Bob McKenzie: NHL doesn't need max contract length
View Single Post
11-13-2012, 02:59 AM
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: San Jose
Originally Posted by
That's not even close to being correct. First off: HRR does not include all the revenue that it could (and should, imo).
Secondly, the union is asking for a gradual decline to 50% and the honouring of current contracts: They're not demanding millions; they're asking for the money they've earned in the contracts they've signed to date.
No it shouldn't. Examples have been given, but I will repeat. As an example, you can buy a hot dog for $5 at the arena. Currently, it costs $3 to put that hot dog into the customer's hands. If the players get $2.85 for that hot dog, as an owner I am not going to lose $.85 for every hot dog. The customer can buy it outside of the arena. Than as a player I don't even get a bite of that hot dog. What they have now is a system which awards the players $1.14 of the $2 of profit in the hot dog; both sides benefit.
Second example, how do I feel as a non-hockey fan taxpaying citizen of Nashville or Phoenix knowing that I spent tax money on all the players in the league when I was just trying to save the economic benefit of a team in my city.
And for your benefit, I do think that some of the deductions that they are taking for pre-season should be in the HRR pot. It is not black and white and certainly not as one-sided as you continually harp upon. Please stop biting that hot dog.
Last edited by SJeasy: 11-13-2012 at
View Public Profile
Find More Posts by SJeasy