Who's side are you on if you were forced to pick sides? The owners? ... or the NHLPA?
View Single Post
10-05-2012, 11:12 AM
Join Date: Aug 2010
Originally Posted by
Not total revenue, 43% of
revenue. I'm not sure what the difference is, but I bet it's significant.
To me, it's pretty close to the banking collapse in the US - the rich made mistakes and handed the consquences onto the people; in the NHL, the owners made bad business decisions putting/keeping teams in bad markets, so they're trying to get players to cover their mistakes.
The players have the main point exactly right: revenue sharing is what is needed. Gradual reduction in player share to get it closer to 50% over time.
The greedy owners can't share, so they try and take from others. Uber-wealthy greed knows no limit or morals.
No idea how anyone could support the owners in this. I can see not supporting the players either, but I can't see actually supporting the owners.
When someone buys a team for $520 millions......should he make more money than the one who bought another team at $140 millions????
Higher is the risk
Better should be the reward
I.m not saying somekind of help is out of the question.....they are some revenues-sharing as we speak between the teams. NHLPA just don't anything to do with it.
Nerver forget.......according to the numbers in Forbes......Scott Gomez make more moneys than 21 teams last year....is that crazy enough for you!!!!!
View Public Profile
Find More Posts by Milhouse40