Who's side are you on if you were forced to pick sides? The owners? ... or the NHLPA?
View Single Post
10-21-2012, 01:11 AM
Join Date: Aug 2007
Originally Posted by
Well boo hoo. See above, its called the free market. Can't afford to play the game? Then GTFO.
This wouldn't sit well in NHLPA discussions. Words like 'contraction' don't sit well with them. Sure, cut out 6 teams and 20% of the jobs in the process, let's see the NHLPA sign that. They don't want to hear about cap floor being lowered and all that, because it's money and jobs they lose. Nothing wrong with that but telling me teams should GTFO doesn't help the players whatsoever.
In response to your other post about free market. Shea Weber will recieve 20+ million this calender year, does he deserve it? Just because someone pushed the market to that point does it mean it's representative of his league wide value?
Yes, you're right in certain aspects, if a market suggests a player is worth a certain value then so be it but the reality is it doesn't always work that way. A lot of it is from abuse of the current system so to even the playing field the NHL is putting restrictions on front loading and all that, seems fair to me.
Later into this thread I specifically suggest that the contract amounts should be honored but unlike NHLPA terms where they suggest the last 13% will be paid and not count against the cap, I suggest it does into the year it is deferred. It only seems logical. So in other words, pay the amount, drop the cap but let the remaining caphits and paychecks be deferred within the next CBA.
Also, since your on NHLPA side, do you think it's ethical they want tax payer subsidies to be part of HRR? Do you seriously consider this normal? They want bailouts to count as revenue. It's retarded. Just to increase their revenue shares. That is not normal.
View Public Profile
Find More Posts by LyricalLyricist