View Single Post
Old
10-20-2004, 04:20 PM
  #27
Fish
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Country: New Zealand
Posts: 2,177
vCash: 500
A few comments:

Actually what Bettman repeats over and over again is that the owners want a link between revenues and payrolls...it is a cap, in that it is directly related to how much money is coming in, but if the money increases then the cap would increase.

Just as the owners have come out and said they must have a cap, the players have said they absolutely won't have a cap. Now tell me there's a difference between those positions? Both have come out and stated a position that they know is untenable to the other side, which means there is no negotiation.

Like I said earlier, if the players had proposed a cap that based on say 85% of revenues instead of the 58% or whatever the league has stated, then this in my mind would be negotiating as much as the owners coming out and saying they would entertain a salary cap of $x. NEITHER side is interested in backing off their position.

There is definitely some work to do on defining what "revenues" means, but the NFL has done so I can't see why the NHL and NHLPA can't negotiate on that...at least we'd know then what we're talking about when we're looking at what a cap might realistically look like instead of this 31 million dollar crap that keeps getting bandied about.

As for ticket prices, there was a recent table published in the Hockey News which showed the average ticket price at each venue, the Rangers were not near the top...

And minimum payrolls...I don't mind this at all, at a much lower level the ECHL has recognized a need for them, so I don't see a problem with negotiating a similar agreement in the NHL.

Fish is offline