View Single Post
Old
11-12-2012, 11:28 AM
  #62
jbeck5
Registered User
 
jbeck5's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 10,338
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fugu View Post
What about the owners who are massively successful as we speak?


There's this tendency to discount the successful teams, and to discount that their success is what makes a cap range system untenable for a reasonable portion of teams because IT IS a linked system.

When do you put the onus on the collective of owners to make better business decisions as well? The answer cannot always and only be to take it out of player costs, especially when some teams would just end up swimming in even more cash.
They are succesfull in their other business ventures because their other business ventures don't have a union demanding millions and wanting over 50% of Revenue. They aren't successful from their NHL teams.

The onus is on the owners. That's why they're trying to put a system in place that they think will allow them to be successful. The players aren't letting them. There already is revenue sharing. There has been all last CBA.Sure, you can increase it a bit, and i'm sure there will be even more revenue sharing then last CBA, but what the players are demanding is too much. I agree, take pocket change out of all the top owners and give it to the poor. But don't go in and take 2 of their houses, 4 cars, their pet dog, and the 80 inch screen. That's too much. They aren't an ex wife, they shouldn't be entitled to half lol.

The owners do need to add more revenue sharing. But the players do need to help keep salaries down for league health. A healthy league is better for the players. They don't realize it, but it's true. The problem is players aren't trying to keep salaries down so the league can be successful. They're thinking me,me,me even if teams go bankrupt,as long as they make their 2.6 million instead of 2.3 million.

jbeck5 is offline