Bettman and the owners will never agree to anything that doesn't include a salary cap. The season is lost anyway so they have no reason to budge at all. I think it is a great offer and that the players have taken a great first step but I am not optimistic at all.
Folk singers are always liberal pansies, but not me.....I sing for my fellow conservatives...care to hear "Shoot the Hippie out of the Redwood Tree" ?
I hope this will get them talking, and I personally think the players are giving away the farm here, but I still see two problems:
1) Like Dunk said, no cap, no agreement from the owners. There is room to negotiate on this, though, since there is a difference between a hard cap, which the players won't accept, and an NBA-style unfathomable, can-sometimes-be-exceeded cap, which COULD be acceptable to the players.
2) The owners are still insisting on linking player salaries to revenue. I think that as long as the teams keep their own books, it is easy for them to lie about revenue, and for this reasone the players can't accept that. If the NHL is serious about linking player salaries to revenue, I can't see this deal getting done. Seems to me that this will be the real sticking point.
All that said, I don't believe that the owners will want to leave potential revenue from this year sitting on the table. My outlook has gone from 50%-50%, to thinking we've got a 65% chance of having hockey this year.
My fingers are crossed.
-MHM, winner of the 2000 Throwdown in Christmastown.
Isn't this just obviously a PR move to try to get the fans on their side (for once)? All day I've seen all sorts of players saying the Union Line of "We're trying to save the season, if the owners don't take this offer, then they don't want to save the season. We're with you fans! We want a season just like you!" I think lines like that were shown by approximately 371 hockey players over the course of a 2 minute TSN blurb.
Saving the season isn't the point of the lockout. This offer was put out with the full knowledge that the owners would never take it. They addressed every problem except the one the owners say they really want to have addressed.
Unless I've missed something here, there's nothing in a 24% rollback that keeps current or future free agents from getting 10 million dollar contracts and then we're right back where we started. This is just a simple patch to the problem in an attempt to trick people into thinking that this will somehow fix the league. I couldn't care less if the season is gone (and I'm a LEAF'S fan) if it means that I don't have to worry about 5 or 6 teams being the doormats of the league forever because they're always struggling to stay out of the red. What I don't like is friggin' Darcy Tucker trying to outsmart me by saying stuff like "We just want a season, like the fans do, and if they owners don't agree to our terms then I guess they just don't like the fans". I understand that they have to play the media for fan support, but they're just so bloody stupid and obvious about it that it's insulting.
This is a negotiation, so obviously the players don't expect the owners to just 'accept' the deal as-is. They put it out to see where the owner's new middleground might be. I say they should give back most if not all of the 24% rollback and jack up the luxery tax to at least 80 cents on the dollar at 40 million. Send it back to the players with a 10% rollback (which would win over a lot of the players much like the 24% rollback I'm sure won over some owners) with a higher luxery tax and then go on tv and say "We're trying to save the season, but it's up to the players".
"Saving the season isn't the point of the lockout. ... I couldn't care less if the season is gone (and I'm a LEAF'S fan) if it means that I don't have to worry about 5 or 6 teams being the doormats of the league forever because they're always struggling to stay out of the red."
A-yup. Fixing It is way, way more important than having an abbreviated season. My fingers are crossed that they don't pull an MLB and settle on some ass-halfed make-good just to get some games in.
Originally posted by JustinShapiroFixing It is way, way more important than having an abbreviated season. My fingers are crossed that they don't pull an MLB and settle on some ass-halfed make-good just to get some games in.
I'd love to see the NHLPA and the NHL go on TV and admit that they both were wrong, and are working TOGETHER to make a better NHL, one that is affordable for the everyday fan, and one that allows equal funding to all teams, regardless of how small market they are.
ANd then I realize...that'll never happen...which is why I no longer watch professional hockey. It's sad when I have to budget for a year to plan a night out with the future Mrs. SOK to catch a game.
No thanks. For that, there's the Barrie Colts of the OHL.
Check out my website; and my online journal...in English and Al Bhed. Seriously.
Originally posted by thecubsfan(I too share the hope that small market teams like Chicago will one day be able to compete with the big city money of Tampa Bay.)
ESPN is reporting the NHL sent out a memo to all of it's teams. It's rejecting the NHLPA proposal and/but preparing a counter proposal.
No offence, Cubs, but I don't think that has much bearing on it - I mean, Calgary is a small market team, and they made it to the finals this year....whereas, New York is a big budget team, and have numerous stars to their name, and yet they didn't qualify at all.
It would be nice to have the extra money in these areas, to keep ticket prices down, and to make the overall experience a lot less expensive for the common fan.
Check out my website; and my online journal...in English and Al Bhed. Seriously.
You really think tickets prices will go down if there's a salary cap? Every team will price their tickets as much as the market will bare... Where is the hard cap on ticket prices, I mean if there's a $45 Million hard cap for every team in the league why should Toronto fans pay five times more for the same ticket compared to FLA Panthers fans. If the owners $$$ output will have a hard limit shouldn't the fans of the league as well.
The players should never accept a hard cap. Why should they limit what they get paid? Another bad effect is players will be dropped off the rosters all the time to make room under the cap & it's a double bad situation as they won't be able to re-sign with any other team not due to not being a useful player but due to the fact that everyone else most likely will be without cap room... It's bad for the fans as well, you want players on your favorite team get dropped not because of how they play but due to number crunching. You want the team mathematician to be a more important role than you teams General Manager. Isn't one of the most exciting days in hockey the trade deadline, forget about cool blockbuster trades as no one can move anyone due to worrying about cap space.
The best option for all is a luxury tax system. You have a soft cap for total salary, any team that goes over pays a substantial financial penalty to the dollar. If a team has a strong market they and their fans can benefit from it (as they should I think) by using their money to their advantage... A smaller/worse market also benefits as it gets some assistance from the tax/fine benefit where hopefully they can put it back into the team and make it better.
I don't think NHL is no where near as bad as MLB is with the have's and have notís. The current system does allow a player to stay in his drafted team for a long period of time without unrestricted free agency. If you draft well there's no excuse in being out of the playoffs for 3 or 4 years straight. That just falls under bad management... I just don't like this hard cap where strong market owners will pocket everything & have an excuse to do so. I know ticket prices won't go down, business 101 teaches you that. I'd much rather have my money go to the players and helping some smaller market teams get healthy.
smark/net attack wienerville advisory holds at ORANGE alert - High (JBL is STILL WWE champion and now smarks arch enemy HHH is the World Champion. Major red threat, but the undercard seems okay. The alert holds... for now)- 9/19
I don't know. Gretsky and Kurri were never the type to play a lot of defense. By having someone behind them as good as Fuhr it allowed them to play a more wide open style. You could compare it to Bill Cartwright on the Bulls.