ColoradoHockeyFan said:
Ok, what I said was linkage is essentially revenue sharing -- obviously there are other factors involved, but they all relate to linkage.
Ok, with a 55% linkage cap, the players will argue that smaller market teams will spend far less than 55% because they can. Which is why you would set a mininum, which should also be linked to revenues. Something like a 33% floor, and a 55% ceiling. The NHL wants linkage, and they've said they are open to setting a floor to the cap as long as it isn't something completely one-sided.
The further arguement is that the smaller market teams will then only spend up to the floor figure set by linkage (in this example, 33%). That may be true, but it is a losing battle for the players to demand that the NHL teams do extensive revenue sharing among themselves or set arbitrary figures in what they must share (last one I heard around the season cancellation was $9M).
Furthermore, that will not even solve the problem.
The problem as it currently stands is that smaller market teams cannot compete with the big markets because the bar is set way out of their means ($30M vs. $90M). With linkage, the bar is set to a figure equaling the average revenues for all NHL teams. So while the Maple Leafs will still make a lot of money, the amount they can spend on players will be restricted to the NHL average and the small markets will be able to ice competitive teams, and inturn, better their financial position.
Does this mean that it will eliminate all underproductive teams completely? Probably not (and don't bet on that ever happening), but at the very least it improves the outlook for those small markets that do want to compete, which increases the revenues for the league overall, which increases the linked cap (and, just as importantly, the linked minimum).
Any excuse that an owner may have to ice a shoddy product before the lockout (ie. we can't compete with the big markets) will now be thrown out the window, resulting in more pressure from the fanbase to get their act together. Resorting to arbitrary amounts that owners must share only subsidizes these owners that have no interest in running a successful franchise.
So I argue, if the players could see the big picture (for a change), they'd see that even though the owners like linkage -- it doesn't necessarily mean that they like it because it allows them to screw the PA over (more of that delusional paranoia). If the PA abandons this one-way sliding linkage stance, and instead goes for a linked floor/minimum stance they would be better off in the long run. But I am not convinced that the PA has any interest int he "long run", so it all may be for not.
Edit: A 33% floor is a bit low, admittedly. But that should be the point of contention for the NHLPA. A 45% floor and a 55% ceiling is probably more realistic.