Who's side are you on if you were forced to pick sides? The owners? ... or the NHLPA?
View Single Post
10-21-2012, 01:33 AM
Join Date: Jan 2006
Originally Posted by
The market value of new excellent young players will rise to match the market value of current players, thus creating the same problem in ten years that we have now, and we'll have to watch a bad league for 7 years while they develop. Otherwise, good solution.
I estimated 2 or 3 years for the majority of fans, not 7. And the market for young studs is regulated with entry level contracts and RFA status, so no it would not cost the same.
Yes the same problem would rise in 8 years but the players would probably be smarter by then and take the 50/50 deal. Why? Because they would get cut again.
The fact that the players reject the current deal by saying it is LIKE a cut in current salaries... Well it isn't since the contracts are GARENTEED, even if the paiement can be done over a few years. (they still get the money)
How in hell can the players say the want the league to work, understand that some teams lose money, get a deal that garantees the current salaries and still say no???
I also agree that transfer fees and expansion fees should not be in HRR. Those fees are related to franchising, not hockey. And they aren't a regular source of income. I see it as a small bonus owners can get. The players get the bonus of NEW jobs when a new team comes in.
View Public Profile
Find More Posts by NORiculous