View Single Post
09-11-2004, 07:35 PM
Russian Fan
Registered User
Join Date: Feb 2003
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,475
vCash: 500
Send a message via ICQ to Russian Fan
Originally Posted by djhn579
YES. You provided the answer to that in your first post. A few owners are responsible for much of the losses. Those few owners have some of the highest salaries in the league and don't mind losing that money. The rest of the owners have to pay the going rate for players, and the going rate is set by people that don't mind losing money.
Where in my 1st post ? It's all about BAD MANAGEMENT, BAD ACCOUNTABILITY !!

Originally Posted by djhn579
The CBA does not provide for any restriction on how much teams raise their salaries, and that obviously has an affect on all the other teams. So, like it or not, the CBA is at fault.
So the problem is all about the OWNERS, again stop dreaming about it's the players fault. You want something that would control the owners but it's not the players fault.

Originally Posted by djhn579
That being said, there are many ways a hard cap can be negotiated to take into consideration all the complaints that the greedy player supporters have voiced.
Do you realize that you just called players greedy ? What it an OWNER to you ? Someone who is very poor & doesn't make any money from their other companies ?
The owners are so good to the people that they never fired a lot of people in the other companies in order to make more profits. They do this FOR THE PURE & HOLY LOVE OF THE GAME.

End of sarcasm.

Some players are indeed greedy but is it 100% ? I don't think so. Please don't do like Vlad to cite me a Bryan McCabe sentence it does not represent the whole entity of the NHLPA members.

Originally Posted by djhn579
You want teams to be able to keep the players they drafted? Fine, allow for each team to have a $2M per year exception per player that can be used on up to 3 players that the team drafted. That should give them an edge in keeping their players, but the exception can't be used for another player until the contract expires. (if you use the $2M on a 3 year contract for player A, you can use the remaining 2 exceptions on other players, you don't get the 1st exception back until the contract for player A expires).
Again keeping the players you draft, you can until they are 31 years. If you can't because he does not fit your budget maybe that's because they hired another players that is fitting in it or maybe they a player they paid too much & they can't paid the other guy for the GM's mistake for that contract.

Again , all you do is telling how you want to be a perfect world where every player does not want to be paid , gas if FREE when you buy a car, tickets will be free if you prove that you're a real hockey fan.

Demented Reality showed a lots of time that a cap would be worse for the SENS that is having a SOLID CORE of talented players.

Originally Posted by djhn579
You want to make sure the owners don't get too much profit at the expense of the players? Just negotiate what are considered revenue streams, then set the players take to a percentage of those revenue streams. Then set limits on the owners profits: If the owners make over $400M combined, the players take increases 5%. If the owners profits drop under $100M, the players take decreases by 5%.
Again do you realize that you ask to the players to police the OWNERS for doing well ?

It's already like this by the way. Players salaries increase in the last 10 years because the revenues of the NHL increase. They didn't do this ALONE !!

Also, no one here prove me why YOUR SABRES are a victim of the CBA ? a victim of the players fault ?

Originally Posted by djhn579
The only thing preventing a deal getting done is the players greed.
WRONG ! The only thing preventing a deal getting done is to the owner realizing that it's not a dictatorship era & that you have 2 sides to make a deal.

Russian Fan is offline