View Single Post
11-24-2012, 08:48 PM
Fugu's Avatar
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: ϶(o)ϵ
Posts: 36,745
vCash: 500
Originally Posted by Czech Your Math View Post
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?
Hiring someone with reasonably good economic skills would have produced models that showed them what would happen under positive growth with the CAD; and reasonable growth in the markets where you'd expect it.

This too wouldn't lend itself to supporting the superior business acumen hypothesis either.

Fugu is offline   Reply With Quote