View Single Post
Old
11-17-2003, 09:39 AM
  #37
Tom_Benjamin
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 1,152
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by discostu
First of all, you seem to think that none of the owners want anything to do with transfer payments (i.e. a tax or revenue sharing), which is false. Right now, they are pushing for a solution that doesn't need such a system. THey want a cap at a salary level so low, that no team is dependant on such a system to make it work.
C'mon. Right now they are pushing for a system that fits with their declared - not the real - objective. If Edmonton and other small market teams can't ever afford to spend more than they are right now, the cap has to be $31 million. They tabled this so all the Edmonton fans would go "Hooray! The owners will save us!"

If all the teams are losing money and the Rangers have lost more than everyone else, who has the money to share?

Quote:
However, many of the owners would welcome a transfer payment system, since they will be on the receiving end of it.
Well, Daly shot it down. He said revenue sharing merely moved the losses around. The main reason nobody wants revenue sharing is because franchise valuations reflect the different revenue streams. The Red Wings are supposed to be worth $266 million. The Oilers are worth maybe $75 million. The return has to be vastly different.

Finally, in hockey, revenue sharing is not fair to the fan who pays the freight at the box office. The Avalanche have higher revenues than the Kings because Avalanche fans pay much more for hockey than LA fans. Are we going to keep the prices the same so Avalanche fans subsidize the Kings?

Quote:
But, you say it's impossible. You seem to have a crystal ball that indicates what the owners will or will not accept. Since you have this crystal ball, why don't you tell us how these negotiations will end up.
I don't have a clue. One side or the other will give in. If I had to guess it would be the owners. When I'm optimistic, I think the owners will come to their senses. I don't think they understand the nature of this game, why people watch or what kind of abortion the NHL would become if they get what they want. When I'm pessimistic, I think the players will find a way to give the owners what they really want without a salary cap.

I think the owners really want the elimination of elite teams with a salary cap, earlier free agency and a lot more player movement. They want every team to be able to say, "Buy a ticket to see the all new Phoenix Coyotes. We can win it all!" every year.

(I notice that you never address the issue of what the league will look like if the owners get their way. I assume you think this would be just great. Everything hunky dory because salaries will be lower and all teams will be making money. Is that all that matters to you? What kind of hockey we watch doesn't?)

Everything from the owners is BS designed to get the chumps onside for a lockout. The players have a different line of BS designed to get the chumps to blame the owners instead of the players for a work stoppage. If you think either side has our interests at heart, their propaganda is working. If you think either side is leaking negotiating positions to keep us informed, I've got this large silver trophy to sell you.

Want to buy the Stanley Cup?

Tom

Tom_Benjamin is offline