Owners and a Hard Cap

[quat]

If you talk to an accountant about auditing a company that has multiple layers, they will tell you that if the owners are determined to hide revenue, there is not a chance an audit would discover it. A forensic auditor told me that it would take a team of hundreds of accountants the entire summer to get a reasonable accurate number and even then there is no guarentee.

I'm sorry, but this is simply wrong. The PA doesn't want to define revenue streams, because they want to be able to access money generated beyond them. I understand why they would be unwilling to let go of the chance to make more and more money, but it doesn't make them right.

 

[jcab2000]

No it was not.

No faith in the figures - no hard cap.

No link between salaries and revenues = no limit to players' salaries

That's what the players want. No limit. The owners should be forced to lose money to remain competitive.

 

[Motown Beatdown]

If and obviously it's a big if at this point, the owners manage to get a Hard Salary Cap put into place, along the lines of what they're speaking 54% of total revenues, I don't see how or even WHY they are even worrying about items like:

Individual salary cap
Entry level salary cap and length of years
Arbitration system
etc.
etc.


If a team can only spend to a maximum of $38 million, why should owners or Bettman care how that money is split up ???

If a team is dumb enough to pay someone $10 million or 25% of their allotment, then let them. They'll pay for it on the ice.

If someone wants to pay Sidney Crosby $6 million as a rookie, go ahead.

It's simple John, it's more way for the owners to save them from themselves. Bettman knows even with a hard cap the foolish owners will continue to act stupid. These rules are there to help prevent that. But regardless the fools will continue to be foolish and they'll try and find some other way to save themself.