View Single Post
11-23-2012, 03:22 PM
Registered User
FrankMTL's Avatar
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 5,800
vCash: 500
Originally Posted by WhiskeySeven View Post
Why not? Revenue comes from fans, fans come to see NHL games, NHL games are played by NHL players. (assuming a healthy revenue stream) Why shouldn't the players get the lion's share? The owners are merely investors, them demanding (up to) 50% of revenue is ludicrous in my opinion.

I'll respond to Kriss E shortly, suffice to say I think blaming agents for contracts offered, signed and paid by owners is a wrong way to look at things.
Because NHL owners take all the risk as seen by most NHL teams losing money. Do players risk losing money? No they don't...unless they're locked out which is the case right now obviously. Why would NHL players deserve more than a 50/50 split when most other more popouar sports leagues like the NFL and the NBA have these percentages..

NFL: Players 47%-48.5%, Owners 51.5%-53%

NBA: Players 50%, Owners 50%

Yes fans pay to see these players play, but where do they see them play? These huge multi million dollar arenas are not paid for by the players. Without the owners to build up the infrastructure to show the world these players talent, they would be nothing. Yes people could still watch them play, but they wouldn't be paying through the nose like they're doing now and would be making peanuts in comparison. You act like "these investors" are available just about on every street corner. It takes a lot of money and balls to own a majors sports team.

FrankMTL is offline