View Single Post
Old
12-12-2012, 12:29 AM
  #434
Melrose Munch
Registered User
 
Melrose Munch's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 14,631
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Holden Caulfield View Post
The PA agrees to this? The PA will certainly not ever allow the floor to go away. All the restrictions of a hard cap with no protection of floor? Sure if players salaries are still tied to revenue they cannot go down, but if too many teams are using the low end, then the owners have to pay out a bunch of escrow bonuses anyways, thereby losing the advantage of having no floor, while not getting any of the revenue of having a competitive team.

But let's ignore that for a second. Why the contraction? If there's no floor, there should be no problems right? That's the whole idea of getting rid of the floor.
Why are the owners of the contracted franchises walking away from franchises worth 100's of millions of dollars, even when they lose money? Are the other owners paying them off? So not only are their expenses going to up since the cap will go up (if still tied to revenues), but now the other owners have pay to buyout teams?

That's lose-lose-lose proposition, the owners, players and fans suffer.
Limit losses. The PA can be broken as so many (not you) claim here. Drop the contraction, no escrow. I'm trying to keep a solution that's workable. The players need to give some more sadly, but the owners need to man up. Hockey has failed in some place and if the players won't lower their share threaten contraction.

Melrose Munch is offline