View Single Post
09-17-2012, 10:59 PM
Nalens Oga
Nalens Oga's Avatar
Join Date: Jan 2010
Country: Canada
Posts: 13,963
vCash: 2405
Originally Posted by Guest View Post
It's simple math that the problem is the richest teams are paying 25-30% of their revenue to the players while the poorest teams are paying 65-75% of their revenue to the players. There's no easy way to get the poorest teams to start generating the same revenue as the richest teams, so you have to start at the lowest common denominator.
Which is why you have to abandon this stupid idea of 30 team parity. NO other big business league has this and you know why? It's not because it's a bad's because it doesn't effin work. If it doesn't work in baseball or football where you have big markets in pretty much every American city then how is it gonna work in hockey where there are huge and tiny markets?

Let the rich teams be rich, let the poor be poor, set a salary cap so it isn't a pre-04 situation but make it more lenient/higher than it is and make the floor cheap. Let the **** teams be ****, if they can't profit and have to sell then let them great oppurtunity relocate. The NHL is however hell bent on parity.

Parity is still possible even if the cap is $80M. Do you think the Leafs or Flames can spend to $80 M and become contenders within the next couple yrs? This isn't basketball where you're relying on a small group of players to win, a hockey team has 18 skaters and the importance of drafting will keep parity going to an extent (an extent meaning you still have several teams competing for a cup but it's just not normal to expect that number to be 20 or 30). Point is, I hate "parity."

Nalens Oga is offline   Reply With Quote