View Single Post
12-21-2012, 05:18 PM
Registered User
SJeasy's Avatar
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: San Jose
Country: United States
Posts: 12,538
vCash: 500
Originally Posted by Captain Bob View Post
That's debatable.

When you pay $250 million for a hockey team and it's now worth $150M... that's real losses of money you already had.

When you don't play for a year and you lose $5M.... that's the loss of money you never had and hoped to get.

On the other hand, if you bought that team for $250M and hoped to sell it for $400M ..and its only worth $150M... you've lost $100M for real and $150M you hoped to get.

These are just made numbers, of course, but I'm just making a point.

We don't talk about the owners' side on this because we don't understand it.

We understand, in simple terms, not getting your paycheck. We understand, in simple terms, losing more money than you make.

but what we don't understand is the real complexity of sports team ownership. We rarely talk about the real motivations for sports team ownership and act as if it is some mom and pop pizza joint.

I don't understand it. I've read lots of articles, but most of it is speculation. There is no one-size-fits-all motivation.
You pass over the lost jobs argument again. A completely free market will see shrinkage of the league. There is a point where even investors with their toys will walk away from a significant capital loss rather than risk more capital to sustain a dying entity.

I would be willing to bet that if Fehr got an all out win (anti-trust) that the NHL as currently consistuted would die away over time and that if it were to be replaced you would see a startup league go to the single entity model of MLS to avoid the anti-trust issues. I don't think hockey is big enough even at the TML level to not have ownership walk away judging by walkaways around other sports franchises.

Originally Posted by Canadian Guy View Post
That is a silly thing to say.

Truth is it's a failure of leadership that leads organizations to only care about the top dogs: it's something that is not intrinsic to unions (or businesses for that matter)
I love this point as there are very distinct schools of thought about this with regards labor. Unfortunately, Americans have been in the top dog school for a long time. There are significant philosophical underpinnings to these different views of the social order.

Originally Posted by schminksbro View Post
The owners are already planning on playing this whole mess out again. Just as soon as whatever deal they sign is expired they will lockout again and cry poor. The only way this pattern is broken is if this lockout is made to hurt the owners in a meaningful way. Killing the salary cap would be an excellent start.
Your correlation fails. It is not causal. It is part of the bigger picture. Their was concomitant activity by agents to raise wages astronomically. I do think it is possible that if the PA or hockey players go to court and win substantially that that will end lockouts. I don't think intransigence will do squat by itself. Goodenow already tried and failed. Answer the Goodenow failure before you bring the argument up again. On a basically level, intransigence can be met with intransigence which would mean continuing lockouts. It is not a one-sided tool.

SJeasy is offline   Reply With Quote