View Single Post
11-27-2012, 01:54 AM
Registered User
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Yukon
Country: Canada
Posts: 25,897
vCash: 500
Originally Posted by Fugu View Post
Originally Posted by Riptide View Post
Originally Posted by Fugu View Post
Back to revenue disparity. The NHL's proposal is worse. They still want their inflationary cap range system with linkage, which once again will spiral out of control for the bottom teams. The league IGNORES revenue disparity, with the only solution they seem interested in is lowering the players' take to the affordability level of the lowest team. That the wealthiest teams pocket their gains, unfairly and against any market principle that most businesses have to deal with, but that doesn't seem to bother you one bit. There is greed here, but you cannot see the worst case of it.
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).
So the PA's proposal is better... but you can't/won't explain how, other than to say it's not their issue to solve the leagues problems?

While I admit I haven't done the numbers on their latest/3rd proposal, the PA's first few proposals are not better for the NHL long term. And the latest one is 50%+some money, so long term it won't be much different than the NHL's proposal.

Yet when the league try's to solve the issue, the PA screams bloody murder. None of the PA's proposals addresses revenue disparity in any meaningful way. Every offer they've put forward is all about the PA getting as much money as possible and eliminating any risk should revenues not increase.

Riptide is online now   Reply With Quote