Pepper
Registered User
- Aug 30, 2004
- 14,693
- 269
FLYLine4LIFE said:Ill give it 130. Once Goodenow seens the Hard Cap proposal again he will walk out like he should do.
coyotechrisz said:like he should do ?????
coyotechrisz said:like he should do ?????
FLYLine4LIFE said:Ill give it 130. Once Goodenow seens the Hard Cap proposal again he will walk out like he should do.
FLYLine4LIFE said:Yes, Like he should do. The cap is nothing more then a way to even the playing field..not to save the NHL...if he wanted to save the NHL then he would put in place a strict Luxary tax, revenue sharing etc.....then there would be a season this year or next season...but Bettman is willing to lock the players out for years....explain how that would save the NHL? Teams will never gain a fanbase from a lockout that long. Bettmans hidden agenda has been to have teams like the Oilers be able to compete not to ansure cost certainty...because by the time he gets that a 1/4 or the teams will be gone.
FLYLine4LIFE said:if he wanted to save the NHL then he would put in place a strict Luxary tax, revenue sharing etc.....QUOTE]
A luxury tax and revenue sharing isn't cost certainty.
I believe that Bettman and the owners would agree to a stiff luxury tax and revenue sharing, but the players haven't brought it to the table yet.
Seachd said:I wonder how you got access to this hidden agenda? Did Bettman tell you himself? Like TSN, did you get your hands on some secret documents?
Never mind; I think I know... It's just painfully obvious to you and no one else, right?
FLYLine4LIFE said:BTW dont forget we're talking a HARD cap here...no a regular 40-45 million cap.
Seachd said:What do you mean by "regular" cap?
The NHL's never said anything about a $30 million cap. That's everyone else putting words in their mouths. The "rumour" (article written by Damien Cox today) is that the league is going to offer to give a little less than 60% of revenues to the players. Some others did the math, and decided it was about a $40 million cap. Far from the $30 million you've been going on and on about.FLYLine4LIFE said:A higher cap. Something more resonable. Not a 30 million dollar one.
FLYLine4LIFE said:THINK about it. Bettman ONLY believes the way to save the NHL is to have a hard cap. But anybody that has been following this knows that is not true...so why does he keep insisting it?
BTW dont forget we're talking a HARD cap here...not a regular 40-45 million cap.
FLYLine4LIFE said:But anybody that has been following this knows that is not true...so why does he keep insisting it?
FLYLine4LIFE said:THINK about it. Bettman ONLY believes the way to save the NHL is to have a hard cap. But anybody that has been following this knows that is not true...so why does he keep insisting it?
BTW dont forget we're talking a HARD cap here...not a regular 40-45 million cap.
FlyFLYLine4LIFE said:Yes, Like he should do. The cap is nothing more then a way to even the playing field..not to save the NHL...if he wanted to save the NHL then he would put in place a strict Luxary tax, revenue sharing etc.....then there would be a season this year or next season...but Bettman is willing to lock the players out for years....explain how that would save the NHL? Teams will never gain a fanbase from a lockout that long. Bettmans hidden agenda has been to have teams like the Oilers be able to compete not to ansure cost certainty...because by the time he gets that a 1/4 of the teams will be gone.
Owen Wilson said:Did you ever sit back and realize that is his first choice?? If he says otherwise, the PA will walk all over him.
A lot of people believe that this can be fixed without a HARD cap, but happy medium has to be reached first
Dont get me wrong..just because im a Ranger fan dont think my viewpoint is, "NO! I dont want to loose my teams advantage because we got the money!"(Not like we even gained one from it) It is not that..I am just not in favor of a hard cap because it will make the playing field way to even...like the NFL....if the cap was softer at lets say 40-45 million then I would be for it because then we can still have dynastys in the NHL, powerhouse teams, etc...with an extreme level playing field there will be new teams in the finals every season...teams will bounce from playoffs to no postseason every year. I just dont want to see the NHL turn into the NFL...but some people will argue they love the system the NFL has...but obviously I dont.HF2002 said:Fly
Your position is well known and you're more than entitled to it. I just have to ask, based on what you've written above, what's wrong with an even playing field? If I'm a fan in a small market I'd like to think that my favorite team has a chance in a couple of years. Otherwise, why am I buying tickets, merchandise and beer? What are they rebuilding for? To help develop the top picks they get and then move them off to the 4 or 5 big clubs?
I think the players should be able to earn as much as possible, but that's a two sided coin - the owners should be allowed to as well. I do agree with parts of your overall position (that it isn't entirely up to the players to be responsible for the owners inability to control themselves) but at some point the players do also have to recognize that there are financial problems and that ultimately, continuing down the current path will inevitably mean teams folding and lost jobs. I have no doubt that the league has been living off the spoils of expansion through the 90s - and so did the players.
FLYLine4LIFE said:BTW dont forget we're talking a HARD cap here...not a regular 40-45 million cap.
chiavsfan said:What's wrong with an even playing field? I think it makes the games more entertaining...and makes it more about the players and the coaches. The better players and better coaching will win more games.
For example in the NFL the playing field isn't so even this year is it?
12-1 Phili
12-1 Pitt
12-1 New England
10-3 Atlanta