ScottyBowman said:
I suggest you read the rules of this message board.
1) Flaming: Do not post any messages that harrass, insult, belittle, threaten or flame another member or guest. Debates are fine, but argue with the point, not the person.
If nobody wants to answer my question then its fine. I just want to have a civil conversation.
Well, WITH THE GREATEST RESPECT, I do not think I have read a response like yours in quite a while.
To have a "civil conversation", one does not post an inflammatory, baiting post such as this:
You guys bought all the talk of all this money being lost by the bottom feeders.
Nashville claimed to have lost $10 mil on a 22 mil payroll HA! Now they have all this money for Kariya.
Carolina made the most ridiculous claim of all time that they lost 22 mil on a 39 mil payroll
http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/20...nes.lockout.ap/
Yeah I know a few people will come to the aid of the billionaires and defend their lies but where is this money coming from as op said? It can't be revenue sharing because it won't be much and Carolina is going to have to be under $17 mil payroll to make a profit according to Karmanos LOL.
"you guys bought all this talk"
"Defend their lies".
"LOL"
So your suggestion of wanting to have a "civil conversation" is pretty far from the truth.
Here is a posting rule for you to consider:
2) Trolling: Do not post topics with the sole purpose of starting a dispute.
I might suggest you look at your own reply post, where such rule clearly states that posters should not insult or belittle other posters. As indicated above, your initial post (in addition to being a trolling post) clearly is nothing short of you patting the heads of pro-league posters and saying "Poor little deluded souls. You poor saps. How can you be so dumb."
I RESPECTFULLY ask that you get off your high horse.
THe issue of the owners' losses is over. The players accepted the fact. Maybe you should as well. I know you are CLOSE to an engineering degree and all (as if that is a big deal and is not dwarfed by the educational accomplishments of a host of posters here), but your lack of knowledge of business as evidenced by your posts is not contributing anything to this discussion.
To answer your question, I suggest you read the article you posted. It contains some reasons which can lead one to reason how some spending in a capped world can make you more competitive and lead you to more revenue, as opposed to that same spending in a non-capped world not making you more competitive and being money down the drain. with a cap, investments in players have an exponentially greater chance of being good investments, particularly in a market like Carolina that has supported hockey in the past far better than it currently did and that will conceivably return to that support (or even better) with a better hockey team.