Nucks2134
Registered User
Gary's response to the counter proposal:
http://www.sportsnet.ca/hockey/article.jsp?content=20050215_231051_1756
http://www.sportsnet.ca/hockey/article.jsp?content=20050215_231051_1756
NYRangers said:
Jason MacIsaac said:It isn't 6.5 million dollars. It is 6.5 times 30 team. 195 million is much worse then 6.5 as people say.
Adrian2134 said:Gary's response to the counter proposal:
http://www.sportsnet.ca/hockey/article.jsp?content=20050215_231051_1756
Zednik said:Well, I don't see how Colorado could stay under 42.5 M$....
canucksfan said:I have a gut feeling the players will crack and they will agree on the league's proposal but I'm probabaly wrong.
ResidentAlien said:Buttman was an idiot for playing this "final offer" crap with 18 hours left until "THE" deadline. What did he expect the NHLPA to say, "Yes sir, your Majesty, we'll be glad to take your Final Offer and not submit a counter offer of our own"?
What a rube move. He will have to eat crow now, as fans will, in no way, take getting this close now without coming away with a deal.
Hope Gary likes his blackbird pie....
Zednik said:The letters are a big joke
I don't think it would go up from 42.5 to 47. I say if anything it would go down from 47 to 42.5 over the yearsCloned said:Time to get creative to bridge that gap.
I don't know. Am I way off base here with these suggestions?
- 42.5 M cap with two exceptions per team over the 6 year term to go 5% over at 150% taxation rate; 25 M salary floor
- 42.5 M cap in the first two years, 45 million in years 3 and 4, 47 million in years 5 and 6; increase luxury tax rates accordingly; no salary floor
- Soft cap at 40 M; hard cap at 50 M; luxury tax at 200% between 40 and 50 M; no salary floor
i'm no comedian, but it may have been a clever play on words to illustrate the poster's opinion of Gary Bettman.Jack Black said:Buttman????
19nazzy said:I don't think it would go up from 42.5 to 47. I say if anything it would go down from 47 to 42.5 over the years
The thing is, thewy have to account for the worst possible situation which is 30 teams at 49 million.Titanium said:Except most teams, for the last time, WON'T GO NEAR THE CAP LIMIT!!!
But for those who say it isn't much, 49m is around 15% more than 42.5! FIFTEEN PERCENT IS A LOT MORE!
These are my thoughts as well. I think a graduated CBA is the best way to go, actually. It gives the players the promise of an increasing market but maintains a relative level of cost control for the owners.Mediator88 said:It's the NHL's responsibility to market themselves so that revenues INCREASE year to year. Building an increase in the cap over a 6 year period (by graduating it whichever way those with the financial numbers feel best) is a legitimate compromise.
Dropping the cap over the years is unrealistic and, if I was a player, unacceptable. Graduating it from 42.5 mil up to 46 or 47 mil over the course of 6 years is a much more acceptable offer. It forces the NHL to do a better job marketing itself as well.
Brian