Spector: Don't get greedy, Gary (IOW if you get 50-50, give on contract details)
View Single Post
11-13-2012, 03:36 PM
Join Date: Nov 2004
Originally Posted by
Fugu you want to look at it this way:
The owners are just like the owners of 30 restaurants. They all have their own bottom lines, profit margins and expenses. The only have to worry about their own staff and the money their own place brings in. Sure, they want to make more than the other guy but their profit is all that matters. If they turn a profit, great! If they lose money, cut costs that work for them. That is fine and great for most business.
However, the NHL is not most businesses. They ARE tied to one another. They are going after the same prize, the Cup. They not only have to be competitive cost wise, but they have to field a winning team to do so. They simply cant have bottom dollar players and expect to create fans, revenue and ultimately win the Cup.
To stay competitive, they sometimes have to go over budget to sign the player that helps them compete against the other clubs. When on GM exposes a loophole, other GMs are FORCED to do the same. That ultimately hurts the clubs bottom line. Because of that, you have to look at the NHL as a single entity. They will always be tied to one another. Unlike in a restaurant type business where there are not free agent cooks to go grab when they hit their prime, the NHL is talent driven and money wins out. Your bottom line just got moved because Player A decided to sign a long term deal that kills your books but works out fine for your cap hit.
In order to fix that NHL bottom line, it must be looked at as a single entity and the playing field needs to be leveled. Either though a limited variance in years of the deal or limiting the length of the deal.
They have their cap and their linkage and now a lowered share for the players.
When is enough enough?
Change the variance so that the circumvention cannot be done. We're done then, right?
View Public Profile
Find More Posts by Fugu