so the players wanted linkage after all

Discussion in 'Fugu's Business of Hockey Forum' started by likea, Feb 17, 2005.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
View Users: View Users
  1. likea

    likea Registered User

    Joined:
    Jul 9, 2004
    Messages:
    599
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    why isn't anyone talking about this aspect of the players last proposal

    they wanted the their costs certain for this and next season, no matter how much money or fans the league loses

    then when the league gains revenues and gets on solid footing they want to up the cap

    the NHLPA wanted linkage upward only when revenues grew.....
     
  2. officeglen

    officeglen Registered User

    Joined:
    Oct 6, 2002
    Messages:
    3,672
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Eastern Ontario
    Home Page:
  3. Hemooli

    Hemooli Registered User

    Joined:
    Jan 25, 2005
    Messages:
    820
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Occupation:
    Accountant
    Home Page:
  4. Luc Labelle

    Luc Labelle Laine 895

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2005
    Messages:
    260
    Likes Received:
    133
    Trophy Points:
    92
    Location:
    Winnipeg
    Yes, both of these threads discuss the infamous clause #7. I first mentioned this clause in three other threads very early this morning. Noone had taken the time to delve into part 2 of Goodenow's letter to Bettman. I think everyone was spending too much speculating about whether there was hope for a season.

    I was praying there wouldn't be a season this morning because I knew the only way there would have been is if Goodenow's underhanded clause found its way into any agreement. It is in the details that Goodenow is a master of creating runaway inflation. Bettman learned his lesson the last time and I applaud him for not falling for any of Goodenow's fake concessions that all sounded impressive on the surface but all were more inflationary in the details.

    I watched the media coverage for 12 hours today. It is amazing how out of dozens of analysts and writers covering the lockout virtually none of them mentioned clause #7 and just kept whining about some non-existant difference of $2.5 million blowing out the season. As though the sides had agreed on or should agree on this middle ground. All the media kept saying the players offered a $49 million cap, but that was only going to be in effect until the end of the 2005-2006 season. The media dropped the ball on this one... the two sides were not even remotely close to a deal.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page

monitoring_string = "358c248ada348a047a4b9bb27a146148"