View Single Post
Old
02-06-2005, 01:10 PM
  #3
LeafErikson*
Ice to meet you
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Victoria B.C.
Country: Canada
Posts: 27,223
vCash: 500
From the "Here comes Hell week" Larry Brooks, New York Post, Feb 6, 2005-It's the same approach the league has taken to the game itself, institutionalizing obstruction so that the weakest teams are given an unfair chance to beat the most talented. It's the same approach the league has taken to the schedule, where the number of divisional and rivalry games are kept to a minimum because the weak markets are dependent upon visits from Original Six clubs.

It seems very appropriate comming from a writer of a New York paper, who only gets to see things from his side. Never having to write about the woes of the Yankees inablility to compete with the mega super franchises and their huge payroll. Maybe Mr Brooks should take a one year visit to Edmonton and see what it's like on the other side of the fence. I don't think the NHL is going to get the linkage that it wants, but it should. It's not out of line to think that players salaries should be based on league wide revenue. It's better for the game, from top to bottom. If the NHL is the gate driven system that it claims to be then having a league where the salaries are fixed to revenues will only help bring fans in, well in theory it should. So what I mean is, if the players want to make more money, then they'll have to play a more entertaining style of hockey to bring fans into the seats, more buts in the seats means more people will also likely be willing to pay to watch at home, and more people watching at home means bigger tv contracts. In theory this is a great system, but theories aren't proven unless someone is willing to take the risks and go for a system that is based on linkage. Are we going to see linkage, no. Am I babbling now, yes. :lol

LeafErikson* is offline