Lockout Discussion Thread 3.0
View Single Post
12-03-2012, 06:25 PM
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Canberra, Australia
Originally Posted by
What isn't comparable? financial risk to health risk, or the level of risk?
i didn't classify everything as risk, i said that there is risk behind every choice you make, no matter how low the probability.
Your "life choice" is just you computing what choice has lower level of risk/higher upside. doesn't make the "risks" disappears.
Basically, if i understood correctly, your stance is that players made a "life choice" and should not ecounter any risks, and should not bother dealing with/looking for potential risks as oposed to investors, who make choices based on risk calculations, and not a "choice". it's the same thing.
You make a choice, it can go your way, or another, wethere it's "stocks" or "going for stroll at night". The upside is there, and the downside is there too; both are exactly the same. When one makes "life choices" it's usually because you tend to ignore possibilities of risk, or just decide beat the "risks", and just "go for it". Kind of like an instinctual analysis of risk/benifit ratio.
Which brings me to the same point yet again, risk on either side, should not be used as an argument into what each side should rightfully get. Argument should/is about whos responsible of bringing in what % of revenues, and that it reflects in either side's income.
I do think risk should factor into it, but it's a difficult calculation.
On the one hand, you have some people saying that since owners take 100% of the risk (e.g. players take zero risks), the players should only get 50% of the HRR. Needless to say that, that is a false premise from which the conclusion does not follow; it's a comprehensively invalid argument.
My view is that risk matters, but that to the best of my knowledge nobody has calculated the relative risk/reward ratios competently.
The players risk losing years of their lives, their health, their brains, and their money when they try and become players. If they do succeed in hockey, they can find themselves age 40 and have no job skills. Look what happened to Bob Probert. When they're in the league, they know their salaries will drop if league revenues drop, and some of them need to play a high-risk game to justify their salaries (e.g. grinders, fighters, defensive defensemen, power forwards). There's a lot of risks involved, and a lot of rewards for the low fraction who make it, it's not a trivial calculation. When a player like Max Pacioretty, who is privileged, 6'2", white, good-looking/charismatic and from a super-wealthy family; decided to pursue a hockey career by going to the University of Michigan for one year, he has likely given up the option to study business in the Ivy League and make an easy six figures and higher for the rest of his life. He almost died on the ice.
Conversely, the owners take risks. When an owner invests 220 million in a hockey team, he is choosing not to invest 220 million in stocks, in treasuries, in real estate, in gold bullion, etc. A better owner can lead to a more successful team; a cheap owner can take in an easy profit every year like Jeffrey Loria. However, I have not seen any competent calculation specifying the risk/reward trend and dispersion. Just people saying "omg the owners take risks !!! they are the lifeline of the sport !!!" That said, right now owning a team is a better investment than the stock market, with a 13% median increase in franchise valuations.
Last edited by DAChampion: 12-03-2012 at
View Public Profile
Find More Posts by DAChampion