SENSible1*
Guest
Unlike salaries, ticket prices in each market are set independently. A cap on salaries at least provides the opportunity for teams to cut ticket prices and certainly provides the opportunity for fans in big markets to demand this concession as profits rise.Newsguyone said:This is my beef.
If the owners were willing to make four promises, I'd join their side:
1. We will cap ticket prices for the duration of the contract.
In addition, the PA has ZERO interest in seeing ticket prices (revenues) drop and have done nothing to support fans in this area.
At best an issue that should leave you equally pissed at both sides.
The owners have offered to share profits with the players. Neither side has suggested they be funneled to marketing or building the sport.2. We will cap profits. Excess profits will go into a fund run by the NHL and the PA and will be used market the game of hockey or build the sport in Canada and the US.
At best an issue that should leave you equally pissed at both sides.
The NHL has offered revenue sharing sufficient to allow all team to meet the cap minimum.3. As well as a salary cap, there will also be significant revenue sharing.
The PA has asked for more revenue sharing and an unlinked system in order to increase their take.
The owners should increase revenue sharing, but only if the PA agrees to linkage.
The stands taken by both sides to this point should leave you equally pissed at both sides.
4. We will attempt to bring hockey back to Winnipeg and we will explore hockey in Quebec City.
The NHL's position and a low linked cap is the only scenario where this is even a remote possibilty.
The PA's position is that small markets should die.
The only possible reaction to the two sides postions on this issue is your 100% support for the league.
Glad to know that the NHL will have another passionate hockey fan in their corner after you examine these issues.