View Single Post
11-19-2012, 04:11 PM
I am the Liquor
Wrong Way Eberle
I am the Liquor's Avatar
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Sunnyvale
Country: Canada
Posts: 37,280
vCash: 1500
Originally Posted by Riptide View Post
Did you not read the post I quoted just above? Or run the math on a 3 team league? Here I'll even make it easy for you.

Going to an unlinked cap/HRR has it's own issues. What do you think would be happening today if the NHL had accepted Goodnows offer of a 49m cap (or whatever it was)? The NHL would have still locked the players out when the two sides could not come to an agreement. The players would have demanded the cap increase by 50% to match the increase in HRR. The league would have laughed at them, and we'd be in the same position we're in today. Actually this would have happened last year, as there's no chance the PA would have extended the deal by 1 year.

And if you think the PA would ever agree to a fixed cap of anything less than 80m you're dreaming (I'm not even sure that's high enough that the PA would accept it). 80m might work long long term... but it's still going to cause tons of issues short term.
Obviously I read the post, as I responded to it. No need to suggest otherwise.

I think I demonstrated a competent grasp of your point. It really isnt that difficult to comprehend.

Neither is the point that cutting out non-viable markets would make the need for low-balling players and locking them out passe. Linking the cap to revenues is a fools game as it only addresses one half of the balance sheet. If the owners and the players are to be true partners, then a profit sharing model would be more equitable, considering each side would share the benefits of revenue and the risks of expenses.

If the players take too much, then they have to pay back. If the players dont get enough, the owners then have to contribute to make up the difference. It would be in both sides best interest to grow the game, avoid damaging lockouts/strikes, and pruning the branches/teams that arent producing fruit/revenue.

Bettman has had three or four kicks at the can and he is no closer to ending labour strife than he was when he first took the job. That should result in his immediate dismissal as it was one of the main tenants of his mandate when he was initially hired.

I am the Liquor is offline   Reply With Quote