View Single Post
Old
11-22-2012, 05:26 AM
  #38
RainbowDash
20% Cooler
 
RainbowDash's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Equestria
Posts: 2,047
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Captain Bob View Post
This is pie-in-the-sky.

1) 50-50 doesn't change the economics of the game.
There's a leak in the NHL. 50-50 just bails water out a little faster. But not fast enough. And nobody is trying to plug the leak.
Can you please clarify the analogy? It just doesn't make sense. A 50-50 proposal is highly beneficial to the league.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Captain Bob View Post
This isn't about profits, IMO. This is about busting the union for 2 reasons.
Ok...and thats....?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Captain Bob View Post
1) Owners always love to bust unions for short and long term reasons
This is a reason? That there are short and long term reasons?

....sorry, I'm back, my pupils got really small. Can you tell us the long and short term reasons?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Captain Bob View Post
2) Franchises are easier to sell and will fetch a better price if buyers think the union is a push over.
This doesn't compute. How do you determine this? Are you telling us that there are billionaires lined up to own a professional sports team on simply the knowledge that the PA is perceived as weak?

By what rule of inference did you use to come to such a statement?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Captain Bob View Post
It's really obscene to me that anyone would suggest that some of these crooks who own NHL franchises need "protection."
Crooks is a strong word here. What illegal things have owners done that is against the law?

I would say that there are some NHL franchises that need protection from other franchises.

RainbowDash is offline   Reply With Quote