Scoogs
Registered User
Probably another Pejorative Slured idea, but here it is anyways.
The owners get a hard cap, but it depends on the revenue and profit from the last year. So if the NHL encounters a really bad year (which has happened quite often), the hard cap moves down to for example, $35mill for the next year.
The NHL has a spectacular year, and profits exceed a certain amount, the hard cap gets moved up to $50mill for the next year.
It all depends on numbers, what is considered a bad year and a good one, which can be worked out. But would this work at all? Is this still considered "cost certainty"?
The owners get a hard cap, but it depends on the revenue and profit from the last year. So if the NHL encounters a really bad year (which has happened quite often), the hard cap moves down to for example, $35mill for the next year.
The NHL has a spectacular year, and profits exceed a certain amount, the hard cap gets moved up to $50mill for the next year.
It all depends on numbers, what is considered a bad year and a good one, which can be worked out. But would this work at all? Is this still considered "cost certainty"?