The other problem with contraction is its going to be very controversial. Someone could easily point at the Rangers, their success the past 10 years and the fact that they lost money and say "it should be them". At this point I don't think as a Ranger fan or a NY'er you'd be in great shape to open up a contraction debate.
Who gets contracted and who does not is not determined by a team's on-ice success. The Rangers are not the club that is crying poverty. They are not the ones who are going backrupt. They are not the ones who cannot spend more than $25m on their team. They are not the ones who cannot, at any given month, send a check to their players.
From a financial standpoint, a Rangers fan can get into a contraction debate with anyone. Financialy, the Rangers are not hurting the league. In fact, they help it. They contribute to the overall financial system. They also serve as a shining example of how NOT to run a franchise.
If the standard for contraction was on-ice success, there are periods of time when virtually all of the original 6 teams should have been contracted. It's like the ludicrous ESPN article that claimed that it is the Yankees that should be contracted.
As for a hard salary cap and what it can do.........You cannot have a hard cap if you have guaranteed contracts. The NFL is the ONLY sport with a hard cap and they have non-guaranteed contracts. This way they can get out from under a bad contract with only the signing bonus counting against the cap in that current year. You cannot have a hardcap and not allow teams any way of getting out from under bad conracts.
You're right, but let's say I am rebuilding a small market team and now that rookie is asking for a million dollars to sign {take one look at the Fleury contract in Pitts.} What exactly are you supposed to do? You can't sign final pieces and by the time you build a team it's too expensive to keep together.
It's not the Detroit's and the Dallas' or the Ranger's who are getting hurt. It's the teams that can't even get themselves on solid ground because they are damned if they do and damned if they don't. And whether we like it or not that is far too much of the league right now.
Actually the Rangers have lost money last year themselves. And have been borderline for a while.
And I know i've said this 10 times but where are you getting the revenue for a luxury tax system?
Also we must keep in mind that the only thing we've even touched on right now is salaries which says nothing of operational costs including maintenance {making ice isn't easy and it's very costly} or marketing or advertising costs.
Problem being {Which no one seems to be acknoleding} is that the league is LOSING money. Not 6 or 7 figure type losses but rather 8 and 9 figure losses. And juding from my past experience, those might be "Generous" estimates so that companies who own teams don't get in trouble with their share holders.
I am not sure what you mean by 'where are you getting the revenue for a luxury tax system?'
Teams that are over the limit would pay the luxury tax. If they can't afford to pay the luxury tax , they need to lower their payroll.
Instead of a hard cap of $31 million(for example) a luxury tax system is implemented using $31 million as limit for a team's payroll. Similar to what was done in baseball as far as the percentage paid as a penalty will go up over a couple of years until it reaches 100 % so that the teams have a chance to get closer to the $31 million.
Teams such as the Rangers that are losing money would not be signing the Nylanders of the world at the same salary and the result over time would be that the market value for the players would come down.
If there are teams with 'low' payrolls now that are still losing money I don't see how the hard cap will help them.
someone out there's willing to take a flyer on the Canucks and there have been some ownership changes over the last few years, so the money's being spent. And contraction does a few things: it should increase the product on the ice through attrition of many marginal players. It should further cut the losses of the league as a whole as a few unprofitable teams would be perished. The increase in product quality should result in increase in viewership which could lead to better TV and marketing deals, better attendance, etc. Of course this should be in conjunction with other inititatives, such as spending money on getting quality refereeing and perhaps other areas including getting the hockey word out (supporting more youth programs, education,etc.) that would make the sport more attractive, etc.
And of course those teams struggling at the bottom of the pile would enjoy some of the benefits of the Rangers, Flyers, etc. getting taxed who at some point would have to restrain because they are in it to make a profit, after-all, and there is a limit to what they would spend, even for Cablevision.
The debate's funny as I read the garbage I spew out. It's really in line with our political affiliations [not to spark a political debate, but it's very clear].
Because the NHL is already in a niche position in the United States and cannot afford significant fan erosion, Wheeler suggests that the owners and the players should conduct a "virtual lockout." In this scenario, the games would go on, but all the revenues would be funneled into an escrow account. The public-relations damage to the sport will be avoided, he said, and the money accumulated would serve as an impetus to get an agreement done.
Daly said that can't be an option since the owners would lose less money by shutting down instead of continuing under the current economic system. If a whole season is missed, the league could try to declare an impasse, whereby it could attempt to unilaterally impose its own rules without the union. It would then be up to the individual players to decide whether they would want to return without representation and under the league-imposed system, which would likely include a cap.
it's determined that they negotiated in good faith. There's been very little 'good faith'. The players, however, would have the right to strike if the owners decided, and succeeded, to go that route. I'm sure that's the case in which they would strike.
it's determined that they negotiated in good faith. There's been very little 'good faith'. The players, however, would have the right to strike if the owners decided, and succeeded, to go that route. I'm sure that's the case in which they would strike.
good faith is a very subjective thing. if the lockout endures through 1 year i wouldn't be surprised to see the owners give it a shot. if the players did then strike would the next step be scab players?
Thanks guys. Reading this thread has given me a headache and still, there won't be any hockey come October.
Am I the only one that thinks there is more conversation between fans on the boards then the actual two parties involved when pertaining to the league's CBA problems?
Who gets contracted and who does not is not determined by a team's on-ice success. The Rangers are not the club that is crying poverty. They are not the ones who are going backrupt. They are not the ones who cannot spend more than $25m on their team. They are not the ones who cannot, at any given month, send a check to their players.
They are the ones who lost money, have recieved the lowest ratings over the past several years and as a whole for their existence have not been overly successful.
They are one of the one's who have thrown the salary system out of whack. You don't think there's gonna be a huge comotion if the league tries to take someone else out? Sorry, but I've worked too long around these people to know that it wouldn't be brought up and cause even more of a black eye to the sport than you can even manage.
Quote:
From a financial standpoint, a Rangers fan can get into a contraction debate with anyone. Financialy, the Rangers are not hurting the league. In fact, they help it. They contribute to the overall financial system. They also serve as a shining example of how NOT to run a franchise.
When they are goood they contribute which has equaled approx 10 out of the last 40 years at this point. While I believe the league is better when the Rangers are successful {in my debates with NYIsles} as a whole the league is still losing money. They get awesome crowds around the league, but I don't think you really grasp how much they've thrown the salary system out of whack in the past 10 years.
Quote:
If the standard for contraction was on-ice success, there are periods of time when virtually all of the original 6 teams should have been contracted. It's like the ludicrous ESPN article that claimed that it is the Yankees that should be contracted.
Problem is it isn't just on ice success but I'm too tired to repeat myself again.
Quote:
As for a hard salary cap and what it can do.........You cannot have a hard cap if you have guaranteed contracts. The NFL is the ONLY sport with a hard cap and they have non-guaranteed contracts. This way they can get out from under a bad contract with only the signing bonus counting against the cap in that current year. You cannot have a hardcap and not allow teams any way of getting out from under bad conracts.
What you'd probably see is something along the lines of a buyout option at a reasonable cost. I mean let's use some common sense here, the owners aren't going to be pushing for a salary cap with no way to move within it.
someone out there's willing to take a flyer on the Canucks and there have been some ownership changes over the last few years, so the money's being spent.
But see we can't look at it as black and white.
The canucks also play in a brand new arena that doesn't have to split with events like basketball or anything else anymore. They have their core group of players and they are stuck. Do you think Cloutier is the goalie of a thousand playoff chances because they really like him that much?
So yes if successful is losing in the second round but saying I made 20 million dollars {which by the way is BEFORE taxes} than yes the canucks are in great shape. They'll hang around in the regular season for the next few years before going into prolonged rebuilding period.
We'll also ignore the ifinite examples of teams that were in the same situation as them but weren't as fortunate.
But therin lies the problem, the players like to point to the exception to the rule. I could throw crap at the wall 100 times and it'll stick a few times, but I sure as heck wouldn't count on it as a likely result.
Quote:
And contraction does a few things: it should increase the product on the ice through attrition of many marginal players. It should further cut the losses of the league as a whole as a few unprofitable teams would be perished.
Um Fletch, the league lost over 9 figures. I think it goes beyond a "few unprofitable teams".
Quote:
The increase in product quality should result in increase in viewership which could lead to better TV and marketing deals, better attendance, etc.
Fletch we're dreaming my friend. Hockey will NEVER have the viewership. Period, the world cup was exciting as heck and it couldn't get viewed. The miracle on ice held america's attention for a moment in time. The league just came out of an era that featured guys named Wayne, Mario, Mark, and Ray. If that ain't gonna grap people's attentions cutting a few teams ain't going to do it.
The league has always had the next "Great" idea about what it could do to get a better place. It's a niche sport, always have and always will be. It'll never be a "huge" niche sport, but you gotta make it profitable so that it remains an "existing" niche sport.
Quote:
Of course this should be in conjunction with other inititatives, such as spending money on getting quality refereeing and perhaps other areas including getting the hockey word out (supporting more youth programs, education,etc.) that would make the sport more attractive, etc.
The problem with hockey is in the sport itself. It requires ice, it requires money and it requires America to care. America doesn't care about too many sports that aren't hers. Soccor is a religion just about everywhere else in the world, here it's a niche.
It's not a slam on the States, it's just the way we are.
Quote:
And of course those teams struggling at the bottom of the pile would enjoy some of the benefits of the Rangers, Flyers, etc. getting taxed who at some point would have to restrain because they are in it to make a profit, after-all, and there is a limit to what they would spend, even for Cablevision.
Not necessarily. Say the Rangers spend 15 million dollars on players who aren't worh it. Now to replace those players and get equivalent one's the teams who just got the money have to spend it to get right back where they were. Think of it like inflation. My salary goes up every year and I make more money.....I also spend more because the costs are higher. So sometimes I haven't actually gained anymore money, in fact at a certain point I've now actually lost money. Now say of course that a few teams payrolls drop because they are rebuilding. Now those teams who actually were in okay shape jump up in the rankings for what they will be taxed. In a nutshell they are now screwed, so how exactly do we solve that problem? Keeping in mind that many of these teams are already in the red, we aren't starting out with a forgiveness of debt here.
Quote:
The debate's funny as I read the garbage I spew out. It's really in line with our political affiliations [not to spark a political debate, but it's very clear].
Eh can't really say much there, though I gotta admit I don't even view this election as Republican vs. Democrat. Even in my field I've never felt comfortable defending bigotry and self-righteousness behind words like "compassionate" and "conservative". But that's just lil old me.
I understand inflation, but the other side is will I pay the same amount for a ticket, in the front row, for a Ranger game as a person, say, in Nashville? If I am not [and I remember even Chicago being about 1/2 the price of New York for similar seasons], then it's quite unfair, if you ask me. The Rangers can only spend $31 million on its payroll, but its fans have to spend more to see the product throughout the rest of the league. Doesn't sound too fair.
They are the ones who lost money, have recieved the lowest ratings over the past several years and as a whole for their existence have not been overly successful.
On-ice success is NOT a standard for contraction. Contracting the Rangers is a thoughly ludicrous thought. Who cares how much success they have had or not had? Unlike other teams, MSG seems not to have a problem in selling tickets. The Rangers have not missed any pay periods. And, as a capitalist, frankly the Rangers spending is (while done in a completly moronic and misguided way) is good for the players as their net worth and the net worth of the league increases with ever dollar the Rangers spend.
"They are one of the one's who have thrown the salary system out of whack"
Riiiight. The Rangers are the bane of the NHL. Not Colarado, Detroit, Philadelphia, Dallas, Washington etc. It's ALL the fault of the Rangers. They are solely the team that is responsible for throwing the salaries out of whack.
And to be honest, teams are not being forced into making the salary mistakes that the Rangers have made. Other owners are choosing to make them of their own free will. IF anything, the Rangers have proven that spending lots of cash ensures absolutely nothing.
"They get awesome crowds around the league, but I don't think you really grasp how much they've thrown the salary system out of whack in the past 10 years."
Drawing large crowds is to be applauded and not frowned upon. And again, saying that the Rangers are solely responsible for throwing salaries out of whack is erroneous.
I understand inflation, but the other side is will I pay the same amount for a ticket, in the front row, for a Ranger game as a person, say, in Nashville? If I am not [and I remember even Chicago being about 1/2 the price of New York for similar seasons], then it's quite unfair, if you ask me. The Rangers can only spend $31 million on its payroll, but its fans have to spend more to see the product throughout the rest of the league. Doesn't sound too fair.
The reason why Ranger fans get charaged as much is because companies are willing to buy blocks of tickets no matter what {and still have in this era of utter dispair just like my argument about owners}.
So actually that is kind of what I am getting at. You're essentialy now in the same situation as those teams. If you want to ever see a hockey game from a good set in your life you'll have to sell a kidney because "someone" did whatever they wanted to do.
On-ice success is NOT a standard for contraction. Contracting the Rangers is a thoughly ludicrous thought. Who cares how much success they have had or not had? Unlike other teams, MSG seems not to have a problem in selling tickets.
Well contracting them was not my idea, i was saying you better dang well bet it'd be brought up if the league considering contractings. We're getting off subject and away from what the original point was with that comment.
Quote:
The Rangers have not missed any pay periods. And, as a capitalist, frankly the Rangers spending is (while done in a completly moronic and misguided way) is good for the players as their net worth and the net worth of the league increases with ever dollar the Rangers spend.
The net worth for the league increased? No offense but are you freakin serious? The Rangers going on spending spree's for garbage increased the net worth of the league. Somewhere out there an economist just had a stroke........
Quote:
"They are one of the one's who have thrown the salary system out of whack"
Riiiight. The Rangers are the bane of the NHL. Not Colarado, Detroit, Philadelphia, Dallas, Washington etc. It's ALL the fault of the Rangers.
Okay now you're getting like the kids who come on this board and can read complete sentenced. How many times have I said the Rangers are one of the teams or have I said "a few owners are the problem."
Please go back and read what I wrote because it's obvious you missed it the first 7 times.
Quote:
And to be honest, teams are not being forced into making the salary mistakes that the Rangers have made. Other owners are choosing to make them of their own free will. IF anything, the Rangers have proven that spending lots of cash ensures absolutely nothing.
You're right it does, but it also does insure that the next time a 60 point center goes to arbitration guess who one of the players they will be looking at.....Nylander.... the same Nylander who is making 3 million dollars a year.
And when a team in that select view with no concern for finances signs players, it effects other players salaries as well. Regardless of whether spending lots of money ensures anything, it does drive up the market value for many teams. And it hasn't exactly shown any signs of corrected itself, in fact it's gotten worse over the past 10 years. So now when a player is do for a raise his demand is gonna be higher based on the new market value set by a few select teams. So if the team refuses to pay him, what is the likely option? He goes to one of the teams that can afford the new market value.
"They get awesome crowds around the league, but I don't think you really grasp how much they've thrown the salary system out of whack in the past 10 years."
Quote:
Drawing large crowds is to be applauded and not frowned upon. And again, saying that the Rangers are solely responsible for throwing salaries out of whack is erroneous.
It is to be applauded and also feared when despite draws like that of the Rangers {And there are teams who drew better} 66% of the league STILL lost money. I mean that's highlighting my point EXACTLY right there. Those teams STILL lose money even when the Rangers play.
And again I didn't say it was ONLY the Rangers, I specifically said that there are 5 or 6 teams that tend to do this.
are you inferring that with a cap ticket prices will reduce to a level where I can afford, or be able to get seats, down on the ice as opposed to the corporations? Or is it a market society for everything (beer, hot dogs, food, seats, etc.) for everything the 'owner' sells but his player costs are not market?
And I gave further thought to another notion: they're all in it first to make money. Owners and players. We the fans are suckers if we think any different. Yeah Leetch was upset about not making the playoffs for 7 years, but going home early to his family for the Summer after making $9 million ain't so bad either. Some owners that made decent money could've spent another $5-10 million and taken the chance of making it to the next level, but instead stuck with what they were comfortable and took the profit home. It's all about money. It's a business, and just because it's a sport doesn't mean it should be treated much differently.
are you inferring that with a cap ticket prices will reduce to a level where I can afford, or be able to get seats, down on the ice as opposed to the corporations? Or is it a market society for everything (beer, hot dogs, food, seats, etc.) for everything the 'owner' sells but his player costs are not market?
It was making an example of what a team goes through on an everyday basis.
The point was that you can accept this as a fan and move on. A team doesn't have that option, they either pay or they don't pay. And not paying often hurts the team and leads to constant rebuilding and a situation where they are caught in a catch-22. If they pay they have to sell everyone else off. If they don't pay they have to replace that player with nothing.
Quote:
And I gave further thought to another notion: they're all in it first to make money. Owners and players. We the fans are suckers if we think any different. Yeah Leetch was upset about not making the playoffs for 7 years, but going home early to his family for the Summer after making $9 million ain't so bad either. Some owners that made decent money could've spent another $5-10 million and taken the chance of making it to the next level, but instead stuck with what they were comfortable and took the profit home. It's all about money. It's a business, and just because it's a sport doesn't mean it should be treated much differently.
11 teams made money fletch.....11. Not 90% or 70% or even 50%, but 36%.
Spending another 5 to 10 million wasn't always an option for every team. The canucks made 20 million dollars profit and that's with the added benefit of certain situations.
But even that 20 million {Which is before} tax's isn't really tremendous option considering many teams HAVE to pay some profit out to the people who own their stock and give them money. Despite the figure heads we see they aren't the sole "owners" of the teams. They are the people with the most stock in the organizations who own the team.
Now if you're reinvent even half of that back into the team thats gonna be a pretty sad payout for your shareholders which in return makes your stock go down which raises the level of revenue you need to make a profit again.
So even in some cases it isn't as black and white and easy as people say. Salaries are just too high and make it too close.
did the owners 'have' to spend the money? No. Of course one will infer that they had to because of competitive pressures. But again, it was a choice. Some organizations chose not to chase UFAs, and made money (again, winning or money? All the owners talk about is a huge deficit, it's about money, this is a business).
Yeah, 11 teams made money, but none of those teams were the Rangers. I give a lot of credence to a report of many losses when the Rangers (and Blackhawks) were two of the biggest losers.
The $25 million VAN profited is a decent peg and was enough for someone to offer $180 million US for. I don't think McCaw will lose money on this transaction, and he did it within the timeframe of the crappy CBA.
But what are the specifics to what amount of that $25 million needs to be paid out? What exactly are the taxes - were there no carryforwards or other tax schemes that greatly reduce the tax? And taxes or not, that whole $25 million was availble to use towards player salaries, if the organization wanted to - as taxes are based on pretax profits which are after player salaries. And in general corporations, partnerships, etc., are not alway obligated to pay our quarterly, monthly, semi-annual or annually unless specifically stipulated (preferred positions, etc.). Further, some payments are contractually obligated, some only if profitable, as some investors look for the big hit in the end, and not current income. Given all that mess, we in the public don't have a clue what the real story is. I don't even know if the players have the whole story and the majority of the owners that are crying poverty, are not impoverished.
Are salaries too high? Probably, but who's to say because a salary is what someone is willing to pay for your services, typically. You tax the owners and redistribute the income, and your lower revenue/payroll guys can make money and compete. If the owners truly are running deficits (the guys in the $45-80 million payroll range), then with less revenue due to sharing, and with taxes above certain payroll levels, they cannot afford to keep signing guys the way they are signing them because it will cost substantially more than it did yesterday.
The reason I like this, is because it's more of a compromise from what the NHL had previously, and not something drastic that changes the game. Make it a shorter term CBA that gets relooked if certain profit bogeys aren't hit and it re-adjusts accordingly. Just get these guys onto the friggin' ice, soon!
Are salaries too high? Probably, but who's to say because a salary is what someone is willing to pay for your services, typically. You tax the owners and redistribute the income, and your lower revenue/payroll guys can make money and compete. If the owners truly are running deficits (the guys in the $45-80 million payroll range), then with less revenue due to sharing, and with taxes above certain payroll levels, they cannot afford to keep signing guys the way they are signing them because it will cost substantially more than it did yesterday.
Off course salaries are too high. But for everyone clamoring for a salary cap, realized that no matter WHAT business you are in, the same thing could be said. I work for a firm that does pretty well. But it would be VERY easy to produce books that show nothing but huge losses (Heck, just buy certain luxury boxes under the name of a dummy corporation or partnership and while YOU could show losses, the amount that is being truly made by you will never be seen as it is split between the REAL you and your dummy corp). I do not think that people realize just how easy it is to show net loss instead of net income. So at that point, what if the people that run my firm decide that a salary cap is the way to go? That they deside that despite the fact that they are paying myself an amount that they deemed "market-level" and an amount that they deemed worthy, they now have to place a cap on the entire firm? So now my salary has to get halved and so does everyone who is working around me. So now, no matter how well I do or perform, I can only get paid a certain amount because the firm, as a whole, cannot go over the cap. How happy would I be?
This is what ALL of you would be facing. For all those that are clamoring for a salary cap, how would YOU feel if the amount that you could make would have a ceiling? That is not capitalism, which is the way that this great country of ours works.
And for Bettman to blame the players for the current state of the league is assinine. He bargained the last CBA. It is him that is responsible for expanding the league into markets that it had no business in being. Wonder how those losses from last year would look if you take out the losses generated by just 3 or 4 of the "expansion" teams?
did the owners 'have' to spend the money? No. Of course one will infer that they had to because of competitive pressures. But again, it was a choice. Some organizations chose not to chase UFAs, and made money (again, winning or money? All the owners talk about is a huge deficit, it's about money, this is a business).
Yeah, 11 teams made money, but none of those teams were the Rangers. I give a lot of credence to a report of many losses when the Rangers (and Blackhawks) were two of the biggest losers.
The $25 million VAN profited is a decent peg and was enough for someone to offer $180 million US for. I don't think McCaw will lose money on this transaction, and he did it within the timeframe of the crappy CBA.
But what are the specifics to what amount of that $25 million needs to be paid out? What exactly are the taxes - were there no carryforwards or other tax schemes that greatly reduce the tax? And taxes or not, that whole $25 million was availble to use towards player salaries, if the organization wanted to - as taxes are based on pretax profits which are after player salaries. And in general corporations, partnerships, etc., are not alway obligated to pay our quarterly, monthly, semi-annual or annually unless specifically stipulated (preferred positions, etc.). Further, some payments are contractually obligated, some only if profitable, as some investors look for the big hit in the end, and not current income. Given all that mess, we in the public don't have a clue what the real story is. I don't even know if the players have the whole story and the majority of the owners that are crying poverty, are not impoverished.
Are salaries too high? Probably, but who's to say because a salary is what someone is willing to pay for your services, typically. You tax the owners and redistribute the income, and your lower revenue/payroll guys can make money and compete. If the owners truly are running deficits (the guys in the $45-80 million payroll range), then with less revenue due to sharing, and with taxes above certain payroll levels, they cannot afford to keep signing guys the way they are signing them because it will cost substantially more than it did yesterday.
The reason I like this, is because it's more of a compromise from what the NHL had previously, and not something drastic that changes the game. Make it a shorter term CBA that gets relooked if certain profit bogeys aren't hit and it re-adjusts accordingly. Just get these guys onto the friggin' ice, soon!
I agree.
It is hard to feel sorry for owners complaining about high salaries when they are the one's paying them. There are teams(Devils) that have been successful without chasing UFAs and teams(Rangers) that have been unsuccessful. On the other side , I think it is obvious that the league has to make some changes. It seems like this will go one for quite a while since the negotiations haven't been given any priority. Neither side has come even close to the realization that they are both going to have to give in to the other side for a deal to be struck.
Neither side has come even close to the realization that they are both going to have to give in to the other side for a deal to be struck.
Disagree. The players HAVE compromised. Offering to roll back salaries to 1994 levels, a stiff luxury tas system, adding a 4th year for first year players as well as reducing entry level salaries ARE a compromise and a step in the right direction. The owners (or Bettman) have not budged and have not offered to compromise anything. It is not the players that have to realize that both sides are going to have to give, it is just Bettman.
Disagree. The players HAVE compromised. Offering to roll back salaries to 1994 levels, a stiff luxury tas system, adding a 4th year for first year players as well as reducing entry level salaries ARE a compromise and a step in the right direction. The owners (or Bettman) have not budged and have not offered to compromise anything. It is not the players that have to realize that both sides are going to have to give, it is just Bettman.
I didn't know the players offerred to roll back salaries to 1994 levels , I thought I read they agreed to a 5 percent rollback. I don't disagree with you that the players have made a 'better' attempt at the negotiations up to this point. I also feel that the luxury tax system can work. I still feel that this will never be resolved if neither side is willing to compromise more. I would strongly doubt that the eventual agreement will be exactly what the owners currently propose or exactly what the players currently propose.
and I agree on resolution. These sides are on two different planets. Either the players have to come in and agree to a cap, but start the cap around $45-50 million and work it from there ($31 ain't the number - My guess is the owners would do in the mid $30s, and if not, then that's really grounds for not negotiating in good faith, for sure), or the owners would have to agree on the players' points and bring down the point at which the luxury tax takes place, make the 5% rollback somehwat higher and change the revenue sharing. But I can't see much of that happening.
I still feel that this will never be resolved if neither side is willing to compromise more.
I agree. However the problem is that while the players seem ready to negotiate and compromise (and, to an extent, have compromised already), Bettman (as the league's representative) has not compromised an inch and, in effect, has promised that he WILL NOT compromise one iota. Again, kind of hard to bargain at that point.
the players are steadfast against a cap. The owners want a cap. Both are being equally as stubborn. The players made significant concessions, but their suggestions still would give players a fair amount of bargainning leverage, which the owners obviously do not want. The players have been more flexible, but still aren't that flexible.
