1. as far as the parity in the league....is it possible that we already have too much? Haven't the last few finals that involved small market, non-traditional clubs gotten absolutely horrible ratings? I agree that the finances need to be spread around to help certain teams, But don't we want the Detroits and Montreals and Colorados in the later rounds of the playoffs? Shouldn't they be able to put together big clubs but help out others by doing so through a stiff tax? We always need that cinderella team, sure, and that team will always be there when one small market club spends their tax money wisely, But c'mon, if it wasn't for the fact that one of the teams in the final this year was canadian, NOONE would have watched it. The big clubs need to be there. 2. What is with the insistince of linkage? A cap, Ok. I think it is too radical a change all at once, and for the reason stated above, I'd prefer trying a VERY punitive tax at first, but it could work. Not one tied to revenues, however. Based loosely on revenues, sure, but strict to the point of "if we pay you too much, you have to pay us back from an escrow account" is completely insane. If they need that much certainty, they shouldn't be in business. I agree that the players need to HELP fix the game, not run it for the owners. And linkage actually hampers growth. It is the stupid retail way of doing things.....watch this example.... Where I work, sunday is time and a half, so they cut to bare bones staff even though it is the busiest day of the week. My department does 10 grand on avg on sunday with 24 man-hours we go down a couple grand on any given Sunday and the store mgr yanks 4 hours away from us....linkage! result, the following Sunday is almost guaranteed to be busier, but now we are short 4 hours, the job doesn't get done and we lose out on sales and profits. We are barely able to hit the same number as the week before because we simply cannot get enough product out. now you would think he'd give us those hours back to get sales back up, but today's business men are so focused on the bottom line and the numbers, that all he sees is that we did the amount of business we should with the amount of help that we had. The link to revenues was in balance. They don't look at lost potential sales as lost revenue. Our Sunday "cap" can't be based on one week, and the NHL's can't be based on one season. If this happens in the NHL, especially if there is a cap this season, (if there is one) based on the 2.1 billion figure and next years is based on a pro-rated (inflated to approximate 82 games) amount of this season's revenue, the cap is going to get cut almost in half, because I imagine the league will take a big hit from this mess. I am afraid that if the league does not choose to invest in the staff first in order to get bigger profits later, it will start a downward spiral that could eventually cause the NHL to no longer be the top paying league in the world, especially if the game continues to grow at the rate it is in europe. A long shot, but a possibility. Some guys are making as much as 3 million this year over there. Sorry this is so long winded, but I needed to get all of that out!