SImple Question for the Pro-owner crowd

  • Thread starter A Good Flying Bird*
  • Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.

PecaFan

Registered User
Nov 16, 2002
9,243
520
Ottawa (Go 'Nucks)
CarlRacki said:
I commend you for starting and staying with a good, serious discussion on the issue. But the $6.5 million figure you continue to cite is wrong.

The PA proposal also included significant cap elevators based on linkage and two exceptions allowing teams to add another $5 million to the cap during the six-year CBA.

Yup. I don't agree with the basic premise in the thread, it makes it sound like we had agreement on everything else, but simply disagreed with the salary number.

The NHL's offer with a $49 million cap might have been workable. But within the PA's offer, with all the extra stuff, it's simply not even close.
 

Phanuthier*

Guest
Newsguyone said:
I understand that you guys think the players are a bunch of greedy SOBs lead by a guy you think is stupid, greedy and evil.

But seriously. Let's take a look at where we were a year ago and where we are today.

Now assume that the NHL quickly decided to adopt the PA's most recent proposal, in its entirety. (I am not saying the league should adopt it, I am just selecting it for arguments' sake)

Is your favorite team, and the league, much better off than it was a year ago?

Could your franchise not survive? WHy or why not?
Explain how a $49 Mill cap would put your team out of business.

Finally, logically explain to me why it is worth it for your team to completely cancel the season based on a $6M difference in cap levels.

Please, keep the thread free of sarcasm and insults.
I'd just like to see some thought-out opinions from the other side.
1. No, I don't think Goodenow is stupid. I think he made promises he couldn't keep, and set himself up to fail because he was overconfident. While he was underprepared, and looked like a chicken running around with his head cut off, his counterpart (Bettman) seemed to have really done his homework and was licking his chops at Round 2 with Goodenow.

2. Fault... No I don't think its the playerse fault that the league is in the mess they are in. It's the owners for giving stupid contracts like Bobby Holik, Alexander Daigle, Joe Thornton, Martin Lapointe, Sergei Federov ect ect. However, thats in the past. Right now, what needs to be done is to implament a system to protect the owners from themselves.

3. My favourite team's situation... yes. What a cap will do is stop the larger markets from driving up salaries by offering asinine contracts. With a cap in place, teams will have to choose their spending wisely, and will be limited in driving up the large contracts.

It is my firm belief that what killed the NHL are 2 things: the rookie contracts and the large contracts. Both combined to raise the bar to asinine heights, forcing cmaller markets (ie. Flames) to pay their players more money.
 

Phanuthier*

Guest
Newsguyone said:
Tell me, what is the difference between $42.5 and $49Million?
How much does this effect Calgary and Edmonton?
They don't have to max out the salary cap, do they?
Difference? Well, that would probably be $2 million dollars to drive up large contracts such as Bill Guerin and John LeClair. If each of the large salaries were dropped by 2 million, we would have a totally different picture right now.

How does this affect Calgary? Simple... if the bar wasn't set for superstars at $8 million (or whatever) and $6 million instead, well...
 

Tawnos

A guy with a bass
Sep 10, 2004
28,820
10,397
Charlotte, NC
kerrly said:
$195 million over the whole league (not including the amount that teams can go over) is the amount to show how much more inflationary it can get.

You mean $60 million over the whole league. People seem to forget that if all teams spent $49 million, there would be about $135million in luxury taxes paid out.

The number is $60million, not $195.
 

Phanuthier*

Guest
Tawnos said:
You mean $65 million over the whole league. People seem to forget that if all teams spent $49 million, there would be about $130million in luxury taxes paid out.
Look at the NBA and NFL. With revenue sharing and luxery taxes, teams like to hover around the cap number. It's like a magnet.
 

jcab2000

Registered User
Mar 3, 2004
334
0
Raleigh, NC
Under the proposal that Goodenow proposed, the cap would easily be over $60 million in two years even if revenues were at $1.5 billion.
 

Tawnos

A guy with a bass
Sep 10, 2004
28,820
10,397
Charlotte, NC
Splatman Phanutier said:
Look at the NBA and NFL. With revenue sharing and luxery taxes, teams like to hover around the cap number. It's like a magnet.

Ummm... that's not the point. We were talking about a hypothetical situation where the teams were already at the $49 million cap.

And Bettman's "75 million increase" in the 42.5m proposal is completely wiped out by the same token.
 

Phanuthier*

Guest
Tawnos said:
Ummm... that's not the point. We were talking about a hypothetical situation where the teams were already at the $49 million cap.

And Bettman's "75 million increase" is completely wiped out by the same token.
Ok strictly RIGHT NOW what a 49 million cap would do (although 42.5 really works better for me.)

Let's say there's a 49 million dollar cap on the Toronto Maple Leafs, and they haven't done their free spending yet. Ok, so they have Ed Belfore at $7 mill, Joe Nieuwendyk at $4 million, Gary Roberts at $3 mill, Owen Nolan at $6.5 mill. Hypotetically (as 3 of them were) they are UFA's. With a 49 mill cap in place, you think they'd be getting those contracts? I'm guessing no. Belfore would probably be down to $4.5 mill, Neuwendyk to $2.7, Roberts to 2.3 and Nolan to 3.3.

Now how does that affect the Flames you ask? Well lets look at the Flames... you have Jarome Iginla, Chris Simon and Mikka Kiprusoff as FA's, one of the UFA. With Ed Belfore's bar set at $5 mill instead of $7 mill, that sets the bar for Kiprusoff lower, may $2 mill instead of $2.7 mill. Chris Simon? Instead of $2.2 or whatever, you're looking at 1.5. Iginla? Extrapolating, probably $7 million instead of (hypothetical) 9 million.

Also, you have a flooded FA market. Let's say the cap is 42.5 instead of 49. That's 6.5 million LESS that owners free will spend on players, keeping the bar lower and making teams think twice before blowing their cap with their new-found-money after the 24% rollback.

Make sense?
 

Tawnos

A guy with a bass
Sep 10, 2004
28,820
10,397
Charlotte, NC
Wow... good job not saying anything substantial. Speculation doesn't work here, I was going on hard fact in a hypothetical.

Of course, I just realized I was wrong. Because the 4.5m that each team were to receive on the luxury tax would be eaten right back up paying for their share of the luxury tax.

However, you say it acts like a magnet... I say that it won't because teams simply can't afford it. Do you really think that the Penguins are going to sepnd $49million just because that's what the cap number is? The NHL teams already proved they can be fiscally responsible if they try (see the past 2 offseasons). It's perfectly conceivable.

Besides, with the new salary structure (even with a 49m cap), superstar salaries will level off at around $6million, which is exactly where the league wants them (see $6m individual cap oft-discussed by the league).
 

Phanuthier*

Guest
Tawnos said:
Wow... good job not saying anything substantial. Speculation doesn't work here, I was going on hard fact in a hypothetical.
You want to go on something that hasn't happened yet? :help:

I think what I pretty much said was a given - that players sign by what the market is for then. Call it unsubstantiated if you want, but is all but true. Diito the FA's. Yeah, I'll bet with a flooded UFA market of very good players + teams wtih more cash, nothing will happen. Yup.

The system being put into place is something to help the league LONG TERM, not 24 hours after the CBA is signed. Something that you don't seem to understand.

Magnet to the cap... look to the NFL, the system the NHL is trying to market, for proof. Maybe not all the teams, but when the medium markets start to hit the cap, that only drives the market up, forcing the lower markets to pony up as well.

Diff between 42.5 vs. 49... well obviously, there's a difference. If there wasn't, why didn't Goodenow just take the 49 instead of the 42.5?

I could give you a reason, but I'll all get is a "oh no, more unsubstantiated arguments."
 

Tawnos

A guy with a bass
Sep 10, 2004
28,820
10,397
Charlotte, NC
You gotta stop making points on one thing and then saying it proves another.

As for the NFL... there isn't a single unprofitable team in the NFL. They can all afford to be around the $80 million Cap. And because they can, they do. Medium market, small market... they all make money. I'm sorry, but the NFL's salary system is an impossible model for the NHL follow unless they share the kinds of revenue that the NFL does. Without that, teams like the Jacksonville Jaguars don't go anywhere near the cap.
 

Phanuthier*

Guest
Tawnos said:
You gotta stop making points on one thing and then saying it proves another.

As for the NFL... there isn't a single unprofitable team in the NFL. They can all afford to be around the $80 million Cap. And because they can, they do. Medium market, small market... they all make money. I'm sorry, but the NFL's salary system is an impossible model for the NHL follow unless they share the kinds of revenue that the NFL does. Without that, teams like the Jacksonville Jaguars don't go anywhere near the cap.
Umm... did you actually want to argue them then?

It's all inter-related, really. You fail to understand that. All of the means leads to one thing: Driving up salaries and setting the bar. This is done with a number of ways with no/higher cap - extra money from the rollback, a shopping spree on current UFA's, medium markets driving it up rather then small markets, raising the bar on higher contracts and its effect on all other contract ect ect.

These factors don't work in isolation - they're all related. Understand that and you'll get the jist of it.

As for revenue sharing... isn't that what Gary Bettman is aiming for? A system of a cap and revenue sharing modelled by the NFL?
 

Tawnos

A guy with a bass
Sep 10, 2004
28,820
10,397
Charlotte, NC
Splatman Phanutier said:
Umm... did you actually want to argue them then?

It's all inter-related, really. You fail to understand that. All of the means leads to one thing: Driving up salaries and setting the bar. This is done with a number of ways with no/higher cap - extra money from the rollback, a shopping spree on current UFA's, medium markets driving it up rather then small markets, raising the bar on higher contracts and its effect on all other contract ect ect.

These factors don't work in isolation - they're all related. Understand that and you'll get the jist of it.

As for revenue sharing... isn't that what Gary Bettman is aiming for? A system of a cap and revenue sharing modelled by the NFL?

I have a hard time arguing against incoherent points. I argued whatever logical line of reasoning I saw. The rest I was forced to ignore.

No... no he isn't aiming for that. NHL teams don't want significant revenue sharing... they only want cost certainty. That has been brought up numerous times by the PA and pro-PA people and conviniently side-stepped everytime by Bettman and pro-owner people saying "we do want that" while consistently failing to give a significant plan for it. Proof is not in the words, but in the action. When the NHL proposes a plan with significant revenue sharing, then I'll believe that they want it. And you want me to buy that you're trying to gain a system like the NFLs? Then announce that you are going to spread 80% of total gate receipts across the league like the NFL does.

Besides, people always think LARGE MARKET fans have a bias... well it pales in comparison to the delusional paranoia suffered by small market fans. You really think salaries will still go up when the highest possible payroll is more than 35% less than the highest was last year? If you really believe that, then it's obvious that a Cap won't work in any reasonable situation and you might as well come up with another idea to try. Since Caps act like a magnet, they are obviously inflationary.
 
Last edited:

kdb209

Registered User
Jan 26, 2005
14,870
6
Beukeboom Fan said:
Can someone help me out with a link to the PA's proposal? I was looking at TSN but now I can't find it.

It is referenced in several other threads, so I'm not making this up.

I've posted the details in several threads - cut & paste follows:

No the players did not give the owners what they wanted.

Read the details of the last NHLPA - the numbers aren't nearly as close as has been talked about.

Yes the starting point ($49M) is only $6.5M away from the owners number - but read point #7 of Goodenow's letter:

7. Indexing of Tax Rates and Payroll Minimums & Maximums All dollar amounts would be in place for 2004-05 (pro-rated) and 2005-06. Dollar levels for tax rates, payroll minimums & maximums for subsequent years either constant or increased by % change in greater of either hockey related revenues or only the gate receipts and broadcasting segments of hockey related revenues from the 2005-06 base year.

The players want linkage after all - but only when it's in their best interest. They want all the upside of linkage, without any of the risks of declining revenue.

And best of all, they pick 2005-06 as their base year, when everyone knowns revenues will be down, coming off the lockout and shortened season. It's not a bad guess that revenues next year may be down 10-20%. Over the course of the 6-yr deal, it would not be unreasonable to see revenues grow 20-30% from their 2005-06 lows, so that $49M cap is really a 63.7M cap by year 6 (not including the 10% exceptions - $70M+) - over %50 greater than the last offer.

On top of that, they get to pick the most advantageous deninition of revenue growth - either all revenue or just gate & broadcasting, whichever works out better for them.

Quote:
NEW CBA DEAL POINTS

1. Term - 6 full seasons (through 9-15-11).

2. CBA System Incorporation of NHLPA December 9, 2004 proposal into the recently expired CBA, with indexing of financial provisions (per diems, etc.) at 2% per year, with the following additional changes requested by the NHL yesterday:

(a) Increased salary arbitration rights for Clubs -- to be agreed upon. Salary arbitration available after Player leaves Entry Level System.

(b) Cap on Exhibit 5 Individual B Performance Bonuses -- to be agreed upon.

(c) Replace NHLPA Revenue Sharing Plan with NHL Revenue Sharing Plan to share at least $88M in each year of the Agreement. Clubs may credit any payroll taxes paid against their revenue sharing contribution.

3. Team Payroll Limit - $49M in salary and bonuses

4. Minimum Team Payroll - $25M (each team can fall no more than 10% below only twice during term).

5. Minimum Player Salary - $300K (as per NHL Proposal)

6. Payroll Taxes - $40M - $43M (25%)
$43M - $46M (50%)
$46M - $49M (75%)
$49M - $53.9M (150%) only twice per team during 6 year term

7. Indexing of Tax Rates and Payroll Minimums & Maximums All dollar amounts would be in place for 2004-05 (pro-rated) and 2005-06. Dollar levels for tax rates, payroll minimums & maximums for subsequent years either constant or increased by % change in greater of either hockey related revenues or only the gate receipts and broadcasting segments of hockey related revenues from the 2005-06 base year.

8. 2005 Playoffs 55% of playoff revenues to be paid to Players for the 2005 playoffs.
 

Phanuthier*

Guest
No... no he isn't aiming for that. NHL teams don't want significant revenue sharing... they only want cost certainty.
Cost certainty is one thing. Revenue sharing is another.

In fact, the NHLPA's proposal back in Oct included revenue sharing.

Moreover, Gary Bettman has gone on record many times saying that he is trying to implament a system of revenue sharing which would replace the Canadian Assistance Program.

Besides, people always think LARGE MARKET fans have a bias... well it pales in comparison to the delusional paranoia suffered by small market fans. You really think salaries will still go up when the highest possible payroll is more than 35% less than the highest was last year? If you really believe that, then it's obvious that a Cap won't work in any reasonable situation and you might as well come up with another idea to try. Since Caps act like a magnet, they are obviously inflationary.
I'm not going to pretend I have no bias. I do. However, its apperent that my believes are shared with many others, including Gary Bettman and the league, which is aiming for the exact system that I want.

What's my idea? A $38 million cap. Knowing that teams tend to hover around the cap ect ect, that puts the league right at their 53-55%. 42.5 pushed it a little, but it would still keep the % below 60. In either case, the solution to teams spending up to the cap can easily be justifed should it directly corralate to revenue from 53-57%.
 

Phanuthier*

Guest
Tawnos said:
I have a hard time arguing against incoherent points. I argued whatever logical line of reasoning I saw. The rest I was forced to ignore.
In other words, you can't understand things that correlate to each other?

I'm sorry, thats just the way things happen.
 

Tawnos

A guy with a bass
Sep 10, 2004
28,820
10,397
Charlotte, NC
I edited my post, so you probably missed it... I will repeat this:

And you want me to buy that you're trying to gain a system like the NFLs? Then announce that you are going to spread 80% of total gate receipts across the league like the NFL does. It will never happen.

"In fact, the NHLPA's proposal back in Oct included revenue sharing.

Moreover, Gary Bettman has gone on record many times saying that he is trying to implament a system of revenue sharing which would replace the Canadian Assistance Program."

I assume you mean the NHL's proposal. Actually, all they've ever really said in their proposals is that there will be revenue sharing. No numbers. Well no ****, the NHL had 10% revenue sharing last year. Unless they say otherwise, it's no stretch to assume that's where the NHL is staying.

"Knowing that teams tend to hover around the cap ect ect, that puts the league right at their 53-55%."

********. At least 8 teams in the league can't afford to be at the $38m Cap without the kind of revenue sharing I'm talking about. Your goal for the average is not where you want to set your Cap. Not with 10% revenue sharing. I still say $45m is a deal I would live with if I was the PA. But the fact is that the NHL has shown no willingness to do the things that make a Cap work like the NFL or NBA (35% of all revenues shared) has. Like you said, all things are interrelated. That includes the owners being in a true partnership WITH EACH OTHER.
 

Phanuthier*

Guest
And you want me to buy that you're trying to gain a system like the NFLs? Then announce that you are going to spread 80% of total gate receipts across the league like the NFL does. It will never happen.
To pull a "you" on you... how would you substantiate that?

I assume you mean the NHL's proposal.
No, the NHLPA's proposal. The one back in Oct 2004 included revenue sharing.

Actually, all they've ever really said in their proposals is that there will be revenue sharing. No numbers.
and
That includes the owners being in a true partnership WITH EACH OTHER.
Gary Bettman has gone on record saying he is trying to model the NHL CBA along the lines of the NFL.

At least 8 teams in the league can't afford to be at the $38m Cap without the kind of revenue sharing
Name them

Your goal for the average is not where you want to set your Cap.
No, you set your cap based upon % of leageu revenue. Looking at the NBA and NFL would be a guess guestimation of where the NHL will be at.

But the fact is that the NHL has shown no willingness to do the things that make a Cap work like the NFL or NBA (35% of all revenues shared) has.
Again, substantiate. I thought you ONLY exacepted "cold hard fact" ?
 

Tawnos

A guy with a bass
Sep 10, 2004
28,820
10,397
Charlotte, NC
Splatman Phanutier said:
No, the NHLPA's proposal. The one back in Oct 2004 included revenue sharing.

Gary Bettman has gone on record saying he is trying to model the NHL CBA along the lines of the NFL.

Name them

No, you set your cap based upon % of leageu revenue. Looking at the NBA and NFL would be a guess guestimation of where the NHL will be at.

Again, substantiate. I thought you ONLY exacepted "cold hard fact" ?

I'm not sure which you would like me to substantiate.

As for the revenue sharing claims:
http://nhlcbanews.com/news/nhlresponse121404.html
http://www.nhlcbanews.com/news/nhlproposal020205.html
http://www.nhlcbanews.com/news/nhl_compromise020905.html

I don't see a single specific revenue sharing plan in any of those... only references to the fact that they have plans for them. Again, not anything proven in my eyes, therefore cold, hard fact tells me that they haven't made any. That's not to say they won't... but if they haven't yet... well, logic would dictate one to ask "why haven't they?"

If you're asking me to substantiate my NFL and NBA numbers:
http://sports.yahoo.com/nhl/news?slug=daretocompare&prov=tsn&type=lgns

The 8 teams are:
Pittsburgh
Nashville
Carolina
Calgary
Florida
Buffalo
Phoenix
Atlanta

On that note, I need to go to sleep... it's 4am here.
 

kremlin

Registered User
Oct 11, 2003
854
0
Visit site
Newsguyone said:
I understand that you guys think the players are a bunch of greedy SOBs lead by a guy you think is stupid, greedy and evil.

But seriously. Let's take a look at where we were a year ago and where we are today.

Now assume that the NHL quickly decided to adopt the PA's most recent proposal, in its entirety. (I am not saying the league should adopt it, I am just selecting it for arguments' sake)

Is your favorite team, and the league, much better off than it was a year ago?

Could your franchise not survive? WHy or why not?
Explain how a $49 Mill cap would put your team out of business.

Finally, logically explain to me why it is worth it for your team to completely cancel the season based on a $6M difference in cap levels.

Please, keep the thread free of sarcasm and insults.
I'd just like to see some thought-out opinions from the other side.

Surviving is not enough. The Union offered a poor deal that would not fix any problems. Most teams would survive, but the league would be in no better shape than that is was.
 

me2

Go ahead foot
Jun 28, 2002
37,903
5,595
Make my day.
Tawnos said:
However, you say it acts like a magnet... I say that it won't because teams simply can't afford it. Do you really think that the Penguins are going to sepnd $49million just because that's what the cap number is?

The $49m million slides the entire payscale up. Every team goes up through arbitration and other salary equalisation strategies. Why do you think Goodenow is so keen on a higher cap when he knows the vast majority of the teams aren't likely to spend more than $42.5m anyway?

Its not hard to see through the ruse.

The NHL teams already proved they can be fiscally responsible if they try (see the past 2 offseasons).

I thought the NHL teams lost hundreds of millions of dollars the last two years... That's your idea of fiscally responsible?
 

nedved93

Registered User
Aug 5, 2003
135
0
Visit site
me2 said:
The $49m million slides the entire payscale up. Every team goes up through arbitration and other salary equalisation strategies. Why do you think Goodenow is so keen on a higher cap when he knows the vast majority of the teams aren't likely to spend more than $42.5m anyway?

Its not hard to see through the ruse.



I thought the NHL teams lost hundreds of millions of dollars the last two years... That's your idea of fiscally responsible?
let's assume that the financials are accurate - would this not be more indicative of a revenue side problem than a cost problem?

i have another question though that i think is worth exploring: many fans of small market teams complain that they simply cannot compete with their large market brethren. the argument rests on the notion that more money implies a greater ability to acquire free agent players, thereby ensuring a more competitive on-ice product. implicit in that argument is a strong, almost definite causal relationship between how much a club spends on player salaries to that club's on-ice performance. in that vein, i wonder if my small-market friends can explain why tampa bay (payroll $34,065,379) beat calgary (payroll $36,402,575), who in turn beat san jose (payroll $34,455,000) to advance to the cup finals? explain why a team that was on the verge on bankruptcy, (ottawa, payroll $39,590,000) is widely considered a model NHL franchise? why is new jersey (payroll $48,931,658) considered by most to rival the new england patriots as being the most well-run professional sports franchise? how has minnesota's wild (payroll $27,200,500) achieved so much success in its brief existence? why is atlanta (payroll $28,547,500) on the verge of entering the "competitive" phase of the team development cycle? what of nashville (payroll $21,932,500)? how were they not only able to qualify for the playoffs but provide such stiff competition to detroit (payroll $77,856,109)? why have the rangers failed to make the playoffs in 7 years? why have toronto, philadelphia, and st.louis been unable to win championships, or even qualify for a cup finals appearance despite their inflated salary structures? and why is it almost an unwritten rule in the NHL that any team can beat any other team on any given night, regardless of their total payroll differential?

we know that large market teams drive up wage rates in the UFA market, that is indisputable. but i challenge the underlying assertion that the ability of a club to compete and even contend, is determined primarily by how much they spend (of course for clubs like pittsburg and buffalo that is certainly the case). if the goal is to allow ALL clubs to retain their talent, why isn't more emphasis placed on reforming the ELS, arbitration and qualifier systems, the primary drivers of NHL salary inflation? if the goal is to allow small-market clubs to compete with the large-market clubs in the UFA market, then why not embrace a system that harshly penalizes those large-market clubs who do spend recklessly by forcing them to have to funnel money directly to their small-market rivals? i don't for the life of me understand by this board doesn't openly embrace a hybrid system, or perhaps even one that places a cap on UFA spending?
 

A Good Flying Bird*

Guest
txomisc said:
Well we've had a bunch of posters who wanted to scrap the season whether a deal was reached at this late stage or not. Is losing a 28 game season and playoffs going to do that much more damage than losing the first 50 did? Sure it's worse, but I don't see it killing the league.

It's going to me much worse.
Here's the beautiful thing about a 25-28 game season.
As soon as the puck drops, teams are in playoff mode.
There's no time to fall behind in the standings. Games will be great.
And then, boom, the playoffs are here and we're all talking about the Stanley cup, which is the most symbolic article in all of pro-sports.
You get the league up and running now, and a lot of the damage will be undone.
You keep Stanley under lock and key, and then drag this thing into next season, well, forget about it.

Hockey fans aren't going to let the NHL get away with that. It will take years to get over it. Just like Major League Baseball suffered when the World Series was cancelled, so to will hockey.
 

A Good Flying Bird*

Guest
futurcorerock said:
you say it like it's 6.5 million.... multiply that number by 30 and you'll notice theres a bigger dispairity between the sides..

TImes 30?
Do you think that more than 5 teams will max out over $49 Million? Even after the rollback?
I don't. I think three teams might max out in one year.
Maybe 5 by year two.
So you're talking about much, much, much less than the 195 Million I've seen people mention.


futurcorerock said:
The fact of the matter is, if theres a graduated luxury tax, the higher the cap means that the graduation starts much higher.

Plus, your question in general comes off as weak to me, because a lot of the pro-owner sentiment comes more from being anti-player. Some pro-owner people would concur the PA's deal was sufficient, but right now it's to the point where the players' actions throughout this lockout have been selfish and ridiculous, and the players' representatives have tackled this process much in the wrong way that it should have been handled.

To me, it seems you missed the entire point of the argument.

If the point is that people want the season cancelled out of spite and hatred for the players, then yes, I've missed the point.
Because I thought even the anti-player posters wanted improvements to the game's financial condition.
We are almost there.
But there is no longer a game to speak of.
 

A Good Flying Bird*

Guest
CarlRacki said:
Newsguy:

I commend you for starting and staying with a good, serious discussion on the issue. But the $6.5 million figure you continue to cite is wrong.

The PA proposal also included significant cap elevators based on linkage and two exceptions allowing teams to add another $5 million to the cap during the six-year CBA. So, even throwing out the elevators, a team that can afford a $30 million payroll could and will be facing off against teams with $54 million payrolls. Yes, that's better than the $30 million vs. $75 million we have today, but it's still a far cry from the $30 million vs. $42.5 million in the league proposal.

Fine.
That article 7 seems to have thrown a monkey wrench into things.
As you say, it's much better than what currently exists, but probably a little high still.

My entire point of this thread was see what people think about where the talks are today, compared to system we had in place previously.
When you look at that, you realize that WE ARE SO CLOSE TO A DEAL.
It's a CRIME that Bettman called off the season.
I know, he wants his day in front of the NLRB.

But we spend 153 days arguing about a cap.
We spent one day talking about the cap numbers.
Seems like we could have waited two more days of negotiations.

It makes NO SENSE to me whatsoever.
ANd I can't believe that people aren't talking about this.

There is something going on here.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad

-->