View Single Post
Old
11-14-2012, 11:09 PM
  #279
mossey3535
Registered User
 
mossey3535's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 3,289
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by DyerMaker66 View Post
You have no proof that revenue will not continue to grow: Is history not the best indicator for the future? Do you have a reason to believe that (excluding the current lockout) revenues are/ were going to suddenly take a nose dive? If that's the case, the NHL should plan for the worst scenario possible and pay the players minimum wage.

I think the NHL should just fold right now: Revenues are guaranteed to decrease! The NHL will never make money! The last 8 years were a farce!

It's possible, but it isn't going to happen. I mean, seeing as "only 3 teams made real money" who would notice anyway? It's possible for the players to make more at 43% this year than they did at 57% last year, but again that's not going to happen. If you believe otherwise you're just being foolish: Historical trends do not guarantee what will happen, but they are certainly the best indicator that we have. Does every business simply forget what sales it had in the most recent year (or most recent 8 years) and say "Well, that'll never happen again so we should lay-off 50% of our employees right now"?
All you've done here is proven that neither positive or negative growth is 100% accurately predicted by historical trends.

The NHL owners are being risk-adverse, which is their prerogative. If you don't believe in that idea, that's cool. But I'd advise you to give up all your insurance then.

The historical record of my driving is that I've never been in an accident after more than ten years of driving. By your argument, shouldn't this trend be reasonably expected to continue? So I wouldn't need insurance then right?

The whole point of a linked cap system, and insurance in general, is that you're protecting yourself against the (maybe small/large) possibility of scenarios with negative outcomes.

In the case of that eventuality, the NHL is asking the players to SHARE the burden of lower than expected league growth. Or to reap the benefits of higher than expected growth. Theoretically this is best for both sides.

By offering de-linkage, the NHLPA is essentially insuring only itself. At the same time, it is limiting it's own earning potential. This is clearly only good for the players, and possibly worse for them - but they reduce their risk.

Which option makes more sense to you?

mossey3535 is offline