I like this idea as well, never happen though unless the league folds and is resurrected later on. Anyway, a budget amount that is the same for each team is the same as a salary cap which you argued against here. Granted this is a different approach that eliminates owners, but you have to assume that each team does have some sort of CFO/CEO that runs the team. So, what's the difference between a budget set by the league and a salary cap in a CBA?

>I like that idea! Sort of like "house league" for big boys.
>
>
>>I my ideal hockey league, they would be no owners other than the NHL itself. Each team would be like a division that receive a budget from the main board. They would be free of making exchanges and of recruiting new prospects, but inside their allocated budget. Each team would then be equals and the teams that know best it's hockey would have a chance of winning the Stanley Cup. But I can allways dream...
>>
>>When you apply the free market rules in a sport, you get exactly what you see in the real world. The rich can buy what they want and the poor strive to survive.
>>
>>>Then I'd have to ask myself what it is that the owners own... something like a MacDonalds or a LaFleurs?