View Single Post
12-06-2012, 12:49 PM
Registered User
YogiCanucks's Avatar
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Vancouver BC
Country: Canada
Posts: 19,652
vCash: 50
Originally Posted by Lacaar View Post
It's also been proven that true market value is detrimental to the long term health of the league. Which the players make their living off of.

More Jobs or bigger salaries. Take your pick.
Nope, it's not one or they other. There are many other economic tools one could use to avoid owners over stretching their means. For example a luxury tax instead of a hard cap.

Originally Posted by Freudian View Post
I think that sponsorship money is gone either way. Most commentators talk about a 56-58 game season if a deal gets done shortly.

I think the sponsors are annoyed as it is, and NHL trying to squeeze in a 61 game season to get full sponsorship money would sour the relationships. Losing 25% of sponsorship money this season is something the league has to chalk up as another cost of the lockout.
I realize this is a BIG if but if a deal were to get done soon, how difficult would it be to squeeze in an extra week of hockey to get to the 61 game? Would it be too much at this point?

YogiCanucks is offline