scaredsensfan said:The players have already conceded 6 million from their stance. All the NHL has to do is up their offer by 3 million and we have a deal folks.
Takeo said:$46M is too high! Hopefully, the NHL won't bite.
EdBelfour20 said:listening to M. Barnaby on the FAN590 - disgusting, what a fool..
DeuceUNO said:go away.
go post on "ownersfuture.com"
WhalerBoy said:
JUST AGREE ON A NUMBER 45/46 WHO THE HELL CARES?
THESE GUYS ARE UNREAL, I CANT BELIEVE THIS IS HAPPENING!!!
What is it exactly? How many teams will even go above $44/$45? come off it. Im going to be STUNNED if there is no season.
NataSatan666 said:The owners are only out to stomp the union. They don't give a **** about the fans period.
Lets remember the comment when we are supporting the owners and the NHL
"The hockey doesn't matter"
As I posted on a number of other threads, the difference is significantly greater than $3-4 million. The NHLPA thresholds are to be indexed using the 2005-2006 season as a base comparison. So the $49 million cap bandied about will only be in effect for this and next season when revenues will be down significantly, thereby keeping the owner salary costs in the 70-75% range. After next season the NHLPA gets to increase the thresholds if revenues increase compared to the disaster that next year will be. If there is a 30% drop next year (which is not inconceivable) then when the revenues return to the current 2003-2004 levels the NHLPA proposed cap goes to $70 million. That is only the hard portion, the soft cap is actually higher. So the difference we are talking about here is more like $30 million.Stephen said:How is a difference of $3-4 million going to make any difference for the 'poor small market teams' losing billions of dollars combined?
WhalerBoy said:
JUST AGREE ON A NUMBER 45/46 WHO THE HELL CARES?
THESE GUYS ARE UNREAL, I CANT BELIEVE THIS IS HAPPENING!!!
What is it exactly? How many teams will even go above $44/$45? come off it. Im going to be STUNNED if there is no season.