2012 CBA Discussion III (Lockout Talk)
View Single Post
11-12-2012, 08:44 PM
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Nova Scotia
Originally Posted by
Your two points seem contradictory- "Owners over-pay because they're afraid of being criticized" and "its strictly about making a profit off of an investment"
Also players aren't paid millions because they play a game, they make millions because people will pay billions to watch them play.
Owners pay the going rate, so in that regard it's not technically overpaying when everyone else is being forced to pay it as well. As long as the money is there the owners will be forced to use it because the players will demand it or go elsewhere. Any owner worth his salt would do so in order to keep his club competitive and therefore profitable. Perhaps if all owners got together and collectively said "we aren't going to spend over this much for any player", but I don't think that's realistic. There will always be one or two who spend frivolously because they want to win.
The system is inherently flawed imo. I guess that much should be obvious by the number of lockouts we've seen in the past 20 years. A salary cap was a step in the right direction, and tying the cap to revenues was a great idea at first when revenues were down. Revenues went up and up however, and while that's a good thing in the big scheme of things the fact that the salary cap has gone up and up with them isn't. There are already teams who can't afford to spend to the upper limit and those teams are constantly at a disadvantage because of that. When certain owners can start saying "hey, lets structure this deal like this so this team can't afford to pay it and we can steal their best player", that's not healthy in my opinion and doesn't make for exciting hockey. I like parity, I like a level playing field. In order to have a healthy league I think both are a necessity.
Now sure, it's easy for the players to say "this is an easy solve, the rich teams just need to give away a bunch more of that money they're making to the poor teams" while guys like Shae Weber sign offer sheets paying him 40+ mill in two years (when Forbes ranks the Predators at around 200 mill total value wise) but that doesn't seem much like a solution to me. I doubt the top tier players would be eager to share some of their salary with the guys making league minimum as most people like to keep the money they are making. At some point the bar needs to be set in a place where it's reasonable to expect all 30 NHL teams to be able to bring in enough revenue (without charging ludicrous sums for tickets and concessions and gouging the fans) and it needs to stay there regardless if revenues climb so that they can realistically be able to spend up to the upper limit without losing money and without having the teams that make more money toe the line for them.
Originally Posted by
Kaoz, I don't disagree with you on any of your comments. But at the same time they put their names on those contracts, they should honor them to the fullest.
I could go either way on it honestly. I see where you're coming from and in some cases where the owners tried to get creative with the cap structuring deals in such a way that the cap hits are lower but the player gets paid a heinous amount of money they absolutely should foot the bill, just desserts and all that. In other cases however I understand where some owners are coming from in saying that the salaries as they are are out of control and they really had no choice but to sign their players to it as the market, out of control as it is, dictated it.
End of the day, I'd just like some hockey please, but it'd be nice if we didn't have to suffer through these lockouts every 5 years. I don't care who makes the money so long as the league remains healthy.
View Public Profile
Find More Posts by Kaoz*