The Iconoclast said:
Because I think the players deserve their fair share. They are not slave labor and deserve to make a good living for what they do. But I also believe that those who invest millions of dollars should also see a return on their investment. Its called being fair.
I agree completely. Where we disagree, is on how to reach this noble goal.
The Iconoclast said:
It's not bad. It's a good thing, and it's called linkage. This isn't a tough concept to understand but you're making it a lot tougher than it has to be. Which is better? A guarantee of 55% of revenues and all teams having to meet these levels, or a system where there is an unreachable salary cap for most teams and a likelihood that not more than three or four teams are going to reach that level?
As I illustrated above, linkage alone will not ensure profitabilty, nor will minimum thresholds. You need a significant revenue sharing plan, that goes above and beyond the needs to meet certain payroll levels.
And that's exactly what linkage does.[/QUOTE]
The owners have said that they will share enough money to ensure that all teams meet minimum payroll thresholds. Great. Does that ensure that these teams will make returns on their investments?
Take our favorite example, Pittsburgh. $22 million payroll, say, losing, again say, $2 million per year. They have to reach a $32 million minimum threshold. So the other owners give them $10 million and they turn around a give it to the players.
They still lose $2 million.
As for the hard salary cap idea, its never been a favorite of mine. Not because I am philosophically opposed to a salary cap, but because I don't see it as being of any use to the teams that its supposed to help. Again, in my opinion the biggest problem facing the NHL isn't the highest salaries (not to say that isn't a problem, just not the biggest one), its the disparity between the rich and poor. Revenue sharing, along the lines of the NFL system, would go a long ways towards fixing that, but I am fully aware that its not really a great option for the current set of NHL owners. Hard to fathom taking money away from retired Ontario teacher to give to a billionaire like Peter Karmonos, for example.
Which is why I have always been in favor of a stiff luxury tax. Its voluntary revenue sharing. If you want to spend money, if you have money to spend, then go for it. That money then goes to teams that don't have it, allowing them to either turn a profit, or go after other players. You spend $60 million on players, then its going to cost you another $15 million in taxes, if not more. I think I worked out once, where based on last season's payrolls, a stiff luxury tax would have generated something like $200 million for distribution around the league. That's a significant number, and probably more than what the owners would otherwise share.
Its not a perfect system by no means, but in my opinion its one that addresses the major needs of all parties (small and big market owners, AND the players) in a more suitable fashion than simply propping up the small markets at a barely sustainable level.