View Single Post
Old
01-20-2005, 04:41 PM
  #61
True Blue
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 15,007
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by dedalus
Which horse? If you think the players are screaming loud about a cap, just wait til you tell them they're about to lose 100 jobs because we're contracting 5 teams.
Actually there have already been players that have said that they would be pro-contraction. Contract teams and the need for a salary cap evaporates as the teams that do nothing but hemorrage money and cannot possible every be in the green are gone.

"Those who spend are those who take home Cups."

Yes, but you are comparing them to the NFL. The reason that the NFL has a level playing field is not the hard cap, but rather the fact that every team starts the year with $100m of revenue sharing. THAT is what allows teams who did not compete the previous year to compete. Yes, the NFL has a hard cap. But they also have a revenue sharing program where ALL teams contribute and ALL teams drink from the well. Bettman wants the cap but refuses a scenarion where all teams participate in a revenue sharing program. The ONLY reason that the NFL cap works so well is becuase they couple it with the revenue sharing program.

"We are, and the end we're seeking to achieve is that every team has a viable chance to put together a championship team. (Being able to maintain it would be nice, too.) "

Again, if you want to model yourself after the NFL and point to the NFL as an example, one cannot ignore the revenue sharing. It is the revenue sharing and not the cap that allows for every team to have a viable chance to put a team together. Without the revenue sharing, the have-nots would remain as have-nots perpetually.

True Blue is offline