MarkZackKarl
Registered User
THE NHL counter proposal will not be as harsh as their first 6 joke proposals, but it still wont be to the players liking...
Something along the lines of what JW119 posted... in the end , the ufa age will drop a few years, the luxury tax will be around 35% for those above 45-55, then 55% for between 55-65 and 80% or so for 65 plus.
The roll back will be reduced I think if they stiffen the luxury taxes, lets say to 15%. If the owners want to re-set the market (which I think makes most sense) they will have to be more lenient on the luxury tax, for reasons mentioned.
I still cannot understand the people who think making owners more profitable will somehow improve the product.
What is good for the business of hockey is rarely good for the fan.
we should want all teams to have an equal opportunity to win IF They have good management. And any logical person can see that good management does not correlate to spending lots of monye, quite the opposite actually.
There should never be a situation where all 30 t eams are requal. Newsflash: there will still be losing teams under a cpaped system, dummies. The mediocre teams shouldn't be propped up by those who have good management. Instead of bringing others down to your level, why not try to improve to try and get to the level that the winning teams are at? Successful marketing, responsible player budgets, good player development, patience... sure winning takes luck as well, but you dont want the whole basis of winning to come down to the luckiest team, do you?
Something along the lines of what JW119 posted... in the end , the ufa age will drop a few years, the luxury tax will be around 35% for those above 45-55, then 55% for between 55-65 and 80% or so for 65 plus.
The roll back will be reduced I think if they stiffen the luxury taxes, lets say to 15%. If the owners want to re-set the market (which I think makes most sense) they will have to be more lenient on the luxury tax, for reasons mentioned.
I still cannot understand the people who think making owners more profitable will somehow improve the product.
What is good for the business of hockey is rarely good for the fan.
we should want all teams to have an equal opportunity to win IF They have good management. And any logical person can see that good management does not correlate to spending lots of monye, quite the opposite actually.
There should never be a situation where all 30 t eams are requal. Newsflash: there will still be losing teams under a cpaped system, dummies. The mediocre teams shouldn't be propped up by those who have good management. Instead of bringing others down to your level, why not try to improve to try and get to the level that the winning teams are at? Successful marketing, responsible player budgets, good player development, patience... sure winning takes luck as well, but you dont want the whole basis of winning to come down to the luckiest team, do you?