Who's side are you on if you were forced to pick sides? The owners? ... or the NHLPA?
View Single Post
10-07-2012, 10:58 AM
24 and Counting
Join Date: Feb 2010
Originally Posted by
I find this whole "owners take all the risks" mostly an argument that makes little sense. If the owners "were willing to take all the risks" and if they took a "risk" by buying a franchise and now they are in trouble, isn't that the "risk" they took?
Why change the rules of the game? The owners made a bad bet that they lost and they should take losing like a man (or a woman), and not trying to change the rules of the game so they (the ones who took all the "risks") are now taking no "risks" and the cities their team they own plays in or the players end up taking all the "risks".
My feeling on the subject is that if the cities and the players are going to pay the risk premium they should own the teams outright in a partnership deal and let the owners take their bag of money and go elsewhere. There is a lot of money available for financing a project like this if it is done properly, the owners are the ones who aren't needed in today's world
Its a good theory in principle but I promise you this, less than 3% of the players in the league will stake their life savings on owning a NHL team. You want to know why....too Risky!!!
maybe 10 of the owners dont care either way, their teams will make massive piles of money anyways, Habs, Leafs ETC. This whole thing is about the 10 teams that feel lucky to break even and the 5-6 who lose massive piles of cash every year.
We are 6 pages into this thread and I still dont see 1 argument that makes me think a 50-50 split is not a fair deal. Every one of us here knows that the owners wont cave until they get the 50-50. The players would still get 50% of HRR and pay 0% of league costs. I dont see why that isnt fair....
Last edited by IceDaddy: 10-07-2012 at
View Public Profile
Find More Posts by IceDaddy