Owners or Players??
View Single Post
09-14-2004, 01:54 PM
Join Date: Feb 2002
someone out there's willing to take a flyer on the Canucks and there have been some ownership changes over the last few years, so the money's being spent. And contraction does a few things: it should increase the product on the ice through attrition of many marginal players. It should further cut the losses of the league as a whole as a few unprofitable teams would be perished. The increase in product quality should result in increase in viewership which could lead to better TV and marketing deals, better attendance, etc. Of course this should be in conjunction with other inititatives, such as spending money on getting quality refereeing and perhaps other areas including getting the hockey word out (supporting more youth programs, education,etc.) that would make the sport more attractive, etc.
And of course those teams struggling at the bottom of the pile would enjoy some of the benefits of the Rangers, Flyers, etc. getting taxed who at some point would have to restrain because they are in it to make a profit, after-all, and there is a limit to what they would spend, even for Cablevision.
The debate's funny as I read the garbage I spew out. It's really in line with our political affiliations [not to spark a political debate, but it's very clear].
View Public Profile
Find More Posts by Fletch