View Single Post
12-07-2012, 06:58 PM
Registered User
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 9,305
vCash: 500
Originally Posted by bobbyb2009 View Post
Your argument is fine. It actually supports mine.

If I choose to buy a vacation property and then decide to rent it out or not. I am in complete control. The only loose parallel to your argument I can come up with would be for you to tell me that I must rent it to you and for a certain price. I argue that this is below value and you tell me, "well- you didn't buy your vacation property expecting to make money did you? If you wanted to make money, you should have bought a commercial property instead."

In both cases, I CHOOSE to spend money on what I choose to spend it on. A renter, client, customer, fan, employee, player, coach, etc. does not get to force me to sign an agreement that does not allow for a return.

This is the problem I have. The players and so many fans expect it and believe the players are entitled to a certain share. If there is a dispute over how much that should be and the owners are able to back up the fact that 15 franchises (or whatever number it is) are losing money, I am good with that share only being at a level that first ensures that these franchises show a ROI in line with what any investment would be. If the owners say- "That's ok, we will pay you more, because this is our toy and we don't mind not making or losing money- we can afford it," then I am happy- happier actually, if it sustainable. But nobody, fans, players, etc., can tell me that I don't have a right to expect an ROI on investment.
Under a capped and linked system the players ARE entitled to a negotiated upon share. It was the owners that created this system that guaranteed the players this share. The players weren't entitled to certain share for the entire existence of the NHL until the NHL foisted linkage upon them in 2005.

If the NHL wants a salary cap and linkage, then they have accept that players are entitled to a negotiated upon share of HRR. I'm sure the players would be just fine if they could go back to pre-2004 where they weren't guaranteed a share of anything, but the last time that happened the owners ended up spending 75% of their revenues on salary. The teams simply have no discipline when it comes to spending so they created a system where players were guaranteed a portion of Hockey Related Revenue; no more, no less.

Further, you cannot build a system based upon providing a team like Phoenix or Columbus a positive ROI; it's simply impossible. Those teams have gate revenues of $20M or so. Their players could play for free and they'd still probably lose money, absent a lot of revenue sharing. You cannot base employee compensation off of ensuring that the absolute bottom of the barrel team will turn a profit. It's simply not possible in a league with revenues as disparate as the NHL.

opendoor is offline