No Subject

>The owners want to impose a ceiling on what a
>team can spend on salaries, plus a ceiling on
>the percentage of that payroll that can go to
>any one player. The union is fearful such an
>agreement would eliminate the middle class of
>players and eventually eliminate guaranteed
>contracts.

Whaaaat? Let me see if I have this straigt. The owners want to make sure
that all the money does not go to one player by putting a cap on the amount
of money one player can make. . . and the union thinks that this will hurt
the middle class? I fail to see the logic here. It would see to a simpleton
like me that if there were more money available after your Antoine Walker's
sign deals, that that leftover money would go to other players, ie "The
middle class." 
The union seems to be saying that, "The middle class will be hurt if more
money is available to them?" 
Is there any more doubt that no one, especially the union, gives a crap
about the middle class?

And another thing, is there anyone out there who has the slightest feeling
that this luxury tax can work. We are worried about paying Antoine big
bucks, so we impliment a luxury tax. Antoine still wants his big bucks, so
not only do we have to pay him the money he wanted in the first place, but
now we have to pay additional money on top of that to the tax? And this
saves the Celtics money how?

Getting whiplash from all the head-spinning language, a cough from all the
smoke being spewn, and insane from all the repetitive, mislead rhetoric,

Nathan A.
___________________________________________________________
The North Bend Sports Page: http://www.geocities.com/colosseum/arena/2430

"Winning isn't everything, wanting to win is." - Vince Lombardi