View Single Post
Old
12-02-2012, 05:13 AM
  #259
mossey3535
Registered User
 
mossey3535's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 3,475
vCash: 500
I'm willing to entertain 'cooked books' but it doesn't follow from the actions of the parties involved.

Most NHL teams are making a profit, yet locking out the players for a marginal share value is giving up any chance at that profit...no, that doesn't make sense.

For example, in the NBA lockout the NBPA didn't try to challenge the fact that the teams were losing money - it was about HOW much money. Even the leaked Deadspin financials on the Nets and Hornets, after being pored over by economists at ESPN who seemed dead-set on exposing 'accounting tricks', only served to confirm that the teams had large cash losses - and that even without stuff like player depreciation the teams were losing in the tens of millions of dollars. Of course, the teams claimed $30-40M but that's besides the point.

We can dispute the Forbes numbers etc, but as they say actions are louder than words. Besides, we're on an internet message board. All we really do is speculate. It's fun. And there are a lot of first-approximations in the world that do a fine job of explaining complex situations.

This whole 'union-breaking' business doesn't fly with me either. I mean, they are going about it in the least efficient way possible. If I was trying to break the NHLPA, there's no way I would offer to pay out the face value of contracts or increase revenue sharing. It'd just be the hammer, my way or the highway. And why be tentative about giving up concessions if you knew you were just going to shut it down for 1-2 seasons?

I think the main problem I have with the situation is that at least from the owner's side I can argue things with numbers. Sadly, I can't do that for the NHLPA, and the utility of their 'idealistic' stances is questionable at best.

mossey3535 is offline