PeterSidorkiewicz
HFWF Tourney Undisputed Champion
Coolburn said:You see the NHL has just as much to lose from an extended lockout as the players. You think any of the owners that borrowed money from banks don't have to make payments during the lockout? Of course they do. Without revenues coming in at all, that's gonna be tough to keep doing that. And that's not going to be good for the league if teams start going bankrupt just to get a cap...and who would want to take a chance and buy an organization in the middle of stalled labor negotiations??
The "No matter how long it takes" stance by both sides is stupid and assinine because it solves nothing. Until I start hearing about significant revenue sharing that goes along with the league's salary cap stance, I'm just more likely to not come back when this does get resolved. And the players keep talking about this themselves: 'Sources also say the players aren't pleased with the NHL's proposal on revenue sharing, citing it as not "meaningful" enough.' And the NHL is using the same tactics that the players are...its HARD CAP and that's it (well now its triple cap too). I think you'd see some more possibilities of discussion if the league just considered moving off of the hard cap and maybe towards a combination soft cap/luxury tax system with 40% gate revenue shared among all teams that met certain financial criteria (minimum team payroll, minimum attendance figures, etc).
I agree 100% with you on all of that.