View Single Post
09-09-2004, 11:44 PM
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: http://nhl.degroat.n
Posts: 8,108
vCash: 500
Originally Posted by Winger98
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.
First of all, there was no mention of 100% taxation and considering their last proposal was a 10% taxation I really doubt it's anywhere near that.

Secondly, even if it WAS 100% it still would be an absolute joke of an offer.

A $50M CAP would be a cap at 75% of revenues... which is where the league is at now.

degroat* is offline