View Single Post
12-19-2012, 03:47 PM
Registered User
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 1,090
vCash: 500
[QUOTE=Bleed Ranger Blue;56676321]This is a good article and hits in a lot of fundamental points -- chief among them being that the NHL can no longer afford to plunge its way into the south and just assume that the game will grow organically and those teams will be financially sound. Its just not going to happen.

This was a stupid decision from Bettman to begin with - instead of facing the music and making some tough choices, he seems to favor labor disputes.

The eventual remedy, when hes stripped all he can from the players, is going to be contraction and/or revenue sharing bordering on socialism.[/QUOTE

The fundamental problem of the article is that it was written with an agenda. The writer has some valid points mixed in with points that I failed to grasp. Perhaps he understands more than I do?

The southern strategy has failed? Tell us something new. We've been talking about this for quite awhile. Move franchises? Some might work but in the end most have to close (imo). If it helps to end the lockout, let's blame Bettman? Does a contracting strategy help the players? If the PA wishes job cuts this might help everyone but unless I read that the sides in discussion want this as a solution then we're wasting our time talking about it.

"Now the owners want a bigger piece of the pie, claiming financial hardship".

Is the writer saying 57% is the right number? According to many the PA already agreed to 50%. Why? To show that the understand the owners are making a fortune but need more but the PA wishes to promote peace and harmony?

Is the writer saying that even if owners are losing money It's only on paper? or There are tax benefits from the losses. Is he saying that it's good to lose money since it reduces one's taxable income?

What about rising franchise values? Franchise values rise if one believes there is:

A)future growth in the sport (higher TV contracts for instance)
B)More time is needed to grow the franchise.
c)A more favorable distribution of revenues.

If one believes that all prospects of growth, revenue sharing are over then tell me what franchise values will be in 10 years from now? If you can't fix the economics of a franchise than the value will diminish unless you need a tax deduction. LOL

Revenue sharing? IF one believes that the league profits are $280 million (pick your own no.) that will be the league profit after revenue sharing. Yes, you can redistribute profits but you can't increase profits. We can eliminate unprofitable teams and each team would make 9 million dollars. Imagine paying 1 billion dollars for the Leafs and expect a 9 million dollar return? In this scenario Dolan would become one of the biggest hawks.

Lastly, the writer talks about the need for the NHL to get it's act together since they face a "surly" rival in the likes of the KHL. NO other sport faces that kind of competition. I totally agree with the writer on this issue. It sounds like the NHL doesn't have an anti trust problem?

To answer the writer: NO the "greedy owners" aren't the only problem"

Last edited by ltrangerfan: 12-19-2012 at 04:19 PM.
ltrangerfan is offline