View Single Post
08-17-2012, 08:53 AM
Registered User
Huffer's Avatar
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 10,362
vCash: 50
Originally Posted by allan5oh View Post
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.
How is it circular? The point is the owners only provide these perks because the owner down the street does. It only takes 1 owner to start giving their players flavored water before the next one decides to give their players flavored water AND gummy bears.

It wouldn't affect the business at all if all of these costs were capped, or if the players had to pay for them.

That's the point on this one. The owners are only paying for all of these perks because they have to. Remove the need for all the owners to "keep up with the Jones's", and see what happens.

Originally Posted by allan5oh View Post
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.
The CBA is the only mechanism that owners can use to try to create a system that allows them to make money.

If it doesn't come from the CBA, it's not going to come from anywhere else.

Huffer is offline