View Single Post
11-19-2012, 06:53 PM
Registered User
sjaustin77's Avatar
Join Date: Oct 2007
Country: United States
Posts: 754
vCash: 500
Originally Posted by Alberta_OReilly_Fan View Post
at the very least... offer proposals that have some chance of being considered by the owners for more then 10 mins. Back off this revenue sharing idea that the owners have clearly rejected now. Alot of owners probably wouldnt care about ufa age... about length of contracts... about variance... because they were the ego maniacs doing all that crap anyhow.

I and the players have offered proposals that should be considered. Back off revenue sharing? You realize the owners and players have pretty much agreed to more revenue sharing? At a number actually higher than what I have shown works. I don't know what the hell you are looking but I'm not proposing all this extra revenue sharing that you think I am. Seriously, read my posts. You act like I want the CBA to continue as it is.

So make a proposal that has some chance of working... and you still get paid way more then the KHL or swiss league or sweden or germany...

All of my proposals will work.

if im wrong... then go start your own league. I dont care. id watch it. I just want my hockey. Whatever league is the best league locally... ill watch. But the evidence ultimately proves itself out whether being a pro league owner is a lucrative experience or not for most owners.

Evidence does show that it is profitable to be a pro league owner for most owners.

Most owners sell.. citing huge loses... after going to the local goverments for handouts... citing huge loses... then dont buy a second franchise. Unless they win a championship. Winning championships might change things a bit for some. Owners in very large/successful markets are the obvious exception to what im saying. So around 33% of owners are owners of very large/successful markets.

Many owners actually own their teams for a long time. When they sell it is at a profit. Some owners sell citing huge losses - which isn't usually true. When it does happen it is because they didn't run the team right and wracked up debt because of other financial issues outside of their team.

People that try to start rival sport leagues in the last 30 years to get rich... all go broke instead. All teh rival sport leagues have failed. A few Soccor leagues have failed. A couple hockey leagues have failed. A couple football leagues have failed. Even the NBA was in trouble. The NHL had to contract a couple teams... and many more teams had to relocate.

Rival sports leagues don't work because they don't have access to the best players or stadiums. It has nothing to do with pro franchises not being able to make money.

You keep saying its such a licence to print money if a team is run well.. but the evidence is what happens to so many teams... and whats still happening to the bottom 10 or so teams even now under this past cba too.
I don't believe I have ever used those words but yeah it pretty much is a license to print money if you run the team well. There are some markets that haven't worked. The evidence that happens to so many teams is that they haven't run their teams well. Tell me what franchises have been run to the best of owners ability that have gone under. You have said yourself that 30 to 40 owners don't know what they are doing. Isn't that why teams don't work? It goes far beyond them paying the players too much - which is also their own fault.

sjaustin77 is offline