nyr7andcounting
Registered User
- Feb 24, 2004
- 1,919
- 0
Their incentive is to make more money, which is why every owner owns a team isn't it? If the owners didn't care about annual bottom lines, than why did they present the Levitt Report as their justification for a lockout? They have a clear reason to increase revenues with a leaguewide cap...make more money that year AND the more revenues your team brings in, the more it's going to sell for.Icey said:I don't think it is at all. If all thirty teams have the same payroll cap what is the incentive for any team to increase their revenue? Absolutly nothing because it doesn't mean they can spend more on players, it just means the owner gets richer and that doesn't help the sport or the fans.
I agree the owners shouldn't be making ridiculous amounts of money because it doesn't help the sport or the fans...that's why I have always been against a restrictive cap if there is no revenue sharing involved.
Their cap would never change but they would lose a hell of a lot of money. There's probably going to be a floor around $25M-$35M, so your revenues keep dropping and you are going to be bankrupt pretty soon...not to mention you can't sell a team with no revenues for much. Seems like owners have enough incentives to create revenues already. You seem to be underestimating the importance of $$$ to these owners.Icey said:And the same for the flip side of the equation, a teams revenues could go down season after season and their cap would never change. A team by team salary cap based on revenue makes sure owners and GM's continue to grow the sport and it rewards those who do TO A LIMIT, and I think the limit is key. It's not saying Toronto and Philadelphia can continue to spend whatever they want on payroll, but it says that since they are making more than their share of the revenues, they can spend a set amount more on payroll. This doesn't allow them to sign every FA on the market, it allows them to sign maybe one or two top notch players.
And I agree that teams making more should be able to spend more, but how is that not taken care of in a $30M-$50M payroll range? The more you make, the more you can spend, but to a reasonable amount. If the Oilers are spending $35M, the same is true...the more they make the more they can spend without losing money.
It's one thing to put a restrictive cap on the league to control the big spenders...but the idea of each team having a different cap based on their revenues is ridiculous. If each team had a cap at 55% of THEIR revenues, tell me this. How is that any different than each owner being fiscally responsible and ticking to a budget (which they might determine is at 53% or maybe 58% of their revenues)? Are you telling me these owners are THAT stupid, that we need to set their budget for them AND cap it, so they can't spend beyond that? If that's the case, and this is the deal, than I will be very very pissed. Everyday it seems more and more to me like these owners could have solved their problems themselves but they knew that a CBA with a cap and linkage would boost their franchise values, and if they had to run over the PA and the fans to get it they were going to. I mean you want to legally set their budgets....they could have done that themselves if they had half a brain. The league needs revenue sharing...the owners could have solved that on their own a long time ago. Had the owners done that and slapped on a $50M cap just so NYR, DET etc would stop driving a market that's way too high for other team's budgets...maybe made adjustments to QO's and arbitration...seems to me it could have worked. The two biggest changes, budgets and revenue sharing, could have been instituted in a day and almost without any interaction with the PA...but I guess sticking to a budget doesn't do much for the value of your franchise.