View Single Post
Old
09-20-2004, 04:04 PM
  #13
Puckhead
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Behind you!!!
Country: Italy
Posts: 703
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Legolas
The problem I have with McKenzie is when he makes these statements that are "for the good of the game" types of things and yet the end result only benefits the owners and not the good of the game at all. He says that the players would likely allow contraction because they don't really care about the lower wage earners. That's probably true. But he needs to examine the owners with the same scrutiny instead of allowing them a free pass. He seems to be saying that even though the owners are at fault for putting the league into financial trouble, the game needs to be fixed so NHLPA get on side and owners, you're entitled to make mistakes.

Right or wrong, the owners make it possible to have this great game. They are under a completely different set of scrutiny. They are not being paid in direct co-relation to how they perform on the ice. Guaranteed contracts are ridiculous in todays sports world. Why should the owner have to take all the risk? Give the players some incentive to remain at the top of their game.

Puckhead is offline