Which league would do better in the long run, NHL or Players
View Single Post
12-09-2012, 02:28 PM
Join Date: Dec 2008
Originally Posted by
Here's a question you an ask yourself. What league would do better over the next twenty years. The NHL (with possible replacement players to start the first 2 years or an NHLPA league, no ownerhip of arenas, no marketing staff or large corporate deals.
The NHL would retain the marketing of team names and logos, arena ownership, TV and corporate deals etc...
MLB players tried this twice, although in both cases before WWI. They also tried to stage a mini-revolt that saw a few established players jump to the Mexican League after WWII, which didn't go so well either.
The simple fact of a "players' league" or of
competing league is this. Without paying a high enough wage and enough other benefits to attract the best players out there, it's doomed to fail. And without the ability to profit, and thus be able to weather economic chaos that may result from any of a trillion variables, there's no stability and therefore no future.
This is why the original WHA succeeded, why the AFL succeeded, and why the ABA succeeded. And it's why so many other competitors faded quickly. The "new WHA" from last lockout, promising average wages for NHL players, couldn't attract anyone. Neither could the OSHL. And at that point, it becomes little more than a low-level independent minor league.
I think that we all can remember which teams through history have won cups,
could you name every player whos name is engraved on the Stanley or had a trophy awarded, probably not because the individual is not greater than the TEAM
I was REALLY hoping that you were going to link to a Sporcle quiz asking exactly this.
View Public Profile
Mayor Bee's albums
Find More Posts by Mayor Bee