Lockout Discussion Thread 3.0
View Single Post
11-28-2012, 12:58 AM
Join Date: Mar 2004
Originally Posted by
We've been through this:
1) Owners do not take all the financial risks. The players and their families take on tremendous risks to become professional athletes. As an example take Louis Leblanc. He could have been a mediocre ice hockey player and used his Harvard education to get him a relatively easy (easier than becoming a pro athlete) path to a lifetime of six figure incomes --- instead he took the risk to go to the Q for a year. That's a financial risk. Every single teenage player giving what is necessary to become an NHL player, to become the top 600 in the world, is taking on financial risk.
I don't have a son in hockey camp. But my understanding is that if your kid is to play hockey regularly, you're down many thousands of dollars and hundreds of hours every year. That's a financial risk parents are taking across Canada.
Further, player salaries are cut, there's escrow, i.e. if league revenues drop due to a recession, player salaries drop, that's a risk.
You then have the fact that the NHL has been unconcerned about injuries. Players who go into the dirty areas for example are more likely to get injured; but they might also be more likely to score more goals. Playing a tough game ... that's a financial risk.
In any case, taxpayers take on a lot of the risks. Even if you are consuming mescaline and assume that players don't take on a lot of risks, meet Mr. Taxpayer please. There was a stat from a few years ago that the Montreal Canadiens pay more taxes than all other 29 franchises combined. That means taxpayers across the continent are taking on a subsidy risk. Never mind the more direct subsidies for arenas.
I want to know: who came up with this meme that owners take on all the risks? It's demonstrably false.
2) Owners for the most part do not pay the salaries, the fans do. The NHL has total operating income of 140 million dollars. The owners are intermediaries between the fans and the players.
If I go to the gas station, and I buy gas with my bank card, it is not correct to say that the Bank is the one paying for my gas, even though that is what's happening in some technical sense. I am the one paying for the gas, the bank is acting as an intermediary, a privileged and well-compensated intermediary that gets to skim 3% off the top.
Thank God for you, DAChampion.
View Public Profile
Find More Posts by HankyZetts