View Single Post
Old
09-11-2004, 08:58 PM
  #69
ladybugblue
Registered User
 
ladybugblue's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Edmonton, AB
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,426
vCash: 500
[/QUOTE]---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
EXAMPLE B : REALITY

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.[/QUOTE]



You are so wrong on so many points...
The Penguins are not an example of what is wrong with the NHL as they are an EXCEPTION. They were in bankruptcy not too long ago and have NEVER been on good footing ever since.

The current CBA cannot change the financial stability of the NHL because of the arbitration system plain and simple. The free agents have not been signed to high paying contracts this summer but all arbitration cases made between 50-75% raises. Now tell me did the player that got 3 more goals this year deserve a 75% raise...I think not. Now long term if the owners did not pay out high free agent signing eventually maybe the arbitration system would become comparable but that may take 10 years and about 10 teams would fold. Plus this whole automatic 10% raise to contracts to qualify restricted free agents are absurb. I would love if I got a 10% automatic raise (even if my company was not doing well) ...There should be arbitration rights for owners when a player is not doing his job on the ice...I don't blame players for taking the money but I don't blame owners wanting to change a system that rips him off.

IT DOESN'T MATTER WHOSE FAULT IT IS...both sides need to work together and fix it...also does Detroit have an idiot running the team because they lost money the last two years?? I don't think so it is just how it has worked for the last ten years or so...Most teams that have gone deep into the playoffs have been high payroll teams and they are gate driven just as much as small market teams. Teams like Detroit need playoff money to offset their high payroll. They lost more money than some of the small market teams because they had two early playoff exits. I don't think Holland is not doing his job right cause it could have gone the other way...you hit a hot goalie and a hungry team...there are no guarantees that your team will preform...look at LA they would have been a pretty good team but they had a lot of injuries...GMs cannot control everything that happens (unlike many regular business')

You wanna be on the side of the players...fine...but there are many fans that are on the side of the owners...people are NOT ignorant if they don't agree with you...BOTH sides got into the mess both need to make compromises

ladybugblue is offline