View Single Post
Old
09-09-2004, 09:31 PM
  #13
Winger98
Moderator
powers combined
 
Winger98's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Cleveland
Posts: 13,989
vCash: 500
Send a message via Yahoo to Winger98
Quote:
Originally Posted by hockeytown9321
Here's the response to today's meeting:

http://www.tsn.ca/nhl/news_story.asp...19&hubName=nhl
It really doesn't sound like a bad beginning to a deal, and the fact that the NHL backed away from it entirely is disappointing. Daly's quip about how it doesn't guarentee how it would effect every team's spending is unrealistic and paints the NHL Gm's and Owners in a pretty pathetic light that their hands have to not only be slapped but physically restrained from dipping into the cookie jar too often.

A luxury tax at $50m with a stiff penalty (say a 100% tax) would be very effective, imo. That, along with a refined RFA system and revising the rookie cap nonsense would be a very reasonable expectation for this CBA and not losing a year of hockey, along with a bunch of fans. It's taken ten years for the NHL to get to this sorry state of affairs, and they can't expect to "fix" it all in one big move.

Winger98 is offline