View Single Post
10-25-2012, 04:43 PM
Let's Go Hawks!
UsernameWasTaken's Avatar
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Toronto
Country: Canada
Posts: 27,206
vCash: 500
Originally Posted by mossey3535 View Post
Well of course. So why aren't player salaries on the top of that list? Or player perks?

Oh I'm sorry, we'd much prefer to fire normal working people who are employed by the club than give a bunch of millionaires a slight paycut - that still allows them to make millions of dollars.
Another way of looking at it is the teams themselves would rather fire "normal working people" than acknowledge that as a result of their own poor financial decisions some of the teams don't get to instantaneously move from 'in the red' to 'in the black'.

The players' % of HRR should be reduce, revenue sharing should be increased, and some of the teams should have to realize that there's going to be a waiting period for them to start making money.

In any event, the cuts the NHL is proposing aren't simply because some teams are losing money - they're being made because, as Bettman himself has conceded, the teams simply feel that they're paying too much in salary. For some teams, they need to reduce salaries because of financial necessity - but not all of the teams. Some of the teams (including teams where some of the so-called "hardliners" are from are making a lot of money).

Originally Posted by Mr Jiggyfly View Post
You were told this at least three times already...

A majority of contracts under this CBA expire within two years. All contracts going fwd would be at 50%.

If a team can't make money this way, with increased revenue sharing added in, then I call that incompetent mgmt.
I think we've already established that as an obvious element of many NHL teams

Originally Posted by Captain Bob View Post
That's where a luxury tax comes in, acting as a soft cap and providing revenue for small market teams to pay bills.
I have no problem with a luxury tax.

UsernameWasTaken is offline