The_Garden said:
The owners want cost certainty, but won't speak of revenue sharing. What does a payroll capped at $40 million do for the teams who lost $$'s with lower payrolls?
The NHL just this week in it's offer to the NHLPA had revenue sharing, profit sharing included in the proposal along with an auditor chosen by both sides to oversee what teams are making or losing with fines+ loss of picks for non-disclosure, I think the owners are very serious and will do what it takes to improve the business.
The_Garden said:
The Rangers didn't lose $$'s at high payrolls and didn't make the playoffs, now the may not make the playoffs but they are sure to make $$'s if a cap is in place.
The Rangers reportedly lose between 25-40 million a year (depending on what you read) with a high seventies or eighty payroll which is close to what the Blues claim to be losing. The Garden has few luxury boxes and it's an old facility.
If it comes down to a fifty million dollar cap or whatever it is Cablevision will pay whatever taxes and spend the limit, in the end they still may lose money to operate with such an expensive overhead.
Dolan also owes his remaining fans a ten percent discount and anyone who goes to games knows he could not sellout his own building with that 80 million dollar team, especially on weeknights. Good luck selling a youth movement after a long lockout, the media in NYC would not cover Jagr, Lindros or Leetch last year, why are they going to cover Jed Ortmeyer and Nylander?
More important how is a team that drew television ratings equal to 60,000 homes for all games on Msg last season going to make any revenue?
When Dolan finally has to ice a team without the name players they are going to continue to take the hit they were already taking before the lockout in a corporate building where even the Knicks have only 13,000 season tickets sold and cannot sellout games the past few years. This will not even take into account the apathy after a lockout with the fans and weak hockey media here or how they cannot compete with the other sports in NYC.
The Rangers have some very tough obstacles in front of them.
The_Garden said:
Until the owners are willing to be true partners with each other like the NFL owners are why should the players accept a cap. If the owners want to keep their own revenues and not share then why not a luxury tax system that forces the big spenders to share with the lower revenue teams?
It's not easy to incorporate a system where a team loses revenue but has to share revenue strams. That's another reason this game needs some ecomomic parity.
Unlike the NHL the NFL owners make revenue owing teams and have a great television contact and they do not allow corporations to own teams. The so-called big markets outside of Toronto in hockey are all losing revenue unless were calling Vancouver and Minnesota big markets.
I think you should look at my username Einstein....Oiler fan here...5 cups...and im not a Philles fan. lol....no worries though, I know how delusional it can get in that junkyard they call Pittsburgh
<--- What posting in this thread accomplishes now.
