Quote:
Originally Posted by ricardodw
And yet the NHL owners are giving out HUGE contracts that are not justified by any foreseeable increase in revenue.
The cap should be 63M (without Ticket sales revenue) with the players writing off 20% to escrow which they will never get. The actual cap would be closer to 50 M with the players being paid what their contracts call for.
The 81.5 CAP will weed out the weaker franchises... defeating the whole idea of the CAP being good for the overall league.
If the the bulk of the teams spend 75-81 M on salaries we come back to the pre CBA days where the rich owners eat their losses and/or rely on non-hockey revenue to cover them and the Flames, Oilers and Jets will move to a smaller internal cap and sell off their better players in an effort to curtail the losses.
The economic climate in Alberta does not bode well for government support and tax relief.
The TV networks are not going to give a HUGE long term deal for a league in trouble.
|
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).