06-08-2005, 10:06 PM | #51 | ||
Grizzled Veteran
Join Date: Dec 2003
|
Not good for the sport- since the incompetent idiots who drove the NHL into the ground in the first place are in charge. Bain Capital's takeover would have made more sense.
|
||
06-08-2005, 10:15 PM | #52 | |
Head Coach
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: NYC
|
Quote:
Seriously...looks like the players literally left $6 million on the table, dating back to the last breakdown of negotiations. |
|
06-09-2005, 06:38 AM | #53 | |
Hall Of Famer
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: the yo'
|
Quote:
|
|
06-09-2005, 06:39 AM | #54 | |
Hall Of Famer
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: the yo'
|
Quote:
Yeah, but they arent dealing with as big of a pie as they were previously. Who knows, the players may actually get a higher percentage of revenue under this agreement. |
|
06-09-2005, 06:40 AM | #55 | |
Pro Starter
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: The State of Rutgers
|
Quote:
6M per team, and it's alot more than that those idiots lost.
__________________
Boise Stampede Continental Football League Jacksonville Jaguars GM North American Football League Nebraska Coach FOFC-BBCF Rutgers & Washington coach Bowl Bound-BBCF |
|
06-09-2005, 12:08 PM | #56 | |
College Prospect
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Edmonton, Alberta
|
One Man's Take on the Story:
http://www.tsn.ca/columnists/bob_mckenzie.asp Quote:
__________________
Just trying to get by unnoticed... Loyal fan of the Edmonton Oilers and Philadelphia Eagles. |
|
06-09-2005, 12:11 PM | #57 |
Head Coach
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Michigan
|
That story gave me a headache.
So it could be you can have a ceiling for a cap as high as your revenue? I don't see any problems solved for small market clubs. |
06-09-2005, 12:12 PM | #58 | |
Hall Of Famer
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Back in Houston!
|
Quote:
Yeah- that just sounds like a way to cap costs by the owners but ultimately solving nothing. SI
__________________
Houston Hippopotami, III.3: 20th Anniversary Thread - All former HT players are encouraged to check it out! Janos: "Only America could produce an imbecile of your caliber!" Freakazoid: "That's because we make lots of things better than other people!" |
|
06-09-2005, 12:16 PM | #59 | |
Head Coach
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Michigan
|
Quote:
Exactly. Give it a year before people bring back the dreaded C word again (Contraction) |
|
06-09-2005, 12:23 PM | #60 |
Head Coach
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: NYC
|
I've never seen any news that made it seem like some teams could have a cap that high. Everything has said that the highest ceiling would be in the $36-38 million range.
|
06-09-2005, 01:04 PM | #61 | |
College Prospect
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Edmonton, Alberta
|
Quote:
The question is, is everyone putting out opinions based upon the original article? I think, until something is put out by the NHL and NHLPA, the system is just conjecture... I am very scared that small market teams are still in trouble, though...
__________________
Just trying to get by unnoticed... Loyal fan of the Edmonton Oilers and Philadelphia Eagles. |
|
06-09-2005, 01:05 PM | #62 |
Hall Of Famer
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Newburgh, NY
|
I just heard a radio report that the NHLPA has said that reports of an agreement are premature.
|
06-09-2005, 01:14 PM | #63 |
Quarterback
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: London, England
|
I would be shocked if the NHLPA agreed to this system. Thye would be far better off waiting another 6 months to try to get a more favorable deal if this is the best on offer right now.
|
06-09-2005, 01:25 PM | #64 | |
Head Coach
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: NYC
|
Quote:
They're not getting a more favorable deal. This was something that was clear months back right before the season officially got cancelled. The owners had all the leverage because they were sticking together. The big market clubs could have went out and said how certain plans would have worked for them, but they stood strong in support of the small market teams. Once the players agreed to any type of salary cap, they were screwed. As time passes on, the owners are in better financial position everyday. The lower revenue teams aren't losing the money they once were, and teams like the Rangers don't care about the lockout, because the owners make more money in other ventures. It's the players who are losing everything. They are the ones who are taking money-making years off their careers. They are the ones who are all of a sudden 35 when the league starts up again, and whose wheels don't work as well as they did when they were 33, and can't come back at the same level. They are the ones who are suffering big-time injuries playing overseas; they went there with the intent on staying fresh--now they have to worry if they can regain their old form. The owners don't care. When the lockout ends, their money will still be green. |
|
06-09-2005, 01:37 PM | #65 | |
Hall Of Famer
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Decatur, GA
|
Quote:
Yep, and that is the way that owners can 'win' a strike/lockout. If they stick together and realize that losing seasons will eventually pay off for them in the end, they can't be stopped. That was the problem with baseball and some owners who weren't as into the fight as others. They stuck together poorly and the MLBPA pounced on it. So now you get a system where there hasn't been a banning of steroids until 2004 because the players wouldn't hear of it.
__________________
"A prayer for the wild at heart, kept in cages" -Tennessee Williams |
|
06-09-2005, 01:55 PM | #66 | |
Pro Starter
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: The State of Rutgers
|
Quote:
No the problem with baseball is the NLRB fucked everything up.
__________________
Boise Stampede Continental Football League Jacksonville Jaguars GM North American Football League Nebraska Coach FOFC-BBCF Rutgers & Washington coach Bowl Bound-BBCF |
|
06-09-2005, 05:12 PM | #67 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
College Starter
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Calgary
|
If it is indeed a team-by-team salary cap based on 54% of team revenues, here's an example from the 2002-2003 season:
From everything I've read, this is NOT the case. The Shoalts' Globe & Mail article is being heavily criticized today. There are inconsistencies that don't add up. This will have been a completely wasted year if the disparities between top and bottom are still this great wilth the potential to increase. All indications are that the 'payroll range' is indeed based on 54% of league revenues. A $10-$15 million gap between top and bottom is much more palatable. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests) | |
Thread Tools | |
|
|