View Single Post
12-05-2012, 05:34 AM
Registered User
Ola's Avatar
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Sweden
Country: Sweden
Posts: 18,514
vCash: 500
Originally Posted by Beacon View Post
Let me just add this: I don't know how this will fix the NHL's problems. We have teams for whom the salary floor is 75% of their revenue and the salary cap is their whole revenue. So let's say that they go down to paying 65% of the revenue towards the floor and the cap is 90% of their revenue. That is still not sustainable because they have all types of other expenses.

Either we'll have to drop the floor so much that some teams will be able to field a team full of rookies and minor leaguers, getting 30 points per season, or we'll have to face the fact that some teams are just not profitable.

If a team can't afford to spend $50-55 million on player salaries and be profitable, then a question must be raised on either shutting down the team, moving it or having the wealthy teams sponsor it.
"NHL's" problem?

The best definition of the "NHL" in this perspective is the collective group of owners. Given that there is the worst recession 80 years right now, there is only like a 2-3 clubs that are in real trouble. Then there is another handful who aren't likely to thrive.

I am sure a new CBA would help many owners. But at the bottom line, the numbers discussed is basically insignificant to pull anyone over the top so to speak. But why is that an issue for the NHL/collective group of owners? They don't share losses.

This is about:
1. An miscalculation by Bettman and Jacobs who thought the union would implode which would give the NHL a real advantage over other pro-sports (a busted union).
2. Franchise value and profits for the majority of owners, including the richest.

Its never been about Nashville and co.

Ola is offline