View Single Post
09-15-2012, 03:50 PM
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: BC
Country: Canada
Posts: 13,475
vCash: 500
Originally Posted by macavoy View Post
What you don't understand is business and math. The lockout benefits the rich teams more than the poor ones in the long run. Molson is currently paying out 56% in costs to players cost, if they get that down to 49% or whatever, all the extra money he pockets.

10 years making an extra 11% profit is worth more than losing one years revenue. Everything that Bettman can squeeze out of the players goes into his pocket.

If I'm a new owner and planning to be a long term owner, I 100% support breaking the players union a 2nd time because it means in 10 years time, when it comes to the next CBA, it will be easier to get them down to 43%.

You need to think as an owner to understand.
I studied in Natural Sciences and I have a business degree, and I've been in business likely since before you were born. You'll have to get up early to tell me what I need to understand, if I can say without sounding arrogant.

What I do know is that when you take your customers for granted and piss them off, you run the risk of loosing them. And because they came back once doesn't mean that you should run the same risk a second time because at one point, they will tell you to shove it "you know where". That I understand.

Also, there are owners out there who simply can't afford to have empty arenas and need the revenues. Those owners, as Pierre LeBrun pointed out, are not showing a strong support to Bettman and the NHL and they certainly don't want another lengthy lockout. I understand that too.

Habsterix* is offline   Reply With Quote