The old geezer
Registered User
- Feb 10, 2007
- 715
- 0
As I've been preaching for years (though no one's attending church) is that the solution needed to be expense side not revenue side as we are nearly out of revenue tools. It's somewhat moot as such an approach has to be put in place in advance.
I argued at the time we should not raise the cap and instead look at means to derive an expense side approach in contract negotiations. Heck this could have been done in a manner as simple as applying a discount factor to NHL salarie negotiations such as
Player X has a NHL salary = $5M
At the time NHL salary was signed NHL Cap = $50M
HFNHL cap = $40M (80% of NHL)
Therefore equivalent salary = $4M ($5M *80%)
Start negotiating.
At $40M level our financial structure would support a decent balance between teams that will make money and teams that will lose it so there will still be an expense management aspect to the league.
End of sermon.
I argued at the time we should not raise the cap and instead look at means to derive an expense side approach in contract negotiations. Heck this could have been done in a manner as simple as applying a discount factor to NHL salarie negotiations such as
Player X has a NHL salary = $5M
At the time NHL salary was signed NHL Cap = $50M
HFNHL cap = $40M (80% of NHL)
Therefore equivalent salary = $4M ($5M *80%)
Start negotiating.
At $40M level our financial structure would support a decent balance between teams that will make money and teams that will lose it so there will still be an expense management aspect to the league.
End of sermon.
While I hear what you're saying, Adil, (and I am obviously working on a solution to my team's situation internally, since I recognize my problems are as much my own making as they are systemic), there are significant factors working against your theory. First, we are a league that requires teams to field competitive rosters (minimum OV rule and restrictions on who you can waive and for how long), so a number of poorer teams have had to spend in ways that are probably unsound from both economic and hockey perspectives just in order to meet their obligations. Second, revenues are strongly tied to peformance in the form of winning streaks, OV80 players, playoffs and endorsements. We ain't the Oakland A's, and this ain't "moneypuck" -- noone's figured out a way to achieve sustainable success on-ice without spending... if not to the cap, certainly above the level of revenues.
So we require teams to be competitive, and only successful teams can make money. That makes it very difficult for teams to pursue your cost-saving strategy, which at best limits losses.