biased Wings fan here saying: No, I don't care for it.
Teams like Phoenix and Jersey getting as deep as they did is meh for me. Don't care to see this diluted "competition". Let the people that want to sink money into good, winning hockey teams do so. This isn't a board game where everyone gets a roll of the dice and picks up a card. Its the real world, a business, where you play to win. If Phoenix can't support a team, why bother ruining it for everyone else? There are maybe ~10-15k people who actually really care down there, as opposed to the millions who would care if a Wings, Leafs, Rangers team were to fold. Doesn't make sense to ruin it for everyone else just because Phoenix and Atlanta , etc. can't support a team.
It's funny you say this, because the NHL is more profitable since switching to the salary cap.
So I guess the guys who are investing the money are... playing to win. It's a profit venture.
Fair enough. I don't really follow the economics of the NHL too closely, it was more logical to me that teams like PHX and ATL would be bleeding money. I just mainly miss the glory days when we could afford to pay depth players millions
someone in the other read said you cant have a hard cap and revenue sharing and I agree with this. Its one or the other. Revenue sharing with a hard cap is just welfare.
Id rather not ave a cap but I dont thinks its terrible if they do one of the above. Lower the floor too, so teams like that cant put butts in the seats no matter the product dont have to spend as much as they are.
The health, happiness, and fortunes of a person or group.
I know AM radio has demonized the word welfare in the American vernacular, but it's actually a pretty good thing when you're talking the health of the league.
The health, happiness, and fortunes of a person or group.
I know AM radio has demonized the word welfare in the American vernacular, but it's actually a pretty good thing when you're talking the health of the league.
Amen.
As for the cap, do I like it? Meh. Is it necessary? Yes.
What Bench said... well, mostly because I'm too dumb to come up with something pertinent to say on the matter.
As much as I want the Wings to win the Cup every year, the fact that every team is afforded a fighting chance makes the league a viable business proposition. I mean, who in their right mind would want to own a team where one or two win it all every year because they have Steveloads of money?
The health, happiness, and fortunes of a person or group.
I know AM radio has demonized the word welfare in the American vernacular, but it's actually a pretty good thing when you're talking the health of the league.
In a soft cap system the penalty for going over the cap is revenue sharing.
In a hard cap paying into revenue sharing is being penalized for being successful, good management or a desirable location or a combo of any other factors. I dont see any rhyme or reason as to having revenue sharing under a hard cap.
Yes, it keeps the salaries of players from getting to where they were 10 years ago.. though, i'd be more comfortable with a cap that goes no higher than 65m..
If the player's share stays at 57%, use the extra money towards more money in pensions or research on concussions.. Just, something useful
