View Single Post
10-07-2012, 11:42 AM
the random dude
Frozenice's Avatar
Join Date: Jan 2010
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,397
vCash: 500
Originally Posted by HabsRock View Post
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....
That's not how it works in the world of finance nowadays.

Take a look at Four Season's Hotels (from Wikipedia):

In 1974, cost overruns at a Vancouver property nearly led the company into bankruptcy. As a result, the company began shifting to its current, management-only business model and eliminate costs associated with buying land and buildings and instead begin earning profits once the hotel opens. The company went public in 1986.

------ -------------- --------

The players would run a management-style company and real estate funds and real estate companies would own the arenas. It would take away almost all of the risk away from the players.

Frozenice is offline