We'll Meet Again, Don't Know Where, Don't Know When (CBA/Lockout) XXVII
View Single Post
11-14-2012, 04:45 PM
Join Date: Nov 2010
Originally Posted by
Their revenue is not and will not be decreasing any time soon (current lock-out excluded).
History has shown that revenue will increase by 5% (or more): This is unreasonable in some way? The real problem is that you're buying Bettman's "poor me" attitude.
As stated before: HRR does not include all revenue that it could (and should).
No matter what you say or how you try to deflect, you simply cannot prove what future growth may be. Historical trends doesn't guarantee future patterns. That is not an opinion. That is an absolute fact. If you would like to argue otherwise, then the delusion in your argument won't merit further discussion.
But let's get back to what you actually said and what you're deflecting. You said the owners are asking for raises. You have no proof that future revenue will not suffer so you can't proclaim decreased revenue to be an impossible scenario. You don't believe it will drop but don't confuse yourself with what is your own opinion and what should be taken as fact. Revenues aren't protected from decreasing so as my example shows, it is possible for the owners to make less at 50% than at 43% taking context into consideration. Making less in dollar terms goes against the spirit of what you meant by the owners are asking for raises. You're free to back track your comment but your posts already show how ill conceived your comment and response are.
Again, you should take some economics courses before you comment on others understanding of the math. The reason why owners are able to deduct a certain amount of expenses is so that both sides can gain. Someone used the example of hot dogs which I think works well. If the owner has to give the players $3 for every $5 hot dog he sells in his arena and it costs him $3 to make that hot dog, why would the owner continue to offer the hot dog in his stadium when he ends losing $1 with each hot dog sold while giving the players $3 from the sale. What incentive does the owner have to provide these concessions at hockey games when he's losing money with each hot dog? Instead he'll tell his consumers to go buy the hot dog outside the stadium. You know how much money the players get from the hot dog vendor outside? ZERO DOLLARS. By splitting the $2 profit, the owner has the incentive to continue providing the hot dogs because he is making money and therefore the players are making money.
The real problem is that you're commenting on things you have seemingly taken little time to research and understand before engaging others in discussion and then make underhanded comments about their position when it seems you are the one that could use some crash courses on what both sides are proposing and the implications of each of those proposals.
Edit: why do all of a sudden have an avatar and more importantly, why is it a Sens player? Lol
Last edited by Ari91: 11-14-2012 at
View Public Profile
Find More Posts by Ari91