Which teams would compromise?
View Single Post
09-17-2004, 03:00 PM
Join Date: Jun 2004
Originally Posted by
Good thoughts from the read. I would only say this as a counterpoint. Since the owners aren't looking at a luxury tax as a solution, what would bring them to the table to discuss it?
It seems either a "soft cap" set by league revenues or a change in the market itself will bring the sides to the table. I can't see the NHLPA giving in on the anti-cap slogan, but willing to live with a soft-cap system. This also implies that FA rules are changed, same with arbitration awards, and lastly, the removal of guarantees from contracts for players.
Personally, I'm all for a market system but that limits the overall ceiling of the market by penalizing those clubs that will spend "stupid" amounts of money on players just to get that one player. (a little contradictory, but heh, is Holik or Lindros worth thier contracts...NO!)
I can't see the NHLPA changing from the anti-hard cap, but I can see the middleground being a soft cap like in Baseball. I can't see the owners going for anything that can't give the struggling teams some serious measure of security that they can both compete and become profitable if managed properly.
anyway...my hands are tired.
I think those owners I mentioed would go for a luxury tax\soft cap whatever you want to call it, because they stand to lose alot more by canceling the season than by compromising. The Red Wings for exapmple bring in about $90 million in revenue per year. They lost around $10 million last year. The way I see it, and I think some of them would as well, they would be losing $80 million more by not playing.
View Public Profile
Find More Posts by hockeytown9321