View Single Post
12-02-2012, 08:00 PM
Registered User
CpatainCanuck's Avatar
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 4,131
vCash: 500
Originally Posted by Fugu View Post
Right on all accounts.

See-- you're turn now. If you declare it, must be right.

What some of you cannot keep straight is that some people aren't arguing what's best for the players or a union, but perhaps disagreeing with the general management of the NHL, their systemic issues. I honestly do not care that 100 player jobs might disappear. If those jobs are a result of propping up failing businesses, they need to go.
I'm glad you seem to be conceding that eliminating teams struggling financially from the nhl would do nothing to help the players. In fact while you might not care that 100 player jobs disappear, I assure you that the league's fourth liners and bottom paring defencemen would care very much as most of them would lose their well-paying nhl jobs and face ahl salaries.

I'm also glad you are not in charge of the nhl, as using your philosophy any team struggling financially should be encouraged to move or go under. At one time or another in the last 20 years many teams including Edmonton, Calgary, Ottawa, Pittsburgh, Anaheim, New Jersey, NY Islanders (and others I may be forgetting) have faced severe economic challenges. In many cases the league helped in some way to keep them in their current cities, and many of them have since recovered economically and have become healthy members of the league.

I'm not saying I think the Phoenix Coyotes will become a healthy franchise in Arizona, but in general I do think encouraging franchises to remain in markets where possible is a much better option than encouraging them to fold or move whenever they become unprofitable.

And while you are free to disagree with the nhl's business model, the fact is that in the last 20 years under Bettman the nhl has increased its revenue more than almost any league anywhere (from 400 million in 1993 to over 3 Billion today).

Let's say the weakest six teams cannot bring in more than $60 MM per year. (And yes, most of that $60 MM goes to players due to where the cap range is sitting at the moment.)

That's $360 MM of the NHL's $3.4 billion-- or 10%.

Revenue transfer, while not all going to just the six, was about 42% of that figure, just shy of $150 MM.

$360 MM - 150 (or soon to be $200MM) = $210 MM lost (or $160 MM if you use the new RS figure)
Ignoring your revenue numbers, which you acknowledge are hypothetical, your equation doesn't even make sense.

(Revenue of bottom 6 teams)-(Revenue Transfer) ≠ (Moneys lost)

What on earth do you even mean?

CpatainCanuck is offline