Beukeboom Fan said:
WTF is so difficult to understand about this? The $42.5M figure the owners were proposing is what they are willing to spend when the league is healthy (based on 2003-04). Everyone has said that there is going to be SUBSTANTIAL damage to the game, players and owners alike. The system the players have asked for would be to get the owners best offer from when the league is healthy, and then inflate along with the recovery, to put us RIGHT back to where we are before the lockout.
EXAMPLE: League revenues go down by 33% (might be slightly high, but I think it's realistic, especially if you look at losing a big portion the US TV revenue) from last year. Total revenues are would be $1.4B in 2005-2006. Let's say that over the 6 year agreement, league revenues go back up to where the were in 2003-2004. That's 50% growth from the "index year". The new cap number would be $73.5M ($49M x 1.5) which is really $80M with the 10% exceptions, with the same exact revenue streams from last year. Even if there was only 25% reduction in revenues next year, that would put the cap at $65M.
No dude, you listen.
You keep making unsubstantiated claims.
You don't know the numbes involved. You act like they can't be negotiated in a fair manner.
You act like there's NO WAY to negotiate a modest increase in the cap as revenues increase.
It's nonsense.
The pro-players side continually ignores the fact that this is NEGOTIATION.
I keep hearing things like, well, if we the owners don't get exactly what they want, we're right back in the same situation. Irregardless of facts, or numbers. I hear this.
I continually here pro-owner people state that a $45 Million cap would kill the league. Yet they can never, when challenged, explain how that $2.5 million difference in the cap is going to ruin the league.
Now, because the players want assurances that salaries go up, you guys are crying "sky is falling"
I've got news for you, bud.
Just about every union in the world negotiates increases in contract, even if they settle for concessions in year 1.
Just about every union asks for 1.5 percent increases plus other COST OF LIVING (Inflationary) raises.
It's standard.
Is that what the NHLPA is asking? WHo knows?
But It's absurd to suggest that some kind of program to increase the cap would put the game "right where it was" Because it would take years and years and years to get the NHL back to $78 million payrolls.
These are points that can be negotiated.
If you want to protect the small market teams, then you find a way to tie the increase to the fortunes of the smaller market teams.
You can negotiate these things.
That is, of course, if you are even seeking solution.