2012-13 Lockout Discussion Part V: The "Back to square one" Edition
View Single Post
10-24-2012, 03:52 PM
Join Date: Jul 2005
Originally Posted by
Bleed Ranger Blue
In the real world, if a business unit isnt doing well at work, usually the first inclination from management isnt to take the employees' salaries.
The NHL's situation is completely muddled - from ridiculous markets, to poorly run franchises and, yes, to overpaid players.
Are you implying theres nowhere else to cut costs other than the player's salaries? Because that would make you as obtuse as Gary Bettman.
No, I'm implying that when one aspect of a business is sucking up 57% of total revenues, it is logical and optimal to see if you can cut costs there before you cut back on spending on the minimum wage employees running your concession stands, or cut back on stadium costs (since better stadiums makes for a better fan experience), or by cutting back on marketing, since that brings in more business.
I mean, I'm sure there are other ways. I'm just saying it's reasonable to seek to cut those salary costs.
You said a failing business doesn't seek to cut it's employees pay first. Well, I'm not so sure that's true, for one thing. And a second thing is, the NHL players aren't a normal business structure. In not many other industries does labor account for over 50% over your overhead.
View Public Profile
Find More Posts by mschmidt64