Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

-Vintage Canuck-

*Official* CBA Negotiations and Lockout Thread

6,228 posts in this topic

It finally makes sense why teams are offering up ridiculous contracts despite not having the monies to pay for it because they are not held accountable because they are continuously bailed out, hence, it is completely understandable that the more healthy teams who are being more financially responsible and not engaging in careless dealings are fed up because not only are they being responsible while others arent but at the same time losing out on the big players because they are not offering careless deals and then under the same system are giving the other teams money to have the big players with the irresponsible contracts?? It's hardly a fair system and needs to be corrected. How about you only get as much of the revenue share as you put in which is the same as no revenue sharing. Be financially responsible for your own business and generate your own revenue so they will be more accountable to balancing their books or being more financially responsible. At best, set up a contingency fund they all contribute a percentage of based on their revenue...and if things go rough...based on the amount they've contributed they get given in increments until they get past the rough period. Obviousely big money teams will contribute more and will have more of a safety cushion and the smaller markets contribute less and will get less, and this is consistent with what the teams are used to operating under...this contingency fund is fairer in that the companies are investing in themselves and not in someone elses business. And again, the contracts should be reviewed by the league and the teams will have to show how they will be able to carry out the contracts on their own commission.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Question for the hockey minds here,

Would it be more beneficial to keep the cap level but erase the the cap floor?

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Question for the hockey minds here,

Would it be more beneficial to keep the cap level but erase the the cap floor?

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Question for the hockey minds here,

Would it be more beneficial to keep the cap level but erase the the cap floor?

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Question for the hockey minds here,

Would it be more beneficial to keep the cap level but erase the the cap floor?

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You're missing a more basic part of economics. Expenses and Revenue. The expenses are things like cost of maintenance of the building, staff, marketing, and of course player wages. Once these expenses are paid the idea is to make a profit margin. Now the league has not been honest with total revenue. The NHL isn't like the NBA/MLB/NFL with massive TV contracts (Once again something Gary has failed to provide). The total revenue is things like merchandise, parking, food, drinks etc. Without transparency how do we know what the teams are making?
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Question for the hockey minds here,

Would it be more beneficial to keep the cap level but erase the the cap floor?

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Question for the hockey minds here,

Would it be more beneficial to keep the cap level but erase the the cap floor?

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

games lost due to labor since 1992 by sport - NFL: 0, NBA: 504, MLB: 938, NHL: 1,698

this league is a joke

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Of course, the better option would be no cap, combined with strong revenue sharing and maybe a luxury tax.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's official, the contract just expired. We have a lockout.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That would be a brutal deal for the players, and they will never accept it. Nor should they.

If the owners are irrationally wedded to a salary cap, then the gap between the floor and cap should be much larger. Instead of 70 million - 54 million, it should be something like 80 - 40. That way all teams can spend an appropriate amount on player salaries.

Of course, the better option would be no cap, combined with strong revenue sharing and maybe a luxury tax.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That would be a brutal deal for the players, and they will never accept it. Nor should they.

If the owners are irrationally wedded to a salary cap, then the gap between the floor and cap should be much larger. Instead of 70 million - 54 million, it should be something like 80 - 40. That way all teams can spend an appropriate amount on player salaries.

Of course, the better option would be no cap, combined with strong revenue sharing and maybe a luxury tax.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That would be a brutal deal for the players, and they will never accept it. Nor should they.

If the owners are irrationally wedded to a salary cap, then the gap between the floor and cap should be much larger. Instead of 70 million - 54 million, it should be something like 80 - 40. That way all teams can spend an appropriate amount on player salaries.

Of course, the better option would be no cap, combined with strong revenue sharing and maybe a luxury tax.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.