Lockout Discussion Thread 3.0
View Single Post
11-27-2012, 10:17 PM
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Canberra, Australia
Originally Posted by
[/B]The league wouldn't have record breaking revenue without the 2004-2005 lockout, thus the players wouldn't have the same salaries. Whatever they lost (the 24 % you're talking about), they gained much more financially with no time. I expect the same thing to happen with this lockout, if both camps hasn't lost the fans...
The players are so sure the owners are making big money with their teams, more of them should invest in NHL franchises.
The players are not allowed to invest in NHL franchises. The one exception (that I'm aware of) is Mario Lemieux, who bought his team in the early 2000s under exceptional circumstance. Part of the agreement was that he would be paid exactly league average salary. In general it's a conflict of interest for active players to buy a franchise.
There are examples of former players buying pro teams, where the conflict of interest is gone. Michael Jordan is part owner of the WAshington Wizards. That said, the startup costs for owning a team are a few hundred million dollars, michael jordan can afford that, but Steven Stamkos cannot. Few former players can afford that. Superstar NHL players might make 150 million (I think Crosby will clock in at 200 million) in a career at the upper end, that's 90 million after taxes in most jurisdiction, with which you cannot buy a team.
Wayne Gretzky was a part owner of the Coyotes, but that particular team was not a good investment.
You may be right that the players benefited from greater parity. In these negotiations, the players have offered to acceopt salary cuts if the owners increase revenue sharing -- which follows the same logic. However, the owners have ruled out substantial increases in revenue sharing. Therefore, if I'm a player, I'd feel like I have no business partner.
Last edited by DAChampion: 11-27-2012 at
View Public Profile
Find More Posts by DAChampion