no owner should take home more than the single highest paid player.

[Crosbyfan]

To be fair, a lot of cap-and-revenue-sharing proposals are pretty close to communism themselves. Even more horrifying an idea than a hard cap is the suggestion that fans in one city should be paying part of their ticket prices to give to another team so they can sign players and directly compete with the team they are paying to see. Thankfully I don't think either side has tabled a marxist revenue sharing plan along the lines of what some fans want to see.

Why would you not be willing to pay to watch an out of town team? Would you rather just watch your home team practise/scrimmage?

 

[Epsilon]

Why would you not be willing to pay to watch an out of town team? Would you rather just watch your home team practise/scrimmage?

That argument carries no weight because it applies equally to every team. What I am saying is that there is no way the fans of teams like Toronto, Montreal, Detroit, Colorado, etc., who pack the building every night, should see some of the money they spend on their tickets going to Chicago, Carolina, and Boston who can't break 10000 a night.

 

[Blind Gardien]

That argument carries no weight because it applies equally to every team. What I am saying is that there is no way the fans of teams like Toronto, Montreal, Detroit, Colorado, etc., who pack the building every night, should see some of the money they spend on their tickets going to Chicago, Carolina, and Boston who can't break 10000 a night.

That's pretty much what the owners are saying, right? They don't mind using some non-gate-receipt revenues from TV or advertising to pay into a little revenue sharing pool, but they (they = teams that do ok) don't want to pay anything out from their gate receipts, and they want to minimize the revenue sharing aspect of the new CBA. By contrast, the NHLPA would like to expand on revenue sharing, because while the rich teams will always spend, it would help their case to see the poorer teams have a few extra $ to throw around too.

The only argument for revenue sharing of gate receipts is the one whereby you say the visiting team somehow deserves part of the take, because some people are more likely to pay to come and see that particular visiting team than they would be to see another. But that's just a rich-get-richer scenario, mostly, since the most popular out-of-town draws are usually teams that are doing fine themselves, and nobody wants to pay to watch Carolina or Florida as a visiting team either. Meanwhile, the Montreal, Toronto, Detroit, etc franchises are going to sell out the building regardless of whether it's Carolina or Colorado coming to town.

 

[garry1221]

maybe im not clear ?

we dont tell the sales manager for BC that he cant have a raise because we have a salary cap. we pay him what is fair for his position and his experiance and we arent forced to let him go to the competition if this amount doesnt fit under an artficial barrier.

i think we are off topic now.

dr

this is an interesting point and i'll agree to the point that a place of business shouldn't have to give up someone just because they don't fit under an artificial cap, however would your place of employment keep handing out raises if revenue streams got smaller and smaller?

my guess is no, because as most owners do they want to turn a profit and wouldn't give someone a raise if it meant going in the red or even lower in the black. if you could prove otherwise i think we'd all be very interested to hear.

 

[ShippinItDaily]

That argument carries no weight because it applies equally to every team. What I am saying is that there is no way the fans of teams like Toronto, Montreal, Detroit, Colorado, etc., who pack the building every night, should see some of the money they spend on their tickets going to Chicago, Carolina, and Boston who can't break 10000 a night.

Yes it should because there is no league without the weaker teams. Toronto doesnt have a game to play if there is only Toronto in the league.
Sorry I haven't read all of the posts in this thread but I am wondering if you are totally against revenue sharing of gate recieipts or just sharing between 2 teams who are not in close competition with each other relatively.

 

[Brent Burns Beard]

this is an interesting point and i'll agree to the point that a place of business shouldn't have to give up someone just because they don't fit under an artificial cap, however would your place of employment keep handing out raises if revenue streams got smaller and smaller?

my guess is no, because as most owners do they want to turn a profit and wouldn't give someone a raise if it meant going in the red or even lower in the black. if you could prove otherwise i think we'd all be very interested to hear.

yes and no. if someone rises from sales manager to vp of sales, shouldnt he be given a raise ? why would he agree to it if he wasnt ? this has nothing to do with a salary cap though or the companies profitability.

i think what you mean is would a company raise their employee budget if it wasnt profitable. In most cases they wouldnt, but I am not suggesting the owners shouldnt spend outside their means either.

is this thread off topic enough ?

dr

 

[Hockey_Nut99]

If half of the players in the NHL were like NCAA backetball coach Mike Krzyzewski , this league would be a better place. "Duke has always taken up my whole heart," Krzyzewski said Monday after turning down an offer to become the Los Angeles Lakers' head coach. He turned down 8 MILLION dollars a year for 5 years becasue he loved where he was at in DUKE...

I wish players would follow their heart more, rather than their bankbooks

 

[Steve Latin*]

no owner should take home more than the single highest paid player.

why should one owner make more money than any player ? what has he done to deserve it ? put up money ? ok, thats why he he gets paid as if he was actually the #1 player in the league. .

you think hockey owes Bill Wirtz more than it owes a Steve Yzerman ?

when the owners can formulate their "cost certainty" plan to guarantee this, then they might be on to something.

This is laughable. If this were the case, the league would fold and the owners could make more money dumping their capital in a stockmarket index fund. A $10 million dollar annual return on a franchise valued at over $100 million just sucks.

S L