A Good Flying Bird*
Guest
http://slam.canoe.ca/Slam/Hockey/NHL/2005/02/19/936041-sun.html
Bettman wanted impasse ... wasn't ready for PA's salary cap offer.
Bettman wanted impasse ... wasn't ready for PA's salary cap offer.
Newsguyone said:http://slam.canoe.ca/Slam/Hockey/NHL/2005/02/19/936041-sun.html
Bettman wanted impasse ... wasn't ready for PA's salary cap offer.
TouchMyBertuzzi said:Boy, it sounds really good, but then some three year old is going to get ahold of it and prove it ridiculous.
If Bettman's purpose is a salary cap to triple values of the league's franchises, and the NHLPA offers a salary cap, accepting a salary cap with the league at 45 million dollars would succeed in increasing the value of the franchises just the same as having a court impose it.
Newsguyone said:You're missing a big part. Bettman wanted a $30 Million cap, not a $45 Million cap.
He would never, ever win $30 from the players.
.
Strachan rarely nails it... so I wasn't surprised when he didn't nail it here either.Newsguyone said:http://slam.canoe.ca/Slam/Hockey/NHL/2005/02/19/936041-sun.html
Bettman wanted impasse ... wasn't ready for PA's salary cap offer.
Al Strachan said:The NHLPA, however, said it was strongly opposed to a salary cap and would never accede on that point.
Therefore, there was only one way Bettman could attain his ideal. He had to get the National Labor Relations Board in the United States to get a bargaining impasse declared and thereby earn the right to impose the cap.
19bruins19 said:How does Bettman want an impasse? How much money can these players make? 42.5 is reasonable. The players should have accepted it.
MrMackey said:Strachan's argument falls down big time when he says that the reason he wanted an impasse was to get a cap. Well he got a cap, so why would he want to declare impasse anymore? If Bettman does indeed want an impasse, and only wants an impasse (not a deal), then Strachan should at least organize his argument more clearly.
TouchMyBertuzzi said:So if the players had taken 42.5 today he would have said no?
Again, the argument must pass a logic test.
tnrocketman said:How many redundant threads like this are you going to post? I thought moderators were supposed to set the example here...
Newsguyone said:Dude, that is a very good question.
If the players had agreed to $42.5 today, would the owners have agreed?
I'm not sure the answer is yes.
Uh...Newsguyone said:No. You should read with more care.
He's after a cap near $30 million.
Not $40.
$30 Million almost gaurantees profittability.
Gauranteed profittablity will make franchise look like better investments and will increase the values. Owners in Nashville and FLorida could get out of the business and make a tidy profit.
He wasn't going to get a $30M cap through negotiations.
He needed an impasse to do so.
Ted Saskin said:But before even getting into the number it became more important to address what the systemic issues were around the number and that quickly let us to conclude the areas of disagreement are far more profound than was originally thought.
Damphousse said:When we saw more details on their offer we realized it was much worse than we thought.
TouchMyBertuzzi said:Bettman only needs 8 of the 30 teams to support him in an agreement. It would take 22 teams to overrule the board of govenors and Bettman.
The answer is, most definitely, yes. Strachan's argument has zero merit.
You claim you want to be partners with the players - How about becoming partners with your fellow owners first?Anthony said:yea lets have a deal that favors the canadian teams and the "traditional hockey markets(whatever that is)" but screws everyone else
that would be great
xtra said:I am starting to belive that he does want to crush the union and i have gone from being a Pro Owner fan to one that belives that both sides are idiots and that the game is the one suffering. I dont' care anymore what type of agreement is made as long as it saves the game in CANADA and traditional hockey markets because if these rumors about Florida and Nashville stopping the last proposal is true well then Pro Contraction just got (at least) one more fan on their side.
TouchMyBertuzzi said:Bettman only needs 8 of the 30 teams to support him in an agreement. It would take 22 teams to overrule the board of govenors and Bettman.
The answer is, most definitely, yes. Strachan's argument has zero merit.