kdb209 said:
But the Floating Payroll Ranges were based on the previous years payrolls. Once a cap is set for the year, you can't tell certain teams that they can spend to the cap and others that they can't. Of course the result in this case would be that both the floor and ceiling the next year would be the same - either $39M or $30.6M (after escrow rebate).
I think a revenue percentage (51%/57%) or a fixed spread ($16-18M) around the 54% midpoint is a much better scheme than the one from the leagues Feb 2 proposal. That scheme over time reduces the spread between the floor and the cap untill eventually they become the same. The cap would always be lower than the top 5 teams from the previous year and the floor always higher than the bottom 5 - the cap would be the avg of #6-#15 and the floor the avg of #16-#25.
Also the escrow account must have rules or there would be a flaw in the system if there was no checks and balances .. NO??
Lets take big market team and a small market .. The big market team is capped at $39 mil which is far less the 54% and a small market if they spent to the ceiling would exceed it budget by way more then 54% ..
So if all teams spent to the cap then all 30 teams lets say for argument could keep the 15% escrow from the players ..
Aren't we now saying that the ceiling for big market team players is now 15% less?.
No matter what their team does they are controlled by others..
So if the small markets can't control their spending then Joe Sakic and Nik Lidstrom and Mats Sundin
are guaranteed 15% pay cuts each year. These same teams that provided revenue sharing are now contributing to overspending of the other teams .. The NHL's best players because of the biggest salaries lose the most.
There must be something we are missing with either the escrow account or the Revenue sharing rules here .. as this wouldn't make sense ..
So even if small markets get to keep the 15% they spent more 54% and will show a loss on the books .. Big markets that generate in excess of $100 mil and are at the ceiling are now only at 40% .. They too now get to keep and additional 15% from their players ..
I am having trouble grasping this with the concept that this CBA is intended to make all teams competitive and profitable ..
This if all teams spent to the cap concept would make many small markets lose money and big markets would be making $$$$ hand over fist as a result of 15% rebate when they where profitable to start with at the cap ceiling ..
Look at it this way a big market team is rumoured to contribute $ 6-8 mil as revenue sharing for the league to help the small markets.. If we pick NYR or TO and say their market is 100 mil revenue then that means they are contributing 6 - 8 % as revenue sharing .. However in this all teams spend to the cap concept then big markets get a 15% rebate from escrow which is nearly twice as much as they contributed to the revenue pot .. Basically then it means that Big market owners make the profit and big market players are paying the revenue sharing to the small markets out of their pockets because they have no business sense ..
Something is wrong here ..
I believe that the true intention of the Escrow account is to protect the owners if league revenue drops .. They set the floor and ceiling for the next year based on previous year final totals and if the market changes and suddenly league revenue come in lower then expected , then the owners are allowed to withdraw funds from the escrow account to even up the 54% partnership so that both parties are responsible equally for the difference. This rewarding excessive over spending by small markets purposely must be outside that scope of intent of escrow account.