View Single Post
Old
09-19-2012, 12:34 AM
  #368
vBurmi
Blue-Line Dekes
 
vBurmi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Totally lost
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,878
vCash: 1986
The majority of the owners aren't the bad guys, they're losing money year after year.

The big market owners are the bad guys. They keep the struggling markets struggling through refusing revenue sharing such that they artificially lower the cap, i.e. their own player expenses, and maximize their own profits while screwing over the majority of the owners as well as the players. To clarify (using ballparked figures), consider that a cap set at 57% of revenues likely equates to the Maple Leafs, Rangers, Canadiens, etc. spending around 20% of their revenue on player salaries even while spending to the cap. Their revenues are so out of whack with the rest of the league that the very existence of a cap and the continued propping up of the struggling franchises is simply a way for them to maximize their profits. They're only offering enough revenue sharing to keep those teams on life support - were they given enough of a chance to succeed that might ruin the artificially lowered player costs for the big markets. Furthermore, the big market owners are now using the existence of those struggling markets, which are already to their advantage, as a means of negotiating an even lower cap in the current CBA negotiations.

I concede that the revenue split will likely end up around 50-50. That's fairly irrelevant in the long run IMO. That'll just mean big markets continue to spend 20% of their revenue on player costs spending to the cap, while struggling markets will still be spending ~70% of their revenue on player costs spending to the floor. Owners overall will make out a little better but the league will still be horribly imbalanced and continue to have half the teams struggling to break even. The only thing that'll fix the league is increased revenue sharing.

vBurmi is offline