Who's side are you on if you were forced to pick sides? The owners? ... or the NHLPA?
View Single Post
10-21-2012, 02:04 AM
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Canberra, Australia
Originally Posted by
I'm not arguing Weber's value to Philly. I'm arguing is he worth that market value league wide? Now, yes, he got 110 mil over 14 years but the NHL merely said restrictions on front loading, I'm sure you'll agree that him getting 20 something mil in 366 days isn't very balanced. Not to mention, it's a signing bonus he could technically refuse to pay and be suspended but has already been handed up 12 mil for the year. Now, the owners did it to themselves but at same time there's a big margin between what Philly can afford and what Nashville can. It's still not an even playing field. I don't see front loading limitations as restrictions on players, I see it as restrictions on owners and GMs who are taking advantage of the small market teams. Obviously we'll hear yada yada owners should be partners and so on and so forth but not every player likes each other or agrees with the proposals either. It's life.
What matters is his value to Philadelphia, not his value league-wide. He's specifically more valuable to Philly because they lost Chris Pronger. Player are parts in a whole (the team) and some teams need some players more than others.
The solution to the other problems you list are to get rid of front-loading, back-loading, and to increase revenue sharing.
Originally Posted by
As for the tax money, depends. Quebec city wanted taxpayer money, not sure if they got it, probably though. Katx is pushing in edmonton too. Thing is, the taxpayers would watch hockey and use the arena. In places like glendale it's entirely different as many won't even watch.
Now in regards to it being 'hockey related revenue'. C'mon
If Molson gets a bunch of escorts and brings them to the bell center is it hockey related expenses? If there's a poker night in the board room and house gets a cut, is it hockey related revenue? Granted, I'm OBVIOUSLY going extreme here but in case of PHX or elsewhere taxpayers pay because the building is up and without a tenant they lose significantly more money. The subsidy is a bailout. It's not revenues from anything hockey related at all. Sure, they are paying the team to play hockey there but c'mon, it seems entirely unethical, especially since it's a bailout! Seems extremely excessive.
Direct subsidies to teams should count as HRRs.
If a community wants to build an arena, own it, and rent it to the team at fair market value, it doesn't count as HRR.
The owners are no more and no less ethical to the players here. There should be no subsidies for pro sports.
View Public Profile
Find More Posts by DAChampion