RandV said:People who think the owners are the sole reason for salaries getting out of hand need to pick up a dictionary and look up a little word known as "collusion".
But anyways, nhl.com has put up a comparison of the offers, and one thing stands out for me that seems really screwed up.
Says the same thing in the full write up to. With the 1/30 share thing, do they mean that all cities have an equal share in the league, ala communism, or is it capitalist and your share is what you bring in. Because if it is, it does not set a cap at like $35-40 mill or whatever, like people are saying. Let's make up some numbers here, and say the Avalanche brings in $100mil for the season, while the small market Oilers only rake in $50mil US. According to the "their 1/30 share", the Avalanche will have a payroll in the 51-57 million range, whereas the Oilers are limited to 25.5-28.5 million salary range. Ok, this would guarantees the financial well being of the league... but it completely $%&*%#@ over the fans! Just when the Colorado's and Detroit's were starting to decline too, you're gonna lower the UFA age to 30 and let them continue to spend more than other teams. God help us if the Rangers ever get it together.
Unless they're going 1/30th the Commie way, then I'm all for it.
What it is saying is that the league will take all revenues and add them up then divide by 30 and multiply by .51 and .57. Each team must spend between that range. No less, no more. It might end up being 65% of some teams "income" but only 45% of another teams income. In the example they used each team would have a payroll between 34.6 and 38.6 million dollars. There will be some sort of revenue sharing but they have not discussed that.