View Single Post
Old
11-25-2003, 11:03 PM
  #28
Poignant Discussion
I tell it like it is
 
Poignant Discussion's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Gatineau, QC
Country: Canada
Posts: 6,757
vCash: 1400
Send a message via MSN to Poignant Discussion Send a message via Yahoo to Poignant Discussion
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sabot55
I don't think the Rangers would go for revenue sharing. With only 29 of 30 owners in favor of revenue sharing, it would never get past the owners, much less being presented to the NHLPA.

The soft cap would mean no cap. The same teams that can afford high budgets would be the same that can afford the luxury tax. That's why the Lakers compete every year.

I don't think anyone here has the time or resourses to come up with what figure the hard cap should be, given all the factors.

But it is working well in football. The league has seen some of it's most competitive divisional races, best playoffs, and best Super Bowls (Denver/GB, TEN/STL, STL/NE) since the cap was emplaced. It evens everything out. Relatively equal teams playing great games.

There is no alternative for football players. Football doesn't have europian teams ready to scoop up players. Ok they have the CFL but thats not really a choice. The "big" teams that go over the ceiling would be putting money into the small market teams at least so at least they would not lose money. The Rangers might not go for it and I know the Leafs would have problems with it as well. But something has to be done or we might as well have a Toronto New York Dallas Colorado Detroit and St Louis NHL

Poignant Discussion is offline