Yup
The players arguements dont hold much water:
[Toronto or New York is pulling in hundreds of millions of dollars in revenue, players want the opportunity for a piece of that pie. Players are of the opinion that if a team has the money to spend, they should be allowed to spend it. They don't want to be the ones penalized for certain teams' spending habits. If anyone, those teams should be penalized. That's where luxury taxes come into play. It's only fair, right?] Quote
If the league has more money, the players get more as a negotiated percentage.
[Secondly, a cap based on a % of average revenues dampens their earning potential because new teams have been brought into poor markets, which generate little revenue. These revenues pull the league-wide revenues down, and hurt all the players. The league is making a pile in franchise fees, at the players' expense.]quote
No, the players whose jobs would be lost without those teams stand to lose alot if those jobs arnt there. Also, generally a larger market helps produce interest and thus league profits.... which I'll remind you, the players get their percentage of.
[Third, in order to effectively tie salaries to revenues, the players would have to rely upon the quoting of revenues stated by the owners. How can the players trust the owners in such a situation? These owners don't open their books to anybody, and stand to lose nothing and gain everything if they understate their revenues. Look at the glaring differences between the Leavitt report, and Forbes' report. The owners simply cannot be trusted to accurately disclose revenues.[/QUOTE]
The idea that money can be hidden is laughable, as long as they negotaiate the revenues which are hockey related there wont be a problem with the accounting. Of course this is the sticking point, but I dont see how the players, as employees, can argue in court they deserve a share of the franchise value increase, so they may as well stop dreaming about it.