Quote:
|
Originally Posted by lunchbox
I think the problem here is the owners' voice isn't being heard and neither is the players. Gary Bettman has been running the show for the owners, everything that's been going on, has been bettman and he has told the owners and players which deals were which.
If you read the last deal is was ENTIRELY bettman's idea and what was it? he called it a "compromise" it essentially said "we'll play under the players proposal including the 24% cut if and only if it meets all of the requirements we want in our cap system" does that sound like a compromise to you? this is bullshit and someone is going to have Goodenow and Bettman's heads when this is all over.
|
Yeah, I understand that. I am very upset with BOTH sides being so stubborn. Personally, I side with the owners more, because it doesn't seem that the players understand how unsustainable their salaries are becoming. However, the owners don't smell of roses either. I don't think they need a hard cap... I think that a luxury tax system, like what the players proposed, could work just as well. In that case, the teams that want to spend above some limit can, but they have to pay a dollar-to-dollar amount to match the overspend. Because of the dynamics of the league, very few teams could actually spend above the level, and most of those couldn't go very high above the tax level. At the very least they should have considered using the luxury tax because it'd help out.
But alas, both sides are staring down the train, waiting for it to move off the tracks. No one wins playing chicken with a train, and no one wins in this labor dispute. The morning sports show here was talking about this, saying that since NHL games often end in ties, it is fitting to have this in a stalemate as well. I guess they both get a point then...