View Single Post
11-13-2003, 10:02 AM
Registered User
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 1,152
vCash: 500
Originally Posted by discostu
By offering an immediate paycut, and introducing a luxury tax into the mix, the players are opening the door to a less favourable CBA than what they have now.
How? The pay cut does not produce a less favourable CBA, and they know the luxury tax will be rejected because the owners are not interested in revenue sharing.

Aside from the rookie salary cap, the CBA does not set salaries. Player agents, players and teams set the salaries. That's the way the players want it. The owners want "cost certainty". They want the CBA to set a global ceiling on salaries.

The NHLPA is being clever. If the owners have all these losses, the players are willing to help. They will give up 5% and the owners can stick that in their pockets. If the owners do not have all these losses, they will turn around and spend the 5%. It is a win-win.

If the owners are telling the truth, the NHLPA is making a good offer. If they are not telling the truth - and they have a different agenda than the announced one - the offer doesn't help.

I think the owners do have a different agenda and the flat rejection of the NHLPA offer is evidence of it. The owners want to eliminate elite teams. That is the purpose of a salary cap. The players could offer a 20% cut and it would be rejected because a 20% cut would not prevent a half dozen teams from dominating the next decade. The NHL wants a different winner every year. This, they think, is the route to higher revenues across the board.

How do you prevent Ottawa from dominating the next decade? Set a salary cap low enough that they can't keep all their good players.

Is there any other way?


Tom_Benjamin is offline