Bruwinz37 said:
No one should blame everything on the players, but it is their stubborness and failure to look at the books sooner combined with their lack of understanding of how the interest in hockey is not where it needs to be has led us to this point. I dont care how much the players make, but if your "love it or leave it" attitude is shared by the players then it further shows how far from reality they are......they can't afford to lose *any* fans, even the ones that, god forbid, criticize them.
I'm sure the players were well aware of the financial state of the league. It's hard to overlook it when teams like Ottawa and Buffalo were in grave danger. However, there are legitimate reasons why the players don't or didn't trust the owners. The Levitt report was misleading even though it was termed by Bettman as a super audit when it clearly wasn't. It overstated the league's losses.
Moreover, I believe the onus was on the large market teams to form a partnership with their small market brothers before seeking such a relationship with the players. These owners will now instead be making 20 - 40 M profits annually. All that money these large market teams previously had no major issues giving up now goes back into the hands of already wealthy people. But I have no problem with this as such profits continues to give the Avs quite a leg up on 2/3rds of the league.
What is the floor going to be now? 22-25m? What teams wouldnt spend that much anyway.
I can think of a few. When small market clubs witness the richest teams raking in cash, they'd attempt to go below the 20 M figure to make som dough on their own. After all, they'd figure a such a payroll could still allow them to be competitive since the cap figure of 42.5 M was low enough. Moreover, if there were no mechanisms for inflation (salary arb, QOs), all teams would low ball the mid-ranked players.
The february deal would have been much more in the players favor, dont kid yourself. Regarding the rest of the details, none were released so you cannot comment on them.
The details weren't released but surely there's reasons why the NHLPA rebuffed the NHL's offer. Reports indicate the players were willing to accept the 42.5 M figure until they looked at the rest of the NHL's proposal. What could have turned them off so much? IMHO and other's views, the league must have took away salary arb and other perks the NHLPA holds dear.
I'm curious to know how you know the feb deal was significantly better given how few details have emerged from "sad saturday?" All we know are the difference in the cap levels (42.5 versus 39.5).
The players could have had all of this and played last season if they werent a bunch of sheep. Many of us have been saying for MONTHS that they should give in to the cap and negotiate the best possible cap for them. Anyone with an ounce of common sense knew the owners werent bluffing. The financial situation is too poor to assume they would bluff.
This is true. The players misjudged the owners' resolve and they got burned. But I can understand why they fought so valiantly against the cap. The players know that in a cap system (that lacks significant revenue sharing) there's plenty money out there the large market teams are willing to dish out.
.
