Originally Posted by The Messenger
"I beg to differ .. The NHL stance was always it needes a Hard cap for Parity and equal opportunity at the Stanley Cup for 30 teams and its last 42.5 proposal had no floor .. (other than min wage 300 -350 k X 23 players ~ 7-10 mil ) .. Well the difference between 42.5 and 10 is 32.5 Mil ..So what is the difference from that and the OLD CBA where a small market team like Phoenix had a 33.0 Mil Salary and the Leafs a 65.0 M Salary .. Still a 32.0 Mil difference in disparity for a Cup ..
The numbers are just different .. "Bad Faith" Perhaps !!!"
^"The Numbers are just different" There's not a 'fine' line between "just the numbers" from the old CBA and the NHL's proposal. ..It's a huge, bold, clear as day boarder that seperates the two!
"And if an owner decided to bring up his AHL team and play it as his NHL team nothing would prevent the Current NHLers from such a tactic in the Owners CBA and just took away 23 NHL jobs .. in a tank for a top prospect move .."
^HUH?
"So then an offer of 42.5 mil could in that respect still be questioned in court as being unfair and understandable why it does not address the issue it set out to due .."
^HUH
"Also the magnet theory of drawing team to the High number will be challenged .. 4-5 straight years Phoenix has never exceeded a 33 mil in an non Cap world and then suddenly under a Cap it now will shoot for or spend 42.5 or 45 .. etc .. "Bad Faith" Perhaps.!!!"
^Did you know there's a floor and a ceiling presented in the cap? :lol The ceiling is the limit a team can spend on payroll, meaning: Teams are not 'permitted' to spend past the ceiling, or limit of the cap. ..Nor are they(the teams) permitted to spend less than the floor on payroll. In otherwords; all teams are to spend within the floor(the minimum) and the ceiling(the maximum).
I cannot believe I had to explain this.. Why do teams have to spend the maximum?
"Also look at a team like Boston 95 Mil recorded in Revenue last year, one of the Top teams .. and they are the ones pushing for a 42.5 or lower Cap and are partially responsible for a lost season .. Well if you do the math 95 - 42.5 is not 55% or so of Revenues the league offered in Linkage .. "BAD Faith" Perhaps"
^ That my friend is called disparity within the league. Now, look at the picture from another perspective and you'll find teams loosing significant money as well. It's sad realy.. that a cap is the only solution from preventing players salaries from inflating as well as petering off the foolish spending some of the teams spend. Without contradicting myself, I'm not soley for a cap. I'd like to see Arbitration changed to not favor one side, along with the 24%rollback to offset the outrageous salaries. With arbitration changed, players will be evaluated fair and should further prevent salary escalation. Major luxury taxes should be implimented and split evenly with the other teams that don't spend foolishly, as well as losing draft picks in up-coming drafts.
"Other issues as well they may have discussed Revenue Sharing but in the last NHL proposal it starts in year one and declines to Zero in year 6 .. The reason again for the Hard Cap is to allow for meaningful revenue sharing for all teams to build up Team Salaries in Small or Non Hockey markets, by help from their friends thus creating better paying jobs and employment for players that are Capped at the Top Team wise and that would leave the weak back to old CBA and affordability.."Bad Faith" Perhaps .."
^For once, you have a point. The only reason why players encourage revenue sharing is for the simple fact they (the players)will benifit from it. The reason why rich teams don't want revenue sharing is because they'd be giving-up revenue and wouldn't benifit them at all.
"Qualifying offers at 75% .. unless there is a off setting Salary Arbitration in place to give the players an avenue to dispute or make sure They are paid fairly and not getting automatic 25% decreases regardless and no avenue but to withhold services to be treated Fairly.. "Good Faith" Perhaps !!!"
^That has nothing to do with the player signing for 75% less, it just keeps them from being an URFA. A team has to at least qualify a player at 75% of their last salary inorder to keep their rights.