Players Starting to Ask Uncomfortable Questions of NHLPA Leadership
View Single Post
12-10-2012, 12:05 AM
Mexico City Coyotes!
Join Date: Feb 2010
Originally Posted by
I'll ignore your insult and answer.
If you want to have a hockey league, you need to have someone to play against. So you need an opponent. If the Toronto Maple Leafs want to have their players skate around at center ice by themselves and charge fans $300, let's see how many will pay.
At the end of the day, if these 30 independent business can somehow act as a single business to control the cost of labor, then these 30 independent businesses need to work share in the responsibility and sacrifice of fixing the game's economics.
FInally, I think it's really bad form to go around calling other people's arguments "Stupid" if you have nothing "smart" to offer. More specifically, nothing in your "critique" of my "stupid argument" makes the case for the Rich Teams making some of the sacrifice.
If the Detroits,NYRangers, Torontos, Montreals etc did more sharing, it would INCREASE parity.
That's kind of the point.
What are you talking about?
"Or you can just have owners who don't want to risk 2 years of uninsured contract not offer the contracts
If the risk is so costly, you'd think most owners would naturally avoid the extra two years."
Where in your post or my post was revenue sharing mentioned at all? I agree there needs to be more sharing.
The only thing I was arguing is it's going to throw off parity if some teams are giving the longer contracts out and others either can't afford it or are forced to give them out it is bad business for those teams. Actually it's bad business for all the teams but there is always going to be 1 or 2 crazy owners who just don't care and then the market is set. I stand by my statement "well if they don't wanna give it out don't" is a dumb argument.
***because of the insurance
View Public Profile
Find More Posts by veganhunter