View Single Post
Old
09-16-2004, 02:49 PM
  #28
Russian Fan
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,475
vCash: 500
Send a message via ICQ to Russian Fan
Quote:
Originally Posted by Taranis_24
RF,

Granted all these are concessions by the players. But they do not in any address a long term health of the league. 5% roll back on current salaries means what 2.5M per team? 60 million saved from entry level salaries, one is that over the life of current 3-year entry level salaries or is an annual savings, say it's annual that's what $2M per team and the other concession revenue sharing (10 cents on the dollar over 50M and 30 cents on the dollar over 60M) would save $80-$100M annual, so thats $3M per team. The offer was worse than the one they proposed in October 03. . Added up that comes to $7.5M per team 20 teams lost in excess on $340M which works out to an average of $17M lost per team. $340M minus what profitable teams made brings the net loss to $224-$273M reported. So with this proposal 20 teams would still lose on the average $9.5M annual. This proposal does nothing but band-aid the problem, a seeping band-aid at that. The proposal does nothing to bring parity to the league, it does nothing to prevent big-market teams from using small market teams as a farm club. I agree with the lock-out, I hate missing hockey but if it fixes the situation then I'll wait. I'm just hoping more players like Madden stand up and say something and that the owners will stay united in their stance.
Again, do you really think in 1 year everything will be solve ?

the PA offer 160M$ saving that 2/3 of the problems RIGHT NOW !!!

Can we suppose that
1) Owners will try to decrease salary like they ALREADY DID the last 2 summer.

With the ACTUAL CBA the owners by THEMSELVES did go from 273M$ to 224M$ that 18% better than 1 year ago in the actual CBA

2) Owners will adress their issues regarding MARKETS in trouble

3) Will owners be that stupid to re-do a 9M$ to Holik ?

4) Rookie for 3 years got 1,2M$ even if he scored 41 GOALS !!! Can we say , the OWNER got more his money that what he was suppose to get ? What's wrong on a 41 goals player to get 4-5M$ for 3-4 years after his rookie contract ?

So you're saying it's ok for an owner to exploit an underpaid rookie @ 1,2M$ who score 41 GOALS but it's not okay for a player to ask for 4-5M$ on a long term after he done that ?

Again stop thinking only as a fan & think as if you were on both sides.

Russian Fan is offline