View Single Post
Old
11-19-2012, 06:10 PM
  #305
sjaustin77
Registered User
 
sjaustin77's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Country: United States
Posts: 754
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alberta_OReilly_Fan View Post
Now your side of the argument will say that the players are the product... and they are partners... and thus its reasonable for them to have the rights to hijack the NHL for all their demands. But you keep denying that a very large part of the money they are taking is from the taxpayers... and another very large amount is coming form owners loses {not revenues but loses}

if a taxpayer willingly is willing to support the team... and is guaranteed to get what we pay for... then thats one thing. if owners are willingly willing to lose money... thats another thing...

but you are on the side of legislating into a 10 year binding contract... a formula that will need taxpayer dollers to float it... and will guarantee that many teams will continue to lose money unless they spend to the cap floor and somehow still manage to make the playoffs anyhow.
Taxpayers again?
1. Owners (not players) are taking that money from taxpayers to line their own pockets.
2. Taxpayers do get to vote to approve these deals - so they are willing to fund the owners.
3. There are benefits to the taxpayers and cities as well
4. It doesn't matter. It has nothing to do with what the players make.

What about owners are always going to ask for that money don't you understand?

Since you haven't provided any evidence of how this hurts taxpayers let me do it for you. Here are 2 articles that come to the conclusion that taxpayers are hurt.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-0...#disqus_thread
http://reason.com/archives/2012/06/1...e-about-to-fle

Now the conclusion they come 2 is flawed because the are counting the cost as unearned revenue. But this is on bonds that would never be created without the teams. The only cost is whatever there is for a tax increase. They also don't present a complete picture of the help that it gives in jobs and revenue to the taxpayers and cities.

Here is the kicker though. Look at what teams are most talked about in the articles. Cowboys, Redskins and Red Wings. The 2 richest american franchises in sports and the 4th richest in hockey. That's right, the richest owners in football which pays players less than the NHL still asked for money. Until the government, cities, and taxpayers all refuse that money to teams you have no argument. The NHL going from 57% to whatever the final number is does not change things.

Conclusion - It doesn't matter. You can get whatever deal you would approve. 10% to the players if you want and it won't change a thing.

sjaustin77 is offline