View Single Post
Old
09-24-2004, 02:07 PM
  #11
Legolas
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Toronto, Canada
Country: Canada
Posts: 770
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chelios
I was talking about financial risk, not physical risk. The players have absolutely no financial risk involved while the owners have tons.
To me, financial risk means nothing. If you play the stock market, you've got 100% risk and nobody is watching your back to make sure you will at least break even. Now, the NHL teams definitely deserve a chance to make money, and I agree that some teams may not be able to make money AND be competitive, and I agree that's a problem which requires a new CBA. But just because some owner decides to throw money into a business does not mean that the employees have to help him out and make sure he makes money.

As far as players having financial risk, there's certainly some. It's true that no player is going to ever lose money playing hockey, but the players depend on the league for their livelihood, the owners certainly do not. I can't think of a single owner or corporate owner who absolutely needs their hockey team to do well financially in order to have money overall. All the owners are already wealthy, or the hockey team is a tiny part of their corporate or investment portfolio. A player can get injured and be out of the game forever and never make another cent for the rest of their lives playing hockey. No owner has a comparable situation, as far as I am aware.

Legolas is offline