vanlady said:
TSN on from both Healy and Burke. As for near hysterical, sorry I am not hysterical, as a matter of fact I tend to be cool to the point of cold, it is what makes me great at my job. I am to the extreme, analytical. I have analized from a variety of sources, not just the media, and hysteria is not where I get my numbers. You seem to think that the world is rosie and there will be no drop in revenues, as a matter of fact under you predictions the NHL will have a new TV deal paying millions, no impact on merchandise sales and fans that will flock back at record levels in the US. That is the only way the cap will remain at 42 million.
Cool to the point of cold. Analytical to the extreme. Ok, whatever you say. From the way you have been carrying on about the impact of the unknown on your Canucks, I got the impression you were more the 'Chicken Little' type who is always running around shouting 'The Sky is Falling. The Sky is Falling'.
Based from what you wrote in this post, I must conclude that you have not read my posts at all. Something I have suspected over the past couple of days, and not the habit of one who is 'analytical to the extreme'.
Just for the record, I have not mentioned a TV deal, merchandise sales, nor attendance numbers. Unlike you, I do not claim to know what will happen under a new, yet undefined CBA. However, I do know what was happening under the old CBA and I believe the league could not go on without major changes. Salaries were escalating faster than revenues and that there was no way to stop it without changing the CBA. I favor a hard cap because, generally, it is too easy to find loopholes in a soft cap. I do not expect the new CBA to be perfect. It will be a compromise so no one will be happy with the whole thing. But it won't have to be great to be better than the last one...
BTW...it is 'analyzed' not 'analized'...an odd mistake for an analytical type to make...