London Knights
Registered User
- Jun 1, 2004
- 831
- 0
gscarpenter2002 said:The Mummy SPEAKS!!!!!!! Too bad you still don't have the stones to address me directly, since i have already figured out what you are all about...
As for locking in spending to what a team's individual revenues are, there are conflicting reports about that. Some say it is lague wide, some say it is team by team, some (like me) think it is both.
THe point, genius, was not that Carolina would spend $37 million, but rather that they would have no trouble with $19.8 plus benefits.
Regarding Carolina, they have 7 players under contract for 05-06 at the post-rollback salary of $11,886,400, with QO's for 10 more at $8.5 million. After signing 16 players even at the $400k new minimum, they would be at $19.2 million. They are already effectively at the floor. So (more or less) is Nashville, with $10.3 million for 9 players, $8.7 million in QO's, and a mimimum additional commitment of $5.6 million for their 14 more players.
And you quote FORBES???? Who were not even provided access to the books?
Oh, and how well or poorly run Carolina is was about as far from the point as you could get. A pitiful attempt to change the subject.
Not that I don't agree with the points you have brought up, as I quite agree and have admired your arguments in the thread, but I thought that the NHL's major point of contention with Forbes was that they overvalued profits in regards to the Levitt report aswell. So is it not possible that FORBES' numbers actually underestimate the losses of a team such as Carolina?