View Single Post
09-24-2004, 03:47 PM
Registered User
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 1,471
vCash: 500
Originally Posted by Legolas
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.
So what you are saying is that the owners have the responsibility to invest tens to hundreds of millions of dollars, get no guarentee on thier investment so Joe Sakic, Bobby Holik, et al can make lots and lots of money? You said it yourself, this is the livelyhood for the players. The owners are already doing their part by capitilizing the sport. Now that they've done that you say they have no right to collectively bargain. But the players have the right to protect the status quo even if it hurts the NHL as a whole? The owners have already done their part and therefore, as parters, HAVE A RIGHT to a portion of the gross revenue. They have an equal right to the players to the revenue and an equal right to collectively bargain. The owners are at a distinct disadvantage because they must do their 'policing' via the CBA. Any other way of preventing a minority of owners who overspead on certain players (we all know who they are) outside of the CBA would be labeled COLLUSION. For years the MLB players whined that MLB owners needed to police themselves. This last off season was the 2nd off season were the biggest contract was not as big as the biggest from the previous season. What did I read agents and some players saying? The C word: Collusion.

I also don't understand the trust issue. The NBA and NFL have caps and both are tied to revenue. They seem to be thriving. If the players will accept a cap if the owners go to 3rd party accountants using GAAP (Generally Accepted Accounting Principles) and the owners say no, then I'll change my mind and side with the players. What do the owners tax returns say? If there's rampant hanky panky with the numbers, where is the IRS and the canadian equivalent?

LastoftheBrunnenG is offline