If this issue didn't matter, as some people want to pretend, then why is the NHL fighting it?
The players would rather every player sacrifice in escrow and maintain the market for next year's UFAs.. the actual HRR will catch up in 2-3 years.
It shouldn't matter to the NHL, and I honestly don't see why it does. They're covered by escrow and the 50%+MW. Whether the cap is 60 or 65 shouldn't mean squat to them.
The ONLY reasons I can see them wanting to keep it lower, is so that come year 3 if revenues do not rise enough, that we don't see a decrease in the cap (which is entirely possible - although I doubt it would be going down much). The other reason would be to horse trade for something they want (6/7 yr contract limits, or min 8 yr CBA deal/out clause).
__________________ "Itís not as if Donald Fehr was lying to us, several players said. Rather, itís as if he has been economical with information, these players believe, not sharing facts these players consider to be vital."
If that's the underlying, sustainable reality, then so be it.
It only has to be if you presume that free markets are always the best and anything that deviates must not be "proper." But if a salary cap, revenue sharing and a little bit of cooperation makes everybody better off, you look foolish arguing that everyone should shoot themselves in the foot in order to adhere to an ideology of self-interest.
I fully support a significant contraction of league size. I also strongly advocate for creation of formal second/third tier leagues and instituting promotion/relegation between them.
I want real competition between the very best, not the muddled, mediocre mess the league currently represents.
The NHL will NEVER support contraction because contraction means no major TV contract and everyone (except for some big market sports fans) realizes that TV revenue is the future of professional sports. Even the players and the PA understand that a bigger league equals a bigger/better TV contract which means more revenue to split (not to mention more NHL jobs for players). Again if you are holding out hope for league contraction or the league getting rid of the salary cap you are wasting your time. Go watch junior hockey and be done with the NHL; professional sports in North America are not for you.
It doesn't. It screws with the game itself and punishes the most loyal, largest supporters. I absolutely, completely and utterly reject your belief that it "makes everybody better off".
You are, of course, free to feel that way...
Parity rewards all supporters, and not just some. Would some teams thrive 'more' if it didn't exist? Certainly. But in a longer view, for a sport to grow, and to be able to offer a consistently competitive and entertaining product across the board, parity helps.
The only people who don't want parity, are the fans in wealthier markets who want a championship or a dynasty NOW, and couldn't care less about the NHL in the long-term. Even owners of these teams can recognize the benefits of parity; selfish fans can't.
Fair enough but this "If you truly believe that an uncapped professional sports league is “better” and more successful than a league with a cap in an era of free agency than I suggest you stop watching professional sports. Because the two now go hand and hand and the leagues that have adopted salaries caps are not going back." is not and people like yourself continue to avoid all logic.
The only people who suffer because of revenue sharing is a few butt hurt Bhell India shareholders. I care more about the health of the NHL than I do about the bloated bottom line of the developed world's most greedy and crooked telecommunications firm.
I'm one of those shareholders, and I still fully support RS and league parity over an extra few bucks in the share price.
stupid question: if this ends over the next couple days how does it impact TV contracts? TV execs can't be happy with losing half a year for nothing (I know if the season's cancelled an extra year is tacked on at no charge, but for partial cancellation I'm not sure)
I find the NFL has become increasingly boring, and as the years go by, bearing an increasing resemblance to WWF, less and less about athletic competition and more and more about "storyline".
Spectacle over sport.
I appreciate others see it differently, as is their prerogative.
Spectacle? The problem is people have and continue to present actual evidence as to why the cap is not only good for the league but why because of free agency it will never go away. The "anti-parity" crowd offers nothing more than opinion, and in some cases laughable opinions.
The NFL got its first major tv contract with far fewer teams than the NHL has now.
The NFL was also a second-tier league at that time.
Haha, when exactly was the NFL a second tier league? Are you talking about the 1960's and the AFL/NFL merger because the NFL has been number 1 in TV ratings since the late 1960's? Because I would hope that you are intelligent enough to understand that TV revenue then and TV revenue now is apples and oranges. TV revenue now compared to 20 years ago is apples and oranges due to technology. TV revenue is the future of professional sports, and it's not an opinion it's a fact.