View Single Post
Old
02-10-2005, 04:05 PM
  #16
Fletch
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Brooklyn
Posts: 21,304
vCash: 500
Tawnos...

fact is, the players did offer the rollback and have offered a luxury tax scheme. True that the amount offered in terms of the luxury tax is not stringent enough, but just as the league can go from $31 million cap to a range in the mid-30s and likely higher, the players would be willing to look at a cap structure that's more onerous. Problem is, the League hasn't come back with its idea of a tax structure since it's stuck on a hard cap.

As Fish said, I think the players have tried a bit harder to find a middle ground, albeit not enough, but the league's had one mantra (which is a hard cap and they'll get that through breaking the union, impasse and possibly replacement players).

Fish...I agree with what you believe this lockout is about...I wish the League would position it that way too so I can get a sense that they too recognize the problems. They too often cite losses, which a near-majority of those losses come from three teams (NYR, CHI and STL) that can afford them. It's not about losses as much as it's about Edmonton not being able to keep a decent player past the age of 25; or Calgary not being able to sign some players in order to keep Iginla (I believe in those $224 million in purported losses, they make money).

Understanding that a hard cap would definitely work for the League overall, it really puts a heck of a lot more money into the Rangers' pockets, and I don't see the fans benefitting from that extra money, and that does bother me somewhat. To me, the tax helps those smaller teams, who would be able to re-sign players, sign UFAs, and potentially earn more money.

Fletch is offline