View Single Post
12-28-2012, 11:17 PM
Registered User
_Del_'s Avatar
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: SkullcrusherMountain
Posts: 5,165
vCash: 50
Originally Posted by CrazeeEddie View Post
This exactly. However, at the end of the day none of it matters. There are not 30 markets in NA that can support a 60m payroll for hockey. There may not even be ten. Until the NHL can get salaries under control, most of the teams are doomed to fail. With salaries under control, the possibilities are endless.
Without a cap and revenue sharing, the league needs to cut 15-20 teams. Everyone knows that is ridiculous (well, reading this thread, apparently not everyone). The questions for the players remain "do we prefer 500 players under higher contracts or 30 teams and twice as many players with slightly lower contracts?" It's an easy question to answer.
And for the owners, "are we willing to invest a reasonable and substantial amount of our money to insure parity and growth with all the benefits that come with that?" Even the dozen owners that could afford sixty million dollar payrolls can see the long-term benefit of a larger league and a level playing field. Now they just have to decide how much of their own money they're willing to invest in the league instead of directly into their team.
I've been largely pro-owner in the debate, but the current system is heavily flawed and much of that rests on the league not expanding in a controlled manner and on individual owners not controlling their purse strings.

_Del_ is offline   Reply With Quote