View Single Post
Old
09-16-2012, 09:55 AM
  #101
thinkwild
Veni Vidi Toga
 
thinkwild's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Ottawa
Country: Canada
Posts: 8,278
vCash: 500
The idea that each team puts 50% of its revenue into a pot and then shares it is basically what the players are asking for isnt it? I like the idea from a propaganda standpoint, it makes the owners look hypocritical if they then reject it. But they already do and dont care.

One of the problems the players are expressing is that every time they try and put forth a compromise that attempts to solve the owners stated issues, the owners then change their stated issues.

And now Bettman is basically just saying, look, this is my job, this is what i do, i lock players out. The only reason being put forth now is that they want to pay less in salaries and think they have enough leverage to get it.


-
Here's a wild idea, what if we get 3 salary caps, on players, teams, and the league as a whole, and link them all to revenues, as well as linking revenue sharing to revenues so that every team can spend to the midpoint of the cap range.

Then we could:
lower ticket prices,
save all 30 markets,
stop the need for any more lockouts in the future,
allow all small markets to keep their star ufa's and not lose them to big markets. No hometown discounts would be needed unless parity got really annoying and you wanted to find ways to circumvent it.



Oops, did i just say that out loud? How embarrassing eh. What kind of moran would put forth that idea? That couldnt possibly work as we all know. I mean sure, on paper, it sounds idealistically perfect, but in practice ...

Last time, the system increased the amount going to players as revenues grew. This time, the amount going to players decreases as revenues grow. Owners are no longer even trying to rationalize their arguments.

thinkwild is offline   Reply With Quote