Who's side are you on if you were forced to pick sides? The owners? ... or the NHLPA?
View Single Post
10-13-2012, 11:57 AM
Join Date: Aug 2003
I'm with the owner on this.
A team is a business, like it or not, and it's the owner that pay the bill. They are also the one who take the financial risk in all this, and in our capitalism reality, risk must be awarded with return. The player also have risk, mostly injury related, but they have insurance for this, and it's a risk that goes with every job. Sure, players may be more at risk that, say, a office worker, but they are paid by hundred thousands dollars, so it is well worth it for them.
For the owner, the risk is a lot bigger. They are vulnerable to market fluctuation, interest rate fluctuation, econimic cycle, ect. Also, even if the profits goes up, not all team in the Nhl are profitable. If you were a business man, would you invest in buying a nhl team when you can make better use of your money with other financial tools like share?
Also, last year, owner made 43% of the income. With this income, they still have to pay for the workers that are involve in the team's activity, the building, the marketing and everything else.
The question is, does the 23 players on the ice deserve to receive more income than the owner and the hundreds, maybe thousand of people working around the team, while taking low risk? I think not.
View Public Profile
Find More Posts by Ritchy