Have You Switched Sides?

Status
Not open for further replies.

Poignant Discussion*

I tell it like it is
Jul 18, 2003
8,421
5
Gatineau, QC
kerrly said:
Give it up man, you're just going to get your ass handed to you. This is not a good argument and its not true. Daly and Bettman said that the league's salary structure would be right back where it was within two or three years. If you want to prove me wrong, you could try and bring up a quote from a link.

:lol: :lol: :lol:

I'm sure if Daly and Elf told you to jump off the bridge, you would too
 

dedalus

Registered User
Feb 27, 2002
7,215
0
Visit site
NataSatan666 said:
The players were stolen from the 70 years before that so a major correction is what is needed for the good of all concerned
D'ya think? Because I'm thinking that if we interviewd Bob Clarke, Larry Robinson, Bill Barber, Gordie Howe (you know, all those guys who played before the last CBA), very, very few would say they were "stolen from."
 

kerrly

Registered User
May 16, 2004
811
1
Regina
NataSatan666 said:
:lol: :lol: :lol:

I'm sure if Daly and Elf told you to jump off the bridge, you would too

Grow up. You add nothing to any conversation you're involved in. If you would like to prove me wrong and show me where Daly and Bettman claimed the NHLPA Dec. 9th proposal would keep the league afloat for 3 years please do so. Otherwise continue making ridiculous posts that further the disprespect people have for you here.
 

guymez

The Seldom Seen Kid
Mar 3, 2004
32,644
12,154
Beukeboom Fan said:
Maybe if the Goodenow had brought forth this proposal more than 36 hours before the drop dead date they could of done more negotiating around the particulars. I think that BG was deadline hunting and thought he could sneak a fast one by the owners. From one of my favorite movies, "He choose poorly."

I think you nailed it.
Bettman's move of not setting a drop dead date untill a few days prior was IMO brilliant. It really took away a lot of Goodenow's barganing leverage. The toothless cap was Goodenow's ace, as long as he could get the owners to forgo linkage. Huge mistake. Now, due to the cancelled season, linkage has to be back on the table due to lost revenues. Because of the lost revenues, the NHLPA is now forced to give up even more. The 24% rollback and the cap have now been put on the table, and are sure to be included in any future NHL proposals. Linkage is next, and the cap isn't going to be anywhere near 49 million now.
 

Brewleaguer

Registered User
Jan 31, 2005
260
0
Doctor Zoidberg said:
I sure have. I was 100% pro owner but there is no way I could support this garbage anymore. Bettman got his cap and still decided to torch this league. He could have had a cap of 45 million and knows it, but wouldn't even bother making the offer. Don't anyone give me that crap about 2.5 million x 30 because anyone with a brain knows most teams wouldnt come anywhere close to 45 million, especially how the NHLPA set it up with luxury tax rates of as high as 75% leading up to the max cap.

I blasted the players for their pathetic 5% rollback, their scam 24% rollback, but to include the 24% AND a HARD CAP! Come on... they gave away everything they possibly could. I've done a complete 180 here and I'm in full support of the union now. I honestly hope the league tries replacement players and finds out nobody will pay to see that and they are forced to come crawling back to the NHLPA and are forced to accept a paltry luxury tax of 10% on salaries over 90 million.

This has always been NHL vs PA vs top hockey team owners, any way you slice it.
 

CarlRacki

Registered User
Feb 9, 2004
1,442
2
NataSatan666 said:
The players were stolen from the 70 years before that so a major correction is what is needed for the good of all concerned

Yeah, because Alexei Yashin and Bobby Holik no doubt are sharing their over-inflated salaries with Ted Lindsay and Marcel Dionne. :shakehead
 

Mountain Dude

Guest
NataSatan666 said:
:lol: :lol: :lol:

I'm sure if Daly and Elf told you to jump off the bridge, you would too

Gretzky and Lemieux agreed, are you calling them liars?
 

pacde

Registered User
Dec 9, 2004
85
0
I was pro-owner - but my position has shifted a little. I still think the owners have a more credible position, but I really think they need to bend on the luxury tax thing, that has to be part of the new arrangement. I wouldnt have negotiated the hard cap, I would have said, "ok, you want 52, we want 35 or 38 - how about we get a tax that starts at 35 and is graduated to 52 - so we get 25 cents on the dollar between 35 and 38, 50 cents to 40, 1 dollar to 44, 2 dollars to 48 and so on. That way is more honest to the players I think. The players should still get a bit of the pie from Toronto, New York and the markets that skew this whole thing.
 

Whakahere

Registered User
Jan 27, 2004
1,817
52
Germany
nyr7andcounting said:
I'm anti-NHL and today didn't change that. Bettman didn't give me any good reasons why a $45 or $49 million cap wouldn't work. The x times 30 thing is just the stupidest thing I have ever heard.

The worst was his example of the NFL, and how their cap acts as a magnet. There are 2 things he didn't say about that though. First off the NFL's revenues are so high right now that owners are dying to spend past the cap, therefor no team has any doubt they should spend up to the cap. That would not be the case in the NHL. And secondly, if anything, the only "magnet" in the PA's proposal would be the $36 million where the luxury tax starts. I would imagine that most teams would spend up to 36-40 million without going past that because the luxury tax might be too much for some teams after that...and that's fine. But the idea that every NHL team would consider the cap a magnet and spend around $48 million? Not a chance.

Anyway, I just can't support the NHL because it is their lockout, it's their responsibility to come up with a solution, and when it came down to this morning, despite any damage to anyone's ego it may have caused, it was the NHL's responsibility to make one last offer. Bettman pretty much told us during his PC that they would accept a cap of 44 or 45 million, well than he should have proposed it. It is Bettman's job to protect the sport and the league, not Goodenow's, so I can't blame the PA for the cancelling of the season.


but this was the problem with the OLD CBA. team spent over what they could afford. If a cap is a 49 million teams will spend 49 million, tax or no tax. Team will continue to lose money. complete joke, the PA's deal would continue the bleeding of the NHL.


ONE QUESTION : how many jobs do you know that the employees make more money that the OWNERS every year without fail?

I can just think of NHL hockey. until this is fixed, the league will die.
 

NJD Jester

Registered User
Nov 14, 2003
960
0
DC
www.njdevilsbook.com
jwr38 said:
ONE QUESTION : how many jobs do you know that the employees make more money that the OWNERS every year without fail?

I can just think of NHL hockey. until this is fixed, the league will die.

You know, I hear you on this. But as the lockout's continued, and the season was killed, more and more I'm saying the same thing in my head: This is all the owners' mess, and this lockout was about killing the union, not "cost certainty."
 

richardn

Registered User
Mar 6, 2004
8,513
80
Sault Ste. Marie
nyr7andcounting said:
I'm anti-NHL and today didn't change that. Bettman didn't give me any good reasons why a $45 or $49 million cap wouldn't work. The x times 30 thing is just the stupidest thing I have ever heard.

The worst was his example of the NFL, and how their cap acts as a magnet. There are 2 things he didn't say about that though. First off the NFL's revenues are so high right now that owners are dying to spend past the cap, therefor no team has any doubt they should spend up to the cap. That would not be the case in the NHL. And secondly, if anything, the only "magnet" in the PA's proposal would be the $36 million where the luxury tax starts. I would imagine that most teams would spend up to 36-40 million without going past that because the luxury tax might be too much for some teams after that...and that's fine. But the idea that every NHL team would consider the cap a magnet and spend around $48 million? Not a chance.

Anyway, I just can't support the NHL because it is their lockout, it's their responsibility to come up with a solution, and when it came down to this morning, despite any damage to anyone's ego it may have caused, it was the NHL's responsibility to make one last offer. Bettman pretty much told us during his PC that they would accept a cap of 44 or 45 million, well than he should have proposed it. It is Bettman's job to protect the sport and the league, not Goodenow's, so I can't blame the PA for the cancelling of the season.

Exactly how I feel.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad

-->