View Single Post
11-24-2012, 07:07 PM
Czech Your Math
Registered User
Czech Your Math's Avatar
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: bohemia
Country: Czech_ Republic
Posts: 4,846
vCash: 500
Originally Posted by MoreOrr View Post
Another response, taking a different form of trying to make my point. There are two ways, as I see it, of looking at what has transpired here, and both can easily be given a positive spin but with a negative result.

1) The League allowed its ego to get the best of it, and resulting from that it allowed the mentality that it could offer players much higher salaries and benefits in general than what the League could actually support. That again is not to say that the League has in any way been doing poorly on the economic front, but that it has over-extended itself in player costs.

2) That the League simply didn't anticipate its own strong growth, which obviously is a positive, and as such it created an economic structure that ended up giving the players too much of the economic pie and starving many of the owners.

Either way you look at it though, the NHL has been doing just fine; it's just that it hasn't managed it's gains very well.
We know the NHL players are paid well for, as a whole, being the best on the planet. Many try to tell us that the owners are these brilliant guys with superior business acumen... not a bunch of shady weasels.

However, I look at it similarly to you. Either

A) The NHL didn't have the collective business acumen to properly assess what % of revenue going to salaries would allow the owners as a whole to make a fair collective profit. That doesn't say much for their allegedly superior business skill does it?


B) The cap/floor structure combined with revenues increasing so rapidly led to the bigger teams making a lot more anticipated, while many of the smaller teams may have actually lost money.

What one can't convince me of is that all of the following are true:

1. The owners as a collective have superior business skills.
2. Rapidly increasing revenues with salaries at a fixed % of revenue will decrease the total profit for the owners as a group.
3. The owners couldn't redistribute what should be a larger collective profit more equitably to allow the smaller teams to be more competitive and profitable, instead of asking for more concessions from the players.

So it basically comes down to this: Are the owners, on average, stupid, crooked or both?

Czech Your Math is offline   Reply With Quote