View Single Post
Old
12-14-2004, 08:10 PM
  #20
Kodiak
Registered User
 
Kodiak's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Ranger fan in Philly
Posts: 2,185
vCash: 500
Send a message via ICQ to Kodiak Send a message via AIM to Kodiak Send a message via Yahoo to Kodiak
Quote:
Originally Posted by Balej20
Just out of curiousity, why are you guys so anti-owner, pro-union in this?

At times, they are both to blame, and at times, they both make good points. Im not sure why we are so against the owners and so extremely pro union.
We all recognize that neither side are angels in this mess. But the pro-PA folks here, if I may be so bold as to speak for them, tend to believe the following:
  1. The players have made significant concessions while the owners have not.
  2. The owners have not been entirely honest in reporting their profits and losses.
  3. A hard cap will force GMs to break up good teams and impose mediocrity throughout the league.
  4. Revenues are generated (either directly or indirectly) through fan support, so teams that generate more revenue should be allowed to put some of that revenue back into the product (or alternatively, a hard cap will only allow the owners of the big revenue teams to rake in more money).
  5. A harsh luxury tax/soft cap would allow the NHL to bring salaries down without the side effect of league-wide mediocrity.
  6. The owners' proposals are asking the players to pay the price because they can't stop spending like drunken sailors on shore leave.


Last edited by Kodiak: 12-14-2004 at 09:31 PM. Reason: Added #6
Kodiak is offline