View Single Post
11-25-2012, 01:05 PM
Fugu's Avatar
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: ϶(o)ϵ
Posts: 36,791
vCash: 500
Originally Posted by KINGS17 View Post
There won't be 30 teams in "your NHL". That's a loss of "Folded Teams" x 24/25 jobs per team.
Would you answer my post that you quoted?

On this matter, maybe there isn't enough money to support your 30 teams.

Originally Posted by Riptide View Post
And other than putting the cap floor/ceiling on a % basis, what does the PA's proposal do differently that makes it better?
The PA never wanted this system in the first place. It's really not up to the PA to solve the league's economic problems and strategic decisions, but they probably realize that getting Bettman to accept the cap range system is fool's folly isn't going to happen easily (if at all).

Originally Posted by juantimer View Post
Contraction means less games (revenue) for the high-end teams as well. There is more money to be made with 30 teams than fewer; the NHL just has to get over its own bs rhetoric and make 30 teams sustainably viable. Everyone wins. With only the big guns winning, as we see in the US economy, it's a downward spiral with the workers (players) especially always losing out.

Really? Teams in the 70's played 72-76 games, iirc. There weren't 30 teams at that time.

You can have the same number of games played even if you have fewer teams. Since the remaining teams earn more revenue per game, the net result would be higher revenue.

Fugu is offline   Reply With Quote