Quote:
Originally Posted by powderjunkie
The owners agreed to the CBA extension, too. They are paying out more now, but will pay less in the back half of the extension to even out.
A few franchises may be at risk no matter how the parties agreed to proceed. That won't be a surprise to any of them, and I'm sure they're already working to figure it out.
The whole inflating cap design has always been stupid, but the players were dumb enough to buy the idea that it meant more money for them than it ever did/does/will. The cap numbers themselves are arbitrary substitutions for %'s of %'s of %'s.
Players would have been better off with a consistent 90-110% (or 80-100%, even these numbers don't really matter) cap design because it would have forced them to do the 9th grade math and critical thinking to understand how it actually works instead of bemoaning how their take-home pay is so much lower than the number on the contract they signed (the same reality for all of us).
|
I am not sure that the Rangers, Habs, Leafs, Bruins, Hawks, Kings, Flyers owners sitting around a table trying to figure out how much of their revenue should be diverted to supporting Small Market Teams.
Are Winnipeg, Edmonton, Calgary, Ottawa big assets in working out a US TV contract... Or even a Canadian TV contract. How many less viewers would HNIC have with Montreal, Toronto and Vancouver as the Canadian teams in the package?
Their revenue and profits will go up if there is a contraction.
How did the small market owners agree to a 81.5 M cap when their break even point would be a 63M cap?
Really agree with you in the mess that escrow and now delayed escrow has on players salaries.
Maybe the NHL should move to paying players with NHL backed crypto currency that the owners control the value and utilization to make purchases.