revenue pool but a team by team revenue plan. Making HIS weaker market teams not able to play catch up.

When did this happen??

 

[Pepper]

Well, if you gonna argue that wrong teams and players won it because of salaries, you better say who should've won it in your opinion and what they should have been paid. And be prepared to say also which players should have been paid less.

What the hell are you talking about?? You're missing the point big time, I suggest you scroll back and read this thread again.

My point is that under the last CBA, no team with bottom-15 payroll won the cup. nearly 60% of the cups were won by top5 payroll teams. What this means in practice? Rich teams were able to build better teams, smaller teams couldn't build contenders because they had to trade their best players only because they couldn't afford them (Oilers for example).

You just generally seem to have a distorted view of things, but I guess that it's not that suprising considering your social upbringing (Nordic socialist societies).

With comments like that you just keep embarassing yourself further, not to mention proving your utter ignorance over and over again.

 

[Munchausen]

Now then, if his nationality or the political system of Scandinavian countries make you laugh like you say, feel free to do so, I won't stop you.

Nice twist, but what really makes me laugh is you and your stupid borderline racist statement.

 

[thinkwild]

My point is that under the last CBA, no team with bottom-15 payroll won the cup. nearly 60% of the cups were won by top5 payroll teams.

You know what else is interesting? People that have the most birthdays tend to live the longest.

 

[Brewleaguer]

When did this happen??

When he told reporters that the cap issue, that was reported to be agreed on, had not been agreed on.

 

[Pepper]

When he told reporters that the cap issue, that was reported to be agreed on, had not been agreed on.

So because Bettman told the reporters that they had not agreed on the cap issue, that makes him automatically the one who shelved the negotiations??

Good lord, that PA koolaid really screws your brains it seems...

 

[Pepper]

You know what else is interesting? People that have the most birthdays tend to live the longest.

This is the level of comments/'arguments' I have grown used to from you pro-PA yahoos. It used to be somewhat entertaining to read your pathetic rants with so many gigantic holes in the 'logic' used that Roseanne Barr could slip through it but nowadays is just boring.

 

[Brewleaguer]

So because Bettman told the reporters that they had not agreed on the cap issue, that makes him automatically the one who shelved the negotiations??

Good lord, that PA koolaid really screws your brains it seems...

Well stop drinking it then.

I didn't say he shelved the negotiations, he shelved what the two sides had come to an agreement on with regards to the cap issue. As I stated before I do believe what was reported to be viable.

 

[Brewleaguer]

This is the level of comments/'arguments' I have grown used to from you pro-PA yahoos. It used to be somewhat entertaining to read your pathetic rants with so many gigantic holes in the 'logic' used that Roseanne Barr could slip through it but nowadays is just boring.

It can be said the same thing about you pro-owner yahoos also.
Most of the pro-PA folks don't trust Bettman, as they can see right-thru him.

 

[Pepper]

Well stop drinking it then.

I didn't say he shelved the negotiations, he shelved what the two sides had come to an agreement on with regards to the cap issue. As I stated before I do believe what was reported to be viable.

Bettman didn't shelve anyone, in fact he pushed the cap higher than several owners were willing to go, in fact there could have been a chance that the board of governors would have voted against the deal because the proposed cap (42.5M) was too high.

But hey, don't let it ruin your perfectly good, yet tragically uninformed rant.

 

[Morbo]

This is the level of comments/'arguments' I have grown used to from you pro-PA yahoos. It used to be somewhat entertaining to read your pathetic rants with so many gigantic holes in the 'logic' used that Roseanne Barr could slip through it but nowadays is just boring.

Just as we've grown used to the ignorant brainwashed rantings of the pro-owner yahoos. Listening to those lemmings read off their NHL cue cards has never been entertaining at any stage, however. See, I can generalize too. Fun stuff!

 

[Brewleaguer]

Bettman didn't shelve anyone, in fact he pushed the cap higher than several owners were willing to go, in fact there could have been a chance that the board of governors would have voted against the deal because the proposed cap (42.5M) was too high.

But hey, don't let it ruin your perfectly good, yet tragically uninformed rant.

Maybe you should be taking your meds right about now, dude.

I am not talking about the old 42.5M, I am talking about the 38M upper end team-by-tream cap that was reported by the Globe & Mail report. Then Bettman comes out of the woodwork and says no, then the boys at the table on the owners side follow suit.
Now I do believe that report to be viable, but Bettman didn't like it and said no it has not come to that, because he wants a league-wide revenue plan and not a team by team plan.

Sorry if you mis-understood.

 

[Pepper]

What the hell are you talking about? Globe and Mail got a sniff at what's going on but misunderstood it and printed a story with misinterpreation of the current situation, Bettman corrected that 2 days later.

So Bettman didn't shelve anything, it was always going to be league-wide revenues since it doesn't make ANY sense to allow Leafs spend 54% of their megarevenues while teams like Florida and Phoenix get to spend 54% of their minimal revenues.

 

[Mess]

What the hell are you talking about? Globe and Mail got a sniff at what's going on but misunderstood it and printed a story with misinterpreation of the current situation, Bettman corrected that 2 days later.

So Bettman didn't shelve anything, it was always going to be league-wide revenues since it doesn't make ANY sense to allow Leafs spend 54% of their megarevenues while teams like Florida and Phoenix get to spend 54% of their minimal revenues.

It doesn't make any sense that Florida and Phoenix are even in the same league as the megarevenue teams but yet here we are !!!!..

The corner grocery store trying to compete with Costco .. and Costco is the problem in all this ...

Heck Philly's AHL farm team would annihilate these teams that the new CBA is being prepared for .. No wait they did as they swept the Chicago Wolves in 4, that was stacked with all Florida's star hopefuls Bouwmeester and Weiss ..

 

[Pepper]

It doesn't make any sense that Florida and Phoenix are even in the same league as the megarevenue teams but yet here we are !!!!..

That's totally unrelated issue, those teams are in the league and they are not the only small teams around, the same goes for Oilers, Flames and Penguins as well.

The corner grocery store trying to compete with Costco .. and Costco is the problem in all this ...

Why do you always have to bring in the worst analogies possible??

 

[dafranchz]

Hey guys....tone it down a bit, stop bagging on each other and stick to the subject.

 

[Brewleaguer]

What the hell are you talking about? Globe and Mail got a sniff at what's going on but misunderstood it and printed a story with misinterpreation of the current situation, Bettman corrected that 2 days later.

So Bettman didn't shelve anything, it was always going to be league-wide revenues since it doesn't make ANY sense to allow Leafs spend 54% of their megarevenues while teams like Florida and Phoenix get to spend 54% of their minimal revenues.

That’s your opinion. The globe has not recanted it's story and are sticking to it. Based on article yesterdays from the Globe & Mail,

"Earlier this week, sources with ties to both the owners and players told The Globe and Mail that the two sides had agreed to a framework for a salary cap and salary floor linked to a percentage of team-by-team revenues.

With the biggest obstacle in the lockout now cleared, it is believed the talks have moved into other areas, any of which could unravel any previous progress toward a new collective agreement."

SO maybe the source misunderstood, OR Bettman wouldn't except what was agreed to by the teams in place currently at the table.

 

[Pepper]

SO maybe the source misunderstood, OR Bettman wouldn't except what was agreed to by the teams in place currently at the table.

Read Bob McKenzie's latest article:

http://www.tsn.ca/columnists/bob_mckenzie.asp

Besides, your theory doesn't make any sense. Why would NHL first negotiate about different salary caps for every team and then Bettman suddenly says 'this doesn't work'??

Like McKenzie suspects, G&M misinterpreted the info they got and Bettman corrected it.

 

[Brewleaguer]

Read Bob McKenzie's latest article:

http://www.tsn.ca/columnists/bob_mckenzie.asp

Besides, your theory doesn't make any sense. Why would NHL first negotiate about different salary caps for every team and then Bettman suddenly says 'this doesn't work'??

Like McKenzie suspects, G&M misinterpreted the info they got and Bettman corrected it.

Like I said before, when the Globe recants it's original story then is when I will except it as a mis-understanding by the source that told it to the G&M.

Now why would they negotiate this and then Bettman say it's not true, OR in your words 'this doesn't work'?.... Because Bettman does NOT want a cap based on team-by-team revenues, he wants it league-wide which means the strong market team fans will be flipping some of the bill for those weaker market teams to pay their salaries.
To me, that’s BS
So if the G&M source was ultimately correct, seems to me the owners team that is at the table had agreed to it, but F'ed up because Bettman won't except it that way, is what I suspect, contrary to McKenzie's suspects.

 

[Pepper]

Like I said before, when the Globe recants it's original story then is when I will except it as a mis-understanding by the source that told it to the G&M.

Now why would they negotiate this and then Bettman say it's not true, OR in your words 'this doesn't work'?.... Because Bettman does NOT want a cap based on team-by-team revenues, he wants it league-wide which means the strong market team fans will be flipping some of the bill for those weaker market teams to pay their salaries.
To me, that’s BS
So if the G&M source was ultimately correct, seems to me the owners team that is at the table had agreed to it, but F'ed up because Bettman won't except it that way, is what I suspect, contrary to McKenzie's suspects.

Uhhuh, sure your theory is possible but IMHO very unlikely.

Bettman is fully aware of all negotiations, it's not like the teams negotiatied behind Bettman's back only to see Bettman drop it when he sees it.

The most logical explanation is G&M misinterpreting the info they got, you can't deny that.

 

[Morbo]

Uhhuh, sure your theory is possible but IMHO very unlikely.

Bettman is fully aware of all negotiations, it's not like the teams negotiatied behind Bettman's back only to see Bettman drop it when he sees it.

The most logical explanation is G&M misinterpreting the info they got, you can't deny that.

Then you have to throw all of it out, not just the part you don't like.

 

[Pepper]

Then you have to throw all of it out, not just the part you don't like.

What do you mean? Throw what out? The reported numbers?