View Single Post
11-12-2003, 09:15 AM
Registered User
discostu's Avatar
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Nomadville
Country: Canada
Posts: 18,400
vCash: 500
Originally Posted by DementedReality
While I shouldnt speak on behalf of the NHLPA, I can understand why they are so against a cap.
The items on your list can still result without a salary cap. It looks like the players are willing to take on part of the responsiblity to protect owners from themselves. They are willing to take a 5% paycut, and they are willing to implement some sort of luxury tax. This is money that will go into the owner's pockets, the same way it would with a cap. Why are they opposed to a cap, when they are willing to accept many of the drawbacks of one?

It could be a matter of principle (i.e. they decided at the beginning that they weren't going to take a cap, and they are going to stand by that decision), or it could be because they feel that the drawbacks of any cap are worse than any other agreement they may come up with (I disagree with the latter alternative, BTW)

It's impossible for us to tell. In fact, it's also possible that the players may actually be willing to accept a cap, and everything they have said to date has just been negotiating tactics. We don't know.

discostu is offline