View Single Post
11-02-2004, 09:21 AM
True Blue
Registered User
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 15,249
vCash: 500
Originally Posted by dedalus
Simple. Whatever they are willing to pay in order to earn a paycheck again. That is what this is all about. This has become a one-issue war: one side or the other must surrender, and as in most wars, fairness be damned.
Fine, but why must the players give? Can't you just as easily say, fairness be damned, the owners must give? Far as I can tell, most of the damage to the game was done by Bettman and the owners. Let them fix it. I see no reason as to why the players must give. And they do not have to simply agree to get a paycheck. Fact is, under Bettman's cap, most of the European players would make more money playing at home. Why should they beg for any pittance that Bettman sees fit? And if they can get more money abroad, then many American and Canadian born players will bolt overseas if they see that a bigger pay day.

"I know the players would prefer that the owners take all the financial risks, but the times, they are a-changin'."

Times may be changing, but not enough to whereas you are suddenly going to find players paying the difference between the cap level and whatever salary leve the team is. If a team has saturated their cap amount, what's to stop an owner from going out and signing another $15m player, knowing that he is suddenly not responsible for that money, but his players are? Not going to happen.

"If the membership - Faulks, Dagenais and all - decide that guaranteed employment is more important than guaranteed salary, the union should indeed guarantee employment first."

Not when you can work elsewhere and make more money.

"First, there's no saying that the team which goes over the cap gets the money from its players."

But that is what YOU said.

A different way to handle that issue of a hard cap would be that if a team breaches its cap, the players on the team would give back the difference in the cap and the overage

Am I reading it wrong, or are you saying that the players on a team would whatever the amount that team is over the cap?

"Personally I would pool the player money and share the revenue."

Why on Earth would the players salaries have to be shared? What sport does that?

"The new contract must and will offer some new ways of linking revenue to payroll. "

But the proposed $31m hard cap offers NO way to link revenues to payroll. In fact, revenues have nothing to do with it.

True Blue is offline