KnightRider Posted February 17, 2005 Posted February 17, 2005 I am being serious here: At what point does a salary leave your definition of "normal". Is someone who makes $100,000 a year a normal person? I would certainly say so... How about $200,000? You're trying to put a monetary value on "normal people"? Seriously, to someone who makes like $25,000 a year, I'm guess some one who makes $100,000 seems "rich" and the $25k guy woud never feel bad for him. Please, get over it. 243331[/snapback] That depends on the cost of living where you live. If I made the salary I make in Buffalo, I'd be very well off. Instead, I'm trying to figure out whether my wife can stay home and add a second bath to the house.
obie_wan Posted February 17, 2005 Posted February 17, 2005 None of which surprises me, really. Recall what I said Monday about the NHLPA's negotiating strategy. And it's becoming increasingly clear that Goodenow has been representing his own interests (i.e. ego) rather than the NHLPA's. And why not make a deal in the next couple of days? This season's gone...but having a deal in place eight months before the start of the season lets things cool down considerably and is arguably better in terms of marketing their product than getting it done at the last second come October. 243489[/snapback] The NHL offer is off the table. The deal will only get worse now for the players. The NHL will reduce the cap into the 30's and link the league cap to league wide revenues- as the NFL does. The biggest shocker for the players will be the phase out of guaranteed contracts. A hard cap will not work if the teams can't cut salaries. The NBA has a soft cap and can't make it work with only 5 starters. The players would be wise to fire their reps and get a deal done before teh NHL claims an impasse and imposes its own set of rules.
The Plastic Cup Posted February 17, 2005 Posted February 17, 2005 Apparently hatred of those with money is the last acceptable way to openly judge someone. The Democrats have built an entire political party on that stance.
dib Posted February 17, 2005 Author Posted February 17, 2005 The Democrats have built an entire political party on that stance. 243822[/snapback] Or is it a backlash against how they 'earn' that money?
KRC Posted February 17, 2005 Posted February 17, 2005 Or is it a backlash against how they 'earn' that money? 243838[/snapback] No, it is pretty much anyone with money. Does "the rich need to pay their fair share" ring a bell?
The Plastic Cup Posted February 17, 2005 Posted February 17, 2005 Or is it a backlash against how they 'earn' that money? 243838[/snapback] Aside from the handful who steal it or run prostitution rings or something, why would there be a backlash against how the other 99% of people earn their money?
Recommended Posts