View Single Post
09-28-2012, 09:08 AM
springtime hockey!
redbull's Avatar
Join Date: Mar 2008
Country: Canada
Posts: 10,521
vCash: 500
This is truly a tough one.

The owners know they can bully the players and that's what they're doing. The irony is, their enemy in this "system" (past CBAs) is not the players/union - it's themselves. The owners are the reason why their costs are out of hand, it's got little to do with % of revenues and everything to do with the supply/demand dynamics created by the CBA with player movements.

Limited free agency causes the demand/supply of difference makers to drive salaries way up. Those salaries are leveraged by agents/players to drive up their own salaries. The market is created NOT by a free market, but by a limited market where supply is constrained (by the CBA rules, in large part) - driving franchises into the red.

It's clear that half the franchises cannot be profitable under these rules.

It's also true that a handful of franchises (Leafs, Rangers) will make a fortune++ no matter what the rules are.

There is a solution that involves SOME revenue sharing and SOME drag on salaries.

I wonder how a tax system might work where a player who is signed to a contract above the league average is subjected to a tax that is redistributed to the other teams in some way.

So, league average annual salary is $1Million - for example.
If Tavares is signed for $6MM/year, then there's a "tax" on the $5MM difference (say 10%) which goes into a revenue share pool, which is then divided among the lower revenue teams in the NHL the following year.

Unless you have a system that allows the poorest teams to compete with the richest teams, with a narrower range of salary from the cap-to-floor, the league will never be a healthy one, with consistently profitable franchises.

redbull is offline