FlyerFan
Registered User
- Jun 4, 2005
- 221
- 0
e-townchamps said:''Hopefully it will restore a little more of the competitive advantage we had on the financing side which will be nice,'' said MLSE president and CEO Richard Peddie.
yet another reason it hate the Leafs....can't scout, so we'll just buy!
skk_82 said:competitive advantage = spending far more on players that smaller markets couldn't dream of.
that kind of competitive advantage defeats the whole purpose of a year-long lockout to realign the sport.
reckoning said:Are you advocating the idea that every team should only be allowed to spend what the weakest team can afford? That`s ridiculous. The solution is significant revenue sharing to help the smaller markets, but since everyone was so fixated on a cap being the perfect solution, they overlooked that. Now less than a year into the CBA, the whining has already started on how it`s unfair to small market teams. Newsflash! The lockout wasn`t about helping the small markets, it was about helping Jeremy Jacobs and Bill Wirtz. As long as their costs are guaranteed to not exceed their revenues, they could care less what happens to Florida or Pittsburgh.
I`m confused about one thing: Now, it`s possible that the cap could hit $45M, but all the experts on here said the players were stupid to not take the league`s 42M offer because they`d never get anything that good. Now it appears they may get something better. Were all the experts wrong?
e-townchamps said:yet another reason it hate the Leafs....can't scout, so we'll just buy!
VanIslander said:i thought the idea was to LOWER the cap afterwards... not increase it!
reckoning said:Are you advocating the idea that every team should only be allowed to spend what the weakest team can afford? That`s ridiculous. The solution is significant revenue sharing to help the smaller markets, but since everyone was so fixated on a cap being the perfect solution, they overlooked that. Now less than a year into the CBA, the whining has already started on how it`s unfair to small market teams. Newsflash! The lockout wasn`t about helping the small markets, it was about helping Jeremy Jacobs and Bill Wirtz. As long as their costs are guaranteed to not exceed their revenues, they could care less what happens to Florida or Pittsburgh.
I`m confused about one thing: Now, it`s possible that the cap could hit $45M, but all the experts on here said the players were stupid to not take the league`s 42M offer because they`d never get anything that good. Now it appears they may get something better. Were all the experts wrong?
reckoning said:Are you advocating the idea that every team should only be allowed to spend what the weakest team can afford? That`s ridiculous. The solution is significant revenue sharing to help the smaller markets, but since everyone was so fixated on a cap being the perfect solution, they overlooked that. Now less than a year into the CBA, the whining has already started on how it`s unfair to small market teams. Newsflash! The lockout wasn`t about helping the small markets, it was about helping Jeremy Jacobs and Bill Wirtz. As long as their costs are guaranteed to not exceed their revenues, they could care less what happens to Florida or Pittsburgh.
I`m confused about one thing: Now, it`s possible that the cap could hit $45M, but all the experts on here said the players were stupid to not take the league`s 42M offer because they`d never get anything that good. Now it appears they may get something better. Were all the experts wrong?
You are confusing things between the cap number and the average salary. At a $45 million cap, the average salary will be considerably less.reckoning said:Are you advocating the idea that every team should only be allowed to spend what the weakest team can afford? That`s ridiculous. The solution is significant revenue sharing to help the smaller markets, but since everyone was so fixated on a cap being the perfect solution, they overlooked that. Now less than a year into the CBA, the whining has already started on how it`s unfair to small market teams. Newsflash! The lockout wasn`t about helping the small markets, it was about helping Jeremy Jacobs and Bill Wirtz. As long as their costs are guaranteed to not exceed their revenues, they could care less what happens to Florida or Pittsburgh.
I`m confused about one thing: Now, it`s possible that the cap could hit $45M, but all the experts on here said the players were stupid to not take the league`s 42M offer because they`d never get anything that good. Now it appears they may get something better. Were all the experts wrong?
e-townchamps said:yet another reason it hate the Leafs....can't scout, so we'll just buy!
gscarpenter2002 said:You are confusing things between the cap number and the average salary. At a $45 million cap, the average salary will be considerably less.
gscarpenter2002 said:The 54% is the key.
FlyerFan said:The key to what? The key to which deal was better? Do you believe that the percentage linked to revenue in the 42M offer would have been higher than the 54% in the 39M deal? Even if it was, how could the average salary be "considerably less" if the 39M cap increased to 45M?
cringer said:If the cap increases to 45 million, that does not put more money in the player's pockets... All that means is that revenue projections are higher for that year than they were this year, so the allowable salary range was moved higher.
What "scenario"? A cap increase to 45 million? Please explain how that "only happens if REVENUES DROP"rwilson99 said:Your scenario only happens if REVENUES DROP next year.
I never claimed to, nor would it be possible for me to know what the NHL's final revenue totals will be at the end of next season. Regardless, that is really irrelevant to what I said.rwilson99 said:You don't have any evidence or seriously researched projections to show that a drop will occur.
rwilson99 said:Owned.
reckoning said:I`m confused about one thing: Now, it`s possible that the cap could hit $45M, but all the experts on here said the players were stupid to not take the league`s 42M offer because they`d never get anything that good. Now it appears they may get something better. Were all the experts wrong?
hockeytown9321 said:I hardly think this is the time to be drawing our own conclusions. I'm sure the NHL is coming up with a press release that will tell us how to feel about that.
FlyerFan said:I believe reckoning's conclusion is that the "experts" who felt that the players were stupid for rejecting the 42M offer because they wouldn't be getting anything that good might be wrong.
How hard is it to compare the 42M offer in which there would only be ONE winner at a time (players if revenues decrease, owners if revenues increase) to the 39M deal in which they're BOTH winners if revenues increase and call the better deal?
The bottom line is the 42M offer was a TERRIBLE deal which would only compound the debt a/o animosity REGARDLESS of the revenues.
FlyerFan said:I believe reckoning's conclusion is that the "experts" who felt that the players were stupid for rejecting the 42M offer because they wouldn't be getting anything that good might be wrong..
rwilson99 said:The players were stupid for not negotiating a linkage deal earlier rather than later.