View Single Post
12-06-2004, 03:20 PM
Habitual User
Volcanologist's Avatar
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Kessel Apocalypse
Country: Germany
Posts: 20,220
vCash: 500
Originally Posted by True Blue
Why can't Bettman's idea that there MUST be a $31m hard cap be considered a "non-starter" as well?

It IS considered that way by the players, is it not?

How does this change anything about the players' newest offer, though?

And, since we are looking at it from the other side, won't any proposal by the league that has a hard cap be considered nothing more than a symbolic offer here?

The NHLPA should not even be making this proposal to begin with. Bettman never replied to the other one. In a negotiation, one has to actually be willing to negotiate for it to be successful. Otherwise, you do not have a negotiation (as you do not in this case). If Bettman thinks that all he has to do is sit on his mountian and wait until he sees a proposal that he likes, then kiss the NHL good-bye. Permanently.

Unfortunately for the NHLPA, they simply don't have that kind of power.

If they did, then they'd just do exactly what you describe Bettman is doing, sit there and wait for an offer that doesn't have a salary cap in it. But they know that if they do that, then the case for impasse and therefore imposition of an agreement would be all the stronger. Hence this offer.

I think the players will look back at this time one day and wished they negotiated a better cap deal than the one that will be imposed next year sometime. Too bad Goodenow can't read the writing on the wall here.

You think anybody wants revenue sharing, by the way? At least, anybody who be doing the paying rather than the receiving? Check out this comment by Booby Clarke, leader of one of the "rich teams":

"To me, revenue sharing is just finding a way to spend the owners' money. That has nothing to do with putting in place a system that works for the players and the owners. That's just taking from one rink that sells out and giving it to another. They're pushing it as a solution, but all they're saying is, `Take Philadelphia's money and give it to Nashville; and Detroit's money and give it to Atlanta.' That doesn't take any genius. That's not a contribution to help the sport."

If the rich teams don't want tax/revenue sharing, it ain't gonna fly. Period, end of story.

I would be willing to bet the more prosperous teams (including the Rangers) aren't willing to give their money to artificially support weak, money-losing franchises. And really, why should they? Maybe the league has to face up to its own weakness and not try to patch the hole in the dam with illusory support of losing markets.

Volcanologist is offline