2012 Lockout Discussion Thread
View Single Post
08-16-2012, 06:13 PM
Join Date: Oct 2011
Originally Posted by
And I don't necessarily see how having the owners pay all of these perks somehow benefits the business. Each owner is doing it because he has to. Because another owner is doing it. So it's only a benefit because each owner needs to do it to maintain competitive. It's like a cold war for player perks.
Your argument is very circular. This is just the free market at work. They don't have to do this, they could shove the players in 3 star hotels and regular flights. But it would negatively affect their business.
But to your point, that's kind of why I have no patience for the players and their "let's work together as partners" BS. IF it's not going to be a partnership, then I have no issue with a system that
allows all the owners to make profits
. They are taking the largest risks (financially speaking, I know the players take the physical risks.
Off to the Bomber game!
You're looking in the wrong spot to do that. It's not in the CBA especially in the form of players salary. Maybe in the form of revenue sharing. The worst teams in the NHL would not pull a profit with the most generous CBA. That has to come from ownership, management, or relocation.
Trimming the amount of teams wouldn't hurt either.
View Public Profile
Find More Posts by allan5oh