Everyone else has offered an opinion, vented frustration, expressed disappointment with the NHL Lockout.
Here's mine.
I've tried to look at the dispute with both sides equally in mind. It doesn't help to take sides, because taking one side or the other only adds to the enmity ... and there's more than enough of that to go around.
I tried to come up with something new, something different. The more I looked at the problems, the more it kept hitting me that the disparity between large-revenue and small-revenue clubs, the salary cap, and the way Hockey Related Revenue keeps growing is part of the problem, but can be part of the solution.
With the last CBA that was written in 2005 after a one-season lockout, the salary cap was determined by a percentage of HRR, with a floor and a ceiling. The problem has been that the clubs that contribute an inordinate percentage of the revenue have made it harder for the small-market clubs to profit since the salary cap is determined by a percentage of the whole pot of revenue.
What if each team's salary cap number was based on its individual HRR, plus an agreed-upon revenue sharing system that included revenue earned through national TV and sponsorships? In other words, the Toronto Maple Leafs' salary cap would be much larger than the Florida Panthers' salary cap, but not that much larger than the floor-ceiling range.
Could the Panthers compete if they couldn't pay as much as the Leafs? If they didn't have to? Well, NHL teams that spend to the floor have competed well with the clubs that spend every penny. It could work.
My idea would mean NHL owners would have to agree to increase their revenue sharing pool, but not so much that they could not improve their chances for fair profit.
It would mean NHL players would have to agree to decrease their overall take, but not so much that they would not see salaries continue to rise as long as the game keeps growing.
Just an idea. One I haven't seen before.
No comments:
Post a Comment