View Single Post
09-11-2004, 05:27 PM
Russian Fan
Registered User
Join Date: Feb 2003
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,475
vCash: 500
Send a message via ICQ to Russian Fan
Originally Posted by Sanderson
It's not bad management when someone wants a salary comparable to someone working in a way more lucrative market. The GM wouldn't suddenly stop to spend more money than he should, because he would loose even more. If your income is based on your employee's reputation, you just cannot choose a salary that works for you.

The owners know that some of them spent more money than they had. Most of them didn't want but had to, so their income wouldn't reduce even more.
Now they want to correct this and the employees do everything to prevent them from reaching their goal, because they would loose money and influence...

A union should have no influence whatsoever on what the owners can and want to spend. They should be there to prevent a rich company from lowballing their employees, not stopping a company with problems from consolidation.

If the NHL really had a free market, there would be no Arbitration and no guaranteed contracts. The teams should be able to fire their employees if they want to, without having to pay a big compensation.
Because companies in reality, using a free market system, tend to do that, if they are in financial trouble...
Let's say you are the owner of the franchise that lose 9,323,342$ this year.

You want a new CBA because the numbers seems high & you have a good chance that you might convince the FANS!!! that it's the players fault & the CBA if you loss that money.

Now as an owner , you bought an NHL franchise because
1) you are rich
2) you are a succesfull businessman that own a few companies that last year altogether make you richer of 23,544,294$

So as a successful owner of some succesfull companies , you go deeper into your NHL franchise to discover that the ARENA lease your director of operations sign gives you no leverage to make revenues. What do you do ?

Is it bad management ? or because of the CBA ?

If the market that you're in & the management off-ice hockey is not doing their job, maybe there's a difference between LOSING 9M$ & making 15M$


The Pittsburgh Penguins TODAY is losing money mostly because their revenues can't match their expense. (ECONOMICS 101).

Is it the CBA's fault ? The Pens is having one the lowest payroll of the NHL, can you blame the CBA for that ?

If the Pens got one of the WORST ARENA LEASE in the NHL & because of that, there's a difference between 0$ in REVENUES in that department & making 25,000,000$ in REVENUES with a NEW ARENA.

Is it the CBA's fault ?

Is it the players fault if the Penguins are in a market where they have the oldest arena in the league & in this arena they have one of the worst lease that can't give them any revenue like the other NHL franchises ?

Stop thinking about John Leclair or Bobby Holik 1 SECOND. Even if the Penguins got 25M$ in their pocket tomorrow , they wouldn't sign Holik @ 9M$. The GM's are so aware today of the economics that they are SHY to give 7M$ to Ziggy Palffy or Pavol Demitra. GM's are shy to give 5M$ to Alex Kovalev.

Can you call that MARKET CORRECTION without HAVING a NEW CBA ?

Do you see why people are so ignorant ? Go in deep of every franchise, you will find they are losing money because they some idiots in that franchise that is doing HIS JOB so bad that not even a charity event would want him close to him.

Russian Fan is offline