View Single Post
Old
11-16-2003, 11:12 AM
  #35
Tom_Benjamin
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 1,152
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by discostu
Never said that there weren't common elements to luxury tax and revenue sharing, I just said that they were different.
The point is that you cannot have one without the other. Since the players know the owners don't want anything to do with revenue sharing, they can offer a luxury tax and be certain the owners will turn it down flat. Just like they can offer a 5% cut and know the owners will turn them down flat.

The result? The union comes across as reasonable without giving anything up. The NHL looks unreasonable because a $31 million hard salary cap is from Fantasy Island and everybody knows it.

Nothing is changed, except perhaps public opinion. The NHLPA is playing the same media manipulation game that the owners have been playing for the past five years. If people like you swallow the public relations move as union concession, it's a win. The owner response to a seemingly reasonable NHLPA offer helps the union solidarity.

That's the point of the exercise. Both sides think we are stupid and treat us accordingly.

Sometimes I think both sides are mostly right.

Tom

Tom_Benjamin is offline