Lockout IV: One likes to believe in the freedom of hockey (Moderated: see post #2)
View Single Post
12-08-2012, 11:55 PM
Join Date: Jul 2003
Originally Posted by
If the league had committed to a single figure, 5,6,7 or 8.... I can accept that there may be some reasoning to support THAT term.
I cannot find any justification whatsoever why they as a league would want to give home teams some edge, which is a material difference of 40% additional term! It makes a joke of any other reason they would offer as to why 5 yrs [or any number and then plus 40%] is a justifiable length.
I don't see why you would need any justification for it. If the league feels teams should have a bigger chance of keeping their own players, it's certainly a valid position to take.
If you can swallow the whole RFA system, I have a hard time seeing why this should be a major thing.
Personally I am in favor of mechanics that helps teams keep talent if they aren't overly restrictive. I think it's good for teams and the league if there was slightly less player turnover. It's good for fans to have the same players to cheer for and not a bunch of mercenaries.
View Public Profile
Find More Posts by Freudian