Corp000085 Posted June 8, 2005 Share Posted June 8, 2005 msnbc link espn link Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fezmid Posted June 8, 2005 Share Posted June 8, 2005 What the hell? That's the lamest salary cap ever! there would be a team-by-team salary cap, based on a percentage of the revenue of each franchise. So the rich teams can afford more/better teams than the poorer teams, yet again... Nice. CW Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Corp000085 Posted June 8, 2005 Author Share Posted June 8, 2005 In what is believed to be a six-year agreement, based on revenue projections by both sides, the salary cap will range from $34 million to $36 million, with the floor from $22 million to $24 million. the sabres current salary is in that range, so this would not break the bank. BTW, i got my dtv fixed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaska Darin Posted June 8, 2005 Share Posted June 8, 2005 But the difference isn't going to be 100% or more from top to bottom. So much for the players not ever accepting one. Way to screw yourselves, guys. You could have had $42 million not too long ago. Whoops. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OBXBILLSFAN Posted June 8, 2005 Share Posted June 8, 2005 But the difference isn't going to be 100% or more from top to bottom. So much for the players not ever accepting one. Way to screw yourselves, guys. You could have had $42 million not too long ago. Whoops. 353926[/snapback] The NHL owners and players should all be horse whipped for their stupidity and greed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaska Darin Posted June 8, 2005 Share Posted June 8, 2005 The NHL owners and players should all be horse whipped for their stupidity and greed. 353935[/snapback] Can't argue with that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NYGPopgun10 Posted June 8, 2005 Share Posted June 8, 2005 I'm just glad they finally agreed on something. NHL hockey will return in the fall ! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MadBuffaloDisease Posted June 8, 2005 Share Posted June 8, 2005 The NHL owners and players should all be horse whipped for their stupidity and greed. True, but the owners made out on this deal, in spades. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaska Darin Posted June 8, 2005 Share Posted June 8, 2005 True, but the owners made out on this deal, in spades. 353961[/snapback] Which kinda makes up for the last deal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crap Throwing Monkey Posted June 8, 2005 Share Posted June 8, 2005 True, but the owners made out on this deal, in spades. 353961[/snapback] Considering the owners were losing less money when they weren't playing than when they were (financially, the Washington Capitals organization had their best year in about a decade last "season"), the players didn't have a hell of a lot of leverage to bargain with. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MadBuffaloDisease Posted June 8, 2005 Share Posted June 8, 2005 the sabres current salary is in that range, so this would not break the bank. BTW, i got my dtv fixed. Actually their PREVIOUS salary was in that range. The NHL has lost a lot of revenue and what the smaller markets could afford before they probably won't be able to now. But it might be a matter of spending until it hurts to field a winning product to win over the fans. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ramius Posted June 8, 2005 Share Posted June 8, 2005 What the hell? That's the lamest salary cap ever!So the rich teams can afford more/better teams than the poorer teams, yet again... Nice. CW 353904[/snapback] as good as it is, i agree fez...a revenue based salary cap is prolly the most retarded thing i can think of...i dont care if the caps will all be within 2 million, thats 2 million less a small market team has to spend on a big name player...or the big market teams can spend more to keep the mid level players or steal mid level players from other teams... :I starred in Brokeback Mountain: NHL, you are still a joke... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MadBuffaloDisease Posted June 8, 2005 Share Posted June 8, 2005 Considering the owners were losing less money when they weren't playing than when they were (financially, the Washington Capitals organization had their best year in about a decade last "season"), the players didn't have a hell of a lot of leverage to bargain with. Yet there they were, giving up a larger cap and a year's worth of salary. It was greed AND stupidity on their part. For the majority of owners who were losing money every year, it was less about greed than survival. But the larger market owners are still greedy, which is why there isn't a hard and equal caps for all teams, and THOSE are the guys who should be horse-whipped, along with the players. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaska Darin Posted June 8, 2005 Share Posted June 8, 2005 as good as it is, i agree fez...a revenue based salary cap is prolly the most retarded thing i can think of...i dont care if the caps will all be within 2 million, thats 2 million less a small market team has to spend on a big name player...or the big market teams can spend more to keep the mid level players or steal mid level players from other teams... :I starred in Brokeback Mountain: NHL, you are still a joke... 353976[/snapback] One player isn't as bad as the seven-to-10 player difference the small market teams are currently facing. Think about it. How many Sabres make the Redwing or Avalanche rosters? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MadBuffaloDisease Posted June 8, 2005 Share Posted June 8, 2005 One player isn't as bad as the seven-to-10 player difference the small market teams are currently facing. Think about it. How many Sabres make the Redwing or Avalanche rosters? Yeah, compared to the past, I'd take a difference in payroll of $2M anyday. Except that I don't think it will be that little, unless they agree to share a large portion of the revenues, which I doubt. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
elcrusho Posted June 9, 2005 Share Posted June 9, 2005 well then..... there it is.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts