Thread: CBA Talk
View Single Post
Old
02-16-2005, 10:11 PM
  #110
Joe T Choker
Roll Wide Roll
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Country: Italy
Posts: 23,198
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by nine_inch_fang
You will have to qualify that with some proof since the way I understand it there would be a tax up to a hard ceiling of 49.5 (last offer) with 2.2 in benefits, which of course was negotiable. If they could have left that number there for at least five years the teams would have still made money. Not to mention that the players never took the 24% off of the table.

I just donít see the logic of not making a deal. If this isnít middle ground I donít know what is. That is my point. Not only is it middle ground it is nearly everything that the owners were asking for. Sure Craig and the small market gang (including me) would like to see a smaller cap number to make us more competitive but it wasnít and isnít realistic.

Since I really donít think our beloved organization can survive missing a full season this is, to me, like cutting off your nose to spite your face.
http://www.sportsnet.ca/hockey/shown...ntent=h021551A ... read the part that says

"Second, we will adjust our exception provision so that it is available to teams only twice during the six year term and for up to only 10 per cent over the limit of $49 million (to $53.9 million), at the tax rate of 150 per cent. The exception provision is important so that a successful team does not have to arbitrarily dismantle its roster after it has achieved particular success or is in a unique phase of its player roster cycle."

that my friend is a SOFT CAP

Joe T Choker is offline