Discussion in 'Fugu's Business of Hockey Forum' started by Old Hickory, Jan 21, 2005.
They've mentioned it a few times
Yeah, I heard that too.
thanks for the heads up guys
Can someone post a link to 590 streaming please? Thank you.
anybody else sick to death of this mess yet?
The website is www.fan590.com and the link to stream is at the top. Look for "listen live".
Indeed. I'm longing for the day that they'll just pull the plug and put us all out of our misery.
I'll never get sick of it. It beats Basketball anyday.
For those of us at work who can't listen, can we get semi-regular updates on what he's saying.
They just said he is talking already or is done. They aren't going to broadcast it. It's pretty clear. They said that Linden was talking about how it's pretty much over.
Not good. Linden said the owners want it all or nothing as far as a cap goes. Linden isn't too optimistic, and thinks any offer put forward now would simply be a PR move.
That was weak
So the owners want it all or nothing? To me, they just want a cap, they'll negotiate on anything else...
He said the owners want it all or nothing as far as the cap goes.
The problem is is that the cap is the ONLY issue, I don't think the players care about any of the other stuff that much, just as the owners don't.
They just did an update and the reporter said it wasn't sounding good. They said that Linden said the owners stance was still "all or nothing" and "salary cap or they don't open the gates". He also went on to say that the time for a new proposal has passed" and that they need to sit down and continue to negotiate based on what is already on the table.
That was the gist of it, but it was a quick report and the reporter said that Linden was still speaking at the time.
More to come I guess.
The 1 question i'd like to ask anyone here, or any NHLPA member is, what's the reason why you don't want a cap? what's so wrong about having a salary cap?
The owners have outlined the reason why not having a cap and continuing down the road we've been on could do to the game, but what about the players, what effect will this have on them that they can't just accept it?
I would like to know the answer to that very same question as well. Evertime I have heard a player asked that question they have either danced around it, deferred to Goodenow/Saksin or brought up non-guranteed contracts. The non-guranteed contracts argument was shot down by the NHL saying that a cap can exist w/ guranteed contracts.
The NHL gave the PA a wake up call Wednesday and Thursday. The resolve is strong. The PA still thinking it's a bluff is trying one of their own. Absolutely time to negotiate based on what is on the table...thing is why does it have to be the NHLPA offer Trevor? Seems to me it should be the owners offer that you should negotiate against. Of course it may just be a call to the members to give him feedback that they'll accept the cap so negotiate of the owners deal. Yeah right I don't think most of these guys realise what they were being guaranteed under the owners last offer.
Simple answer: a cap reins in the absurd inflation of NHL salaries that over the past decade saw the average pay increase from $572,000 a year in '93-94 to $1.79 million in '02-'03.
Of course, that $572K won't look so bad after the players get a dose of reality in the Euro leagues. According to the Detroit News story linked below, most NHL players in Europe right now are getting salaries equal to $150,000 a year.
Based on that, it's pretty obvious why a $1.3 million-per-player cap is such an insult.
Hey, Trevor: The NFL and NBA, both much more successful leagues than the NHL, operate under salary caps. Was that an "insult" when those leagues proposed salary caps?
The players must just be drinking Goodenow's Kool-Aid because there's absolutely no reason for them to be this adamant on a salary cap. Quite frankly, it would make a lot more sense to me if they were all bent out of shape about earlier unrestricted free agency because at least there you're talking about being able to work where you want and for the coach and GM you want.
This whole thing is just ridiculous.
Of course it can, and in the NBA, where contracts are almost all guaranteed, it does. In the NFL, players not on the roster still can count against the salary cap, so there goes that argument too.
Basically the players are saying there is no reason for a cap. Pay us what the market determines we are worth and what you can afford.
That's fine. Obviously that is what they are saying based on their framework. The question that they haven't answered despite being asked numerous times is "why is a cap at xx% of revenues so bad?" The owners have answered why they feel other systems do not workk (again agree or disagree fine) the players haven't.
Separate names with a comma.