Make Whole, Not War (CBA & Lockout Discussion) XIX
View Single Post
11-02-2012, 09:30 PM
Join Date: Feb 2009
Originally Posted by
You would be right if we would be talking about a hard cap which stays the same over the whole agreement. But it's not the case. By the way: No, for sure the owners are not entitled a salary cap. It's the players who offered to work with the old agreement for the time being, not the owners. I don't care if the owners did 'miscalculation' in 2005 or the PA negotiated pretty well in a position of weakness.
No one is entitled anything. That's why a 50-50 share in a salary cap world both sides agree on is the best solution. With all current contracts honoured through the owners' share if you want.
By all means with your logic please suggest both sides to start from scratch and we'll see hockey in 3 years when they "remake" the league. We all know that's not going to happen so enough with this this side isn't entitled to A and the other side isn't entitled to B. Nobody's entitled to anything but they do it for the good of the game. That should be obvious and shouldn't form the basis of any argument.
Whether it's a hard or soft cap is irrelevant. The owners got a cap, end of story.
View Public Profile
Visit Ginu's homepage!
Find More Posts by Ginu