View Single Post
Old
09-16-2004, 05:25 PM
  #11
garry1221
Registered User
 
garry1221's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Walled Lake, Mi
Posts: 2,232
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to garry1221
Quote:
Originally Posted by thinkwild
I think there is a subtle difference that is worth distinguishing for us fans.

There is a concept of a connection between revenues and expenses. This can be done in many ways. This is a financial/power battle hard for us fans to relate to.

There is one of many ways of implementing this. One of those is through the concept of a uniform team payroll cap, or a system that strives to that goal. This I think is a secondary issue more worthy of fan discussion, and somewhat unrelated to the first.

I personally abhor the idea of 30 equal teams or any system that strives for it. I think its a ridiculous concept. I think a cyclical competitiveness is the true fairness. Allowing great and rebuilding teams, rather than all mediocre teams.

I think they can have cost certainty without a uniform team payroll cap.
a uniform payroll threshold/cap is one thing, as has been shown time and time again, money doesn't mean a thing if your team doesn't have the chemistry on ice to compete successfully, getting a uniform payroll system is one of the first stepping stones to allow all teams to have access to all players, not just the mediocre/lowend talent, IMO if all teams had access to the full spectrum of talent in the league, then you'd see more teams making money and becoming more financially sound, it doesn't matter whether a team's from florida or nunavut, if a team is being priced out of the premiere talent it's not going to go anywhere and will continue losing money year after year

garry1221 is offline