View Single Post
10-19-2012, 09:36 PM
Registered User
NORiculous's Avatar
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Montreal
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,711
vCash: 945
Originally Posted by DAChampion View Post
That is not economically valid.

The financial risks are already factored into the price necessary to purchase an NHL team.

Geoff Molson paid 500 million to own the (Habs + The Bell Center). If the NHLPA got 37% rather than 57%, he might have had to pay 650 million or so, and we'd be right back at square one. Conversely, if the players got 72% as they used to when player salaries via a free market system before the salary cap, he would have to pay a lot less. George Gillette bought the whole thing for ~$150 million in 2002 or so.

Last time around, the owners thought they got the long end of the stick and that shows that have no idea what it means to run a business.

I agree with you on the benefits of long-term investment.

However, if it's a long-term investment, it is irrational to expect it to be profitable in the short-term.
Once you have paid 500M, you need to make much more profit for it to be a good investment then if you had paid 200M. So yes, it is still a valid point even if ehar you are saying has some logic, it doesn't cover that fact.

Last time around owners were happy to have fixed a broken system. Right now they don't want ti change the system, they want to tweek it so it become profitable for more teams. When that happens, the playerd will also win.

I havent read the 75000 pages of fincials the league sent to the NHLPA but I would guess that PHObhad a part to play in the TV contract and thus making it, overall, cashflow positive or not that far from it. But that is the kind of stuff we probably will never know.

NORiculous is offline