View Single Post
03-08-2013, 03:30 PM
Registered User
RayzorIsDull's Avatar
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: bp on hfboards
Posts: 9,725
vCash: 500
Originally Posted by nelli27 View Post
Can you not see the error in your argument?
Your argument is premissed on your understanding of "financial advantage". But, here's the difference: Windsor's financial advantage entailed going "against the rules" (as you pointed out correctly). London's financial advantage is in keeping with the rules. So, you can't use 'financial advantage' across the board or you're guilty of an equivocation.
In other words, 'financial advantage' is obviously justified when it's done within the rules = London.
'Financial advantage' is not legitimate when it violates league rules = Windsor.

If you'd like to argue that London's 'financial advantage' in bidding for the Memorial Cup should be a violation of league rules, then you'll need a separate argument altogether.
No I don't see a problem with Otto's statement. The financial advantage to the OHL speaks for itself as long as it's money in their pocket. Of course they issues with teams offering inducements to players because poor teams cried about it to the league. Of course overall league attendance from 10/11-11/12 was on the decline and it wouldn't surprise me if it declined again. Watching the OHL product now compared to 5-6 years ago the talent isn't the same because the recruits aren't flocking to the OHL now because of these rules and it's hurting the product on the ice. The OHL cut off their nose to spite their face and this is what they have gotten. They are now forced to move a team that draw zero fans back to NB, one of the best teams in the OHL draws 2800 fans, another team is barely around 3500. The product is quite poor to where it was in the mid 2000's late 2000's. In general nobody really cares about the OHL now it's directed by a dinosaur that has not kept up with the changing marketplace.

RayzorIsDull is offline