View Single Post
Old
02-14-2005, 02:38 PM
  #10
JCProdigy
Registered User
 
JCProdigy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: I want what I want
Posts: 1,232
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by True Blue
People seem to want to overlook WHY Bettman needs ONLY 26.6% of all the owners to cancel the season. So by saying that 60-70% of the players would play under a cap, one could also say that roughly 75% of the owners would operate in a system that did not have a cap.
Just to clear things, I wasn't personally making any suggestions or overlooking anything, just stating what I heard from some industry guys. To be honest with you I could care less which side gives in. The only interest I have is that one side does eventually buckle so that I can see some hockey. I haven't posted much at all since last season because of my apathy towards the labor dispute. Greed rules the world.

Indeed what is one of the major problems through this whole process is that the extreme minority are trying to make policy when it is probably true that the majority on both sides of the fence have more moderate views when it comes to a cap/luxary tax. It's truly sad but that's the way it is most of the time.

JCProdigy is offline