View Single Post
Old
11-17-2012, 07:03 AM
  #84
Sir Psycho T
More Cowbell!
 
Sir Psycho T's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Redwood City, CA
Posts: 3,643
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by UsernameWasTaken View Post
i think you may have misunderstood my post (i probably wasn't clear) - b/c i don't really disagree with most of what you're saying. my comment was re that you can't complain about the presence of a union but expect the NHL to implement the structure that it wishes to.

with a structure like the NHL has, it is difficult to control the finances in the way it wants to w/o having unionized players. if the CBA isn't settled by late June there's not going to be a draft. With no union at all (and above a couple were complaining about the presence of a union - that's what i was responding to), the teams can't just get together and decide to impose a cap/floor on their spending. they also can't get together and come up with ELC, UFA rules all by themselves. so, the presence of a union is what has allowed the NHL to implement its current business form.

also, i don't think the leafs, habs, NYR should share more in a general sense - i don't like the salary cap at all. i'd prefer a luxury tax. my point is that if the NHL wants to implement the capped structure in the way it has, then cutting back salaries right now will only help them for so long...but after not too long the "have" teams will continue to grow (esp. T.O. and NYC) and start to shove the cap (and floor) to a point where the "have nots" have trouble competing. slashing the players' hrr % is only a temporary fix.

bettman says the problem is the teams are "paying too much in salary" - but an additional problem is the teams aren't all growing and increasing revenue at the same rate - and if the rev. generation of the teams at the top continues to significantly outpace the teams at the lower end then in a few years it will force the cap/floor to a point where the poorer teams can't compete.

...and plz find where i've ever said the players should have 57% of the revenue at this point. i've never said that - the closest you might have read me come to saying that is when people whine that the players were "getting too much" before, i've pointed out that they were entitled to it under the previous CBA - it wasn't an ill-begotten % - the owners agreed to it when the players agreed to the cap. I don't think the players should get 57%...however, i think if the NHL wants to continue with the ill-advised structure it was implemented (and refuse to move the worst of the losers to cities that would be commercially viable) then the NHL/owners should have to bear some of the financial burden of the business structure they insist must be in place.
My last part of the comment wasn't directed at you but in general where some people have said they think the players are right in what they want.

As for the the last CBA it was agreed to at that time and the times have changed the other major point in that CBA that won't happen in this CBA is that the player % rose as the years passed. That last CBA started at 54% and rose to 57%. This CBA won't have the players salaries rise so it won't be the same issue. Also as you point out the NYR, MON, TOR will drive up the HRR but the FLA, PHO, CLB, will drive down the HRR. If you find the right % of revenue sharing and the right % of player salary you can find a balance no matter the HRR that won't put teams in so much jeopardy.

Also the reason for a cap wasn't just to limit players salaries it was also to try to get the league more competitive. Smaller market teams couldn't hope to compete with larger market teams in terms of FA and general success. Look at baseball sure you get the odd A's and Rays winning but more often then not the haves win, the Yankees, Lakers, Red Wings, will dominate the league because they can continue to sign the best players with nothing to stop them. So if I am a smaller market team and want to draw more fans I need to win more games, but how can I win more games if I can't get any talented players to play for me. A cap limits what the big teams can spend and can keep the league more competitive for everyone and it won't be a league of 5 teams and the rest.

Sir Psycho T is offline   Reply With Quote