Daly says NHL willing to consider cap w/o linkage

[Rock]

Daly says NHL willing to consider cap without linkage

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/sto.../BNStory/Sports

Friday, February 11, 2005 Updated at 6:52 PM EST

Canadian Press

Toronto

[Derek21]

What a jackass. I am so sick of this propaganda cause that's all it is.

It has nothing to do with linkage you jerk and everything to do with "what kind of cap" you and jackass want.

The one you pieces of garbage won't compromise on.

They make it sound like they are sincere. But they are not. They are out to screw over the players. That's what Bettman promised. A 100 percent victory complete with all the trimmings. Their cap proposal was a joke.

They knew it would get rejected. The players are the only ones who moved and those jerks had the nerve to include that 24 percent rollback in their deal. They are a bunch of greedy animals!

When are they going to realize that they will wind up winning no matter what? If the cap was a little higher and more creative, it would have been accepted and there would be hockey.

Anyway, tomorrow Goodenow is supposed to make some kind of offer. Not that it matters at this point. The damage has been done.

[LizDevil30]

The 24% give-back of salaries was b.s. The union knew it would never be accepted so they could make the offer. It's like giving a guy a transfusion without stitching up the gaping hole in his chest. I don't expect Goodenow's new offer to be a serious one. The union wants the status quo, for them any deal could never be as sweet as the one they had for ten years.

All Goodenow has left is for the season to be cancelled. He can say how his union refused to capitulate and brought the league to its knees. The season is lost and he can lay the loss at the feet of the NHL, it was their lockout. Hollow victory because the league will win the war. It's just a matter of time.

[Derek21]

That "bs" was more than anything the NHL has shown towards a middle ground Liz.

If they knew it wouldn't be accepted, then why is the league using it as part of their offer now?

Anyway, I'm not expecting much. When they do cancel the season, it's going to be very sad. Devastation will sum it up.

[RowdyFan42]

Honestly, if there must be a cap, it would be better for both sides if there was a cap with linkage rather than one without. Let's say there was a $45 million cap. If revenues went into the toilet, the owners would be in serious financial trouble being on the hook for all of those contracts, but the players would be happy... until the league started shedding franchises left and right. If revenues skyrocket, the players are happy because they get to make more money, and the owners are happy because they're making more money and they know they don't have to give out more than they're taking in.

I still remain opposed to a hard cap, though. I'd rather see either a tough luxury tax system or a soft cap with exemptions, or maybe a combination of the two.

[David Puddy]

That "bs" was more than anything the NHL has shown towards a middle ground Liz.

If they knew it wouldn't be accepted, then why is the league using it as part of their offer now?

Anyway, I'm not expecting much. When they do cancel the season, it's going to be very sad. Devastation will sum it up.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

How is that a middle ground? A middle ground would proposing a luxury tax with teeth instead of the BS tax the players proposed. The 24% salary rollback was just a red herring. The league's using it as part of their offer because since the players proposed it, the league knows they're willing to accept it. Why not include it?

[Z-Man]

The 24% rollback was a joke. Nowhere near "middle ground." Maybe it's because your favorite team can afford any player it wants, Derek (not that it's helped their cause on the ice). If you were a true hockey fan, you'd know that some kind of system to keep payrolls from getting out of control is needed. Not some PR move that was basically the players saying, "here's a 24% do-over." In 3 years the salaries would be where they are now, if not worse.

The only solution that makes sense now is a cap without linkage. 55% of revenues that would probably be cut in half from last year would make the cap about $20 million a team. Set the cap at a reasonable level for a "normal" year of revenues, and hope they grow in the next few years.

[Derek21]

Z, you're missing the point. I have been in favor of a structured system just like anyone. Why do so many people have to mention who my team is? Like it defines what kind of person I am.

One has nothing to do with the other.

The rollback they offered was still included in the owners' hard cap offer. It doesn't change the fact they are trying to screw over the players. None of those three offers were anything close to getting a deal.

If they wanted a cap so badly, they'd make it more flexible and given the PA something to consider. But that's not what Bettman's objective has been.

The emphasis to me seems clear as day. For these same pompous owners to take no responsibility for what happened. They feel they're entitled to EVERYTHING.

That's why I will never side with them.

If you want to take it a step further, where the other side can be criticized was in how they took advantage of the salary arbitration and RFA process. You had third and fourth year players acting like babies thinking they deserved to be paid top dollar like the stars who earned it. Guys like Roenick, Jagr, Hull and Brodeur worked their way up to achieve that status.

I don't have any issue with those guys because they waited their turn.

You can't even take issue with Holik when there was a ridiculous bidding war going on that included the Devils.

The younger players who used those superstars' salaries to holdout is where it got out of hand. And a big part of that was the role of the agents. Those people are like snakes. Their only motive is money. They aren't always giving their clients the best advice. That led to several ugly holdouts which forced GMs into a dire situation. Either pay their player and field "the most competitive team" or don't and be labeled a "cheapskate."

Not many GMs did what the Senators did regarding Yashin or what the Hurricanes did regarding Primeau. Maybe if more had held to their principles, salaries wouldn't have risen to such an astronomical figure.

At the same time though, whether or not you feel sorry for what management did in these situations, they were the ones who signed the paychecks. They knew what they were doing. If they were so bent on saving face and saw where it was headed, then they should have stuck to their guns.

Frankly, I didn't see any change in the way a few teams went about their business two summers ago. While it did cool down a lot last year, a couple of teams (Toronto) still approached it the same way knowing full well what lied ahead.

How can anyone justify that?

Teams charged high prices to try to make ends meet. In the end, not as many fans were going to games and they cried foul. Well, they wouldn't have had to charge those prices if they had managed their clubs better.

They want a new system. Fine. It has to be done. But whatever system they come up with doesn't solve the on-ice issues. It doesn't change the high costs for a family of four for attending a game. It doesn't change the fact that the games have become worse and dragged on. It doesn't change the fact that the TV deal stinks. Or that they rarely promote the game's stars and portray them in a positive light. It doesn't change the fact that the overexpansion was too much. It doesn't change the stupid six division format, where there aren't as many rivalries as their used to be.

Address all these things with their new system and then they can save the game. Do it not and nobody will ever take them seriously.