HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > NHL Eastern Conference > Atlantic Division > Toronto Maple Leafs
Mobile Hockey's Future Become a Sponsor Site Rules Support Forum vBookie Page 2
Notices

Lockout continues Part V - Hockey cancelled till January 14th

View Poll Results: OWNERS OR PLAYERS, who do you support
owners 75 62.50%
players 45 37.50%
Voters: 120. You may not vote on this poll

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
12-18-2012, 11:54 PM
  #651
Bomber0104
Registered User
 
Bomber0104's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Country: Canada
Posts: 8,220
vCash: 500
It really just puzzles me how LEAFS FANS of all people on PLANET EARTH would actually support the OWNERS in a lockout situation.

The players are absolutley BEGGING to get paid their ACTUAL WORTH but are being ARTIFICIALLY CONSTRAINED (hard salary cap) from attaining their real value relative to INFERIOR PLAYERS which the TORONTO MAPLE LEAFS OF ALL THE FREAKING TEAMS ON EARTH COULD AFFORD TO PAY THEM!!!!!!!!!

Look at MLB, NBA, and NFL. A-rod is getting paid, what, 25 million a year. League minimum what 500k?

Crosby what, 8 million a year? League minimum 750k?

Ridiculous!!!!!!!!!!!

Bomber0104 is offline  
Old
12-18-2012, 11:57 PM
  #652
Bomber0104
Registered User
 
Bomber0104's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Country: Canada
Posts: 8,220
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hurt View Post
So players can't make an informed decision for themselves? And they had no clue what stance they should take? There has been a lockout for 3 months now.
It's all a game Hurt. All just a big game of stalemate, holdout, gunpoint, mexican standoff, whatever you want to call it.

Unless players exercise legal action, I can't see them making major victories despite losing a year of salary and by then who did it benefit? Surely not the small time members of the PA...

Owners are billionares, players are (if theyre lucky) millionares. The millionares fold first always.

Bomber0104 is offline  
Old
12-19-2012, 12:24 AM
  #653
joepeps
Registered User
 
joepeps's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Toronto
Country: Italy
Posts: 11,813
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bomber0104 View Post
It really just puzzles me how LEAFS FANS of all people on PLANET EARTH would actually support the OWNERS in a lockout situation.

The players are absolutley BEGGING to get paid their ACTUAL WORTH but are being ARTIFICIALLY CONSTRAINED (hard salary cap) from attaining their real value relative to INFERIOR PLAYERS which the TORONTO MAPLE LEAFS OF ALL THE FREAKING TEAMS ON EARTH COULD AFFORD TO PAY THEM!!!!!!!!!

Look at MLB, NBA, and NFL. A-rod is getting paid, what, 25 million a year. League minimum what 500k?

Crosby what, 8 million a year? League minimum 750k?

Ridiculous!!!!!!!!!!!
you dont know what your talking about.. stop talking... lol
NBA has a 5 year cap on contract length... NBA's revenues are billions more than NHL, thats why they have higher salaries. and Crosby could have made 13+ mill but he chose to take a long term deal for less cap instead of more money on short term...

give it up

joepeps is offline  
Old
12-19-2012, 12:35 AM
  #654
Bomber0104
Registered User
 
Bomber0104's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Country: Canada
Posts: 8,220
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by joepeps View Post
you dont know what your talking about.. stop talking... lol
NBA has a 5 year cap on contract length... NBA's revenues are billions more than NHL, thats why they have higher salaries. and Crosby could have made 13+ mill but he chose to take a long term deal for less cap instead of more money on short term...

give it up
If Sidney Crosby thought he could get paid 50/50 of the Leafs' (for example), why wouldn't he take it?

Because the anti-competitive national hockey league insists that the Phoenix Coyotes spread the game of hockey to the desert of Arizona?

Is this what you want for your own hockey team?


Bomber0104 is offline  
Old
12-19-2012, 12:49 AM
  #655
joepeps
Registered User
 
joepeps's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Toronto
Country: Italy
Posts: 11,813
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bomber0104 View Post
If Sidney Crosby thought he could get paid 50/50 of the Leafs' (for example), why wouldn't he take it?

Because the anti-competitive national hockey league insists that the Phoenix Coyotes spread the game of hockey to the desert of Arizona?

Is this what you want for your own hockey team?

dood what are you talking about? You make no sense... give it up

50/50? what are you talking about

joepeps is offline  
Old
12-19-2012, 12:53 AM
  #656
Hurt
Moderator
 
Hurt's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Country: Canada
Posts: 23,742
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bomber0104 View Post
If Sidney Crosby thought he could get paid 50/50 of the Leafs' (for example), why wouldn't he take it?

Because the anti-competitive national hockey league insists that the Phoenix Coyotes spread the game of hockey to the desert of Arizona?

Is this what you want for your own hockey team?

What do you mean by this?

__________________
Shoot me a PM with your concerns. Also, come visit us in the Science Forum!
Hurt is offline  
Old
12-19-2012, 01:26 AM
  #657
Disgruntled Observer*
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,713
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bomber0104 View Post
It really just puzzles me how LEAFS FANS of all people on PLANET EARTH would actually support the OWNERS in a lockout situation.

The players are absolutley BEGGING to get paid their ACTUAL WORTH but are being ARTIFICIALLY CONSTRAINED (hard salary cap) from attaining their real value relative to INFERIOR PLAYERS which the TORONTO MAPLE LEAFS OF ALL THE FREAKING TEAMS ON EARTH COULD AFFORD TO PAY THEM!!!!!!!!!

Look at MLB, NBA, and NFL. A-rod is getting paid, what, 25 million a year. League minimum what 500k?

Crosby what, 8 million a year? League minimum 750k?

Ridiculous!!!!!!!!!!!
I'm a leaf fan... but also a jays fan (at least I used to be... before the league got "fehrified").

Watching a team that essentially had no chance at all year after year due to financial limitations was too much for me. Gave up on the league. Most jays fans did. Remember... this is a fanbase that used to make attendance records. And not having a cap made the sport unwatchable for pretty much the whole city.

As a fan that's been on both sides of the fence, I think it's MUCH fairer to have a cap, and then have winners based primarily on intelligent decisions, as opposed to just the almighty dollar.

The leafs in the cap world still have a pretty hefty advantage over the poor teams (almost 20 million extra per year to spend on players is nothing to scoff at), but at least the poorer teams have a fighting chance.

So the leafs still have an advantage in the cap world. Not a disadvantage. The leafs have just been managed by flat out idiots since the cap came into place (JFJ, Fletcher, and especially Burke). That's why the leafs aren't successful. It's not the caps fault.
Don't let those imbeciles and their pathetic decisions as GM soil your opinion of the salary cap.
It's creates a much fairer and better league in my opinion.

Disgruntled Observer* is offline  
Old
12-19-2012, 01:31 AM
  #658
Bomber0104
Registered User
 
Bomber0104's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Country: Canada
Posts: 8,220
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hurt View Post
What do you mean by this?
Suppose there were none of these deadbeat franchises who contribute no revenue (compared to expenses) to the NHL.

Phoenix, New Jersey ("Mickey Mouse franchise - Gretzky"), Florida, Dallas, LA, Tampa, Nashville, "formerly Atlanta", Columbus, San Jose

What would a 50/50 agreement look like then to the players without deadbeat franchises that the NHL props up (hence the revenue sharing tension)?

Less jobs, yes. But that isn't Crosby's concern now is it? There's a larger slice of pie to be one.

Economics folks. Do your readings....

Bomber0104 is offline  
Old
12-19-2012, 01:32 AM
  #659
Bomber0104
Registered User
 
Bomber0104's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Country: Canada
Posts: 8,220
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by joepeps View Post
You make no sense... give it up
As a Leafs fan supporting the NHL...believe me...YOU make no sense to ME!

Bomber0104 is offline  
Old
12-19-2012, 01:34 AM
  #660
4evaBlue
Corsi != Possession
 
4evaBlue's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 4,736
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bomber0104 View Post
Suppose there were none of these deadbeat franchises who contribute no revenue (compared to expenses) to the NHL.

Phoenix, New Jersey ("Mickey Mouse franchise - Gretzky"), Florida, Dallas, LA, Tampa, Nashville, "formerly Atlanta", Columbus, San Jose

What would a 50/50 agreement look like then to the players without deadbeat franchises that the NHL props up (hence the revenue sharing tension)?

Less jobs, yes. But that isn't Crosby's concern now is it? There's a larger slice of pie to be one.

Economics folks. Do your readings....
Actually, if 100+ of the bottom tier players were relegated to the minors, the average quality of players and teams would increase. This means that Crosby's pie may actually get smaller.

4evaBlue is offline  
Old
12-19-2012, 01:36 AM
  #661
Bomber0104
Registered User
 
Bomber0104's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Country: Canada
Posts: 8,220
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Disgruntled Observer View Post
I'm a leaf fan... but also a jays fan (at least I used to be... before the league got "fehrified").

Watching a team that essentially had no chance at all year after year due to financial limitations was too much for me. Gave up on the league. Most jays fans did. Remember... this is a fanbase that used to make attendance records. And not having a cap made the sport unwatchable for pretty much the whole city.

As a fan that's been on both sides of the fence, I think it's MUCH fairer to have a cap, and then have winners based primarily on intelligent decisions, as opposed to just the almighty dollar.

The leafs in the cap world still have a pretty hefty advantage over the poor teams (almost 20 million extra per year to spend on players is nothing to scoff at), but at least the poorer teams have a fighting chance.

So the leafs still have an advantage in the cap world. Not a disadvantage. The leafs have just been managed by flat out idiots since the cap came into place (JFJ, Fletcher, and especially Burke). That's why the leafs aren't successful. It's not the caps fault.
Don't let those imbeciles and their pathetic decisions as GM soil your opinion of the salary cap.
It's creates a much fairer and better league in my opinion.
What advantages does a salary cap give the Toronto Maple Leafs? Please answer this question.

We'll leave Leafs' management out of the salary cap out of this debate because I know we have a similar take but that's not the point of my paradigm here.

Bomber0104 is offline  
Old
12-19-2012, 01:38 AM
  #662
Bomber0104
Registered User
 
Bomber0104's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Country: Canada
Posts: 8,220
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by 4evaBlue View Post
Actually, if 100+ of the bottom tier players were relegated to the minors, the average quality of players and teams would increase. This means that Crosby's pie may actually get smaller.
So Crosby is the best out of 1/600

and then is the best of 1/400

and his pie is smaller?????


WHAT?????????

Mathematics. please.

Bomber0104 is offline  
Old
12-19-2012, 01:41 AM
  #663
Disgruntled Observer*
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,713
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bomber0104 View Post
What advantages does a salary give the Toronto Maple Leafs? Please answer this question.

We'll leave Leafs' management of the salary cap out of the equation because I know we have a similar take.
I'm saying that the salary cap decreases the leafs financial advantages... but the leafs still have a pretty dramatic financial advantage (almost 20 million per season on players).

I think it's a better league when the rich teams have a reasonable financial advantage (16 million) as opposed to outrageous advantages (pre cap) that creates a league where money is the main factor in determining the standings.

Disgruntled Observer* is offline  
Old
12-19-2012, 01:47 AM
  #664
4evaBlue
Corsi != Possession
 
4evaBlue's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 4,736
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bomber0104 View Post
So Crosby is the best out of 1/600

and then is the best of 1/400

and his pie is smaller?????


WHAT?????????

Mathematics. please.
If Crosby is worth as much as the rest of the team right now (hypothetically), means Crosby gets X, rest of the team gets Y, which is equal to X. If all the scrubs are released, and are replaced with better players, Y increases, and consequently, X (Crosby's salary) decreases.

Elementary, my dear Watson.

4evaBlue is offline  
Old
12-19-2012, 01:49 AM
  #665
Bomber0104
Registered User
 
Bomber0104's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Country: Canada
Posts: 8,220
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Disgruntled Observer View Post
I'm saying that the salary cap decreases the leafs financial advantages... but the leafs still have a pretty dramatic financial advantage (almost 20 million per season on players).

I think it's a better league when the rich teams have a reasonable financial advantage (16 million) as opposed to outrageous advantages (pre cap) that creates a league where money is the main factor in determining the standings.
Maybe there are too many teams to allow for a competitive league.

In the interest of diffusion and marketing, the NHL has expanded beyond its capabilities which have in turn harmed the traditional franchises in the form of revenue sharing, salary cap, contract restrictions.

This is in contrast to allowing franchises like Winnipeg and Quebec City, Hamilton, Kitchener-Waterloo arising by natural diffusion where there would be nearly no impact to the players.

Do you think the players would oppose Columbus opening shop in Quebec City?

Bomber0104 is offline  
Old
12-19-2012, 01:52 AM
  #666
Bomber0104
Registered User
 
Bomber0104's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Country: Canada
Posts: 8,220
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by 4evaBlue View Post
If Crosby is worth as much as the rest of the team right now (hypothetically), means Crosby gets X, rest of the team gets Y, which is equal to X. If all the scrubs are released, and are replaced with better players, Y increases, and consequently, X (Crosby's salary) decreases.

Elementary, my dear Watson.
If Crosby is the absolute best meaning 1st place out of 600 people and the revenue they share that means he would get at least 1/600th

If Crosby is the absolute best meaning 1st place out of 400 people and the revenue they share that means he would get at least 1/400th

You need to understand that Crosby is competing amongst his players, and that the owners are competing for him!

This is very simple once you know how to do short division.

And learn some microeconomics.

Bomber0104 is offline  
Old
12-19-2012, 02:07 AM
  #667
4evaBlue
Corsi != Possession
 
4evaBlue's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 4,736
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bomber0104 View Post
If Crosby is the absolute best meaning 1st place out of 600 people and the revenue they share that means he would get at least 1/600th

If Crosby is the absolute best meaning 1st place out of 400 people and the revenue they share that means he would get at least 1/400th

You need to understand that Crosby is competing amongst his players, and that the owners are competing for him!

This is very simple once you know how to do short division.

And learn some microeconomics.
No, it doesn't.

Edit: let me rephrase. We're not concerned about what his minimum salary could be (the whole 1/600th vs 1/400th BS), but the most he could potentially get in either scenario. I say he'd end up with less when he has to compete against better players for the same cap space.

4evaBlue is offline  
Old
12-19-2012, 02:23 AM
  #668
Bomber0104
Registered User
 
Bomber0104's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Country: Canada
Posts: 8,220
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by 4evaBlue View Post
No, it doesn't.

Edit: let me rephrase. We're not concerned about what his minimum salary could be (the whole 1/600th vs 1/400th BS), but the most he could potentially get in either scenario. I say he'd end up with less when he has to compete against better players for the same cap space.
You don't understand the league financials and economics then.

If you accept that there are teams that are in the reds (that means they are losing money) like Phoenix (who the league controls), New Jersey (Gretzky called a Mickey Mouse organization), Florida (bleeding money forever), LA Kings (hasn't made a dollar since god knows when), Dallas, Columbus, maybe more, then YOU HAVE TO UNDERSTAND THAT PLAYERS ARE BEING PAID THE SAME MARKET RATES FOR SALARY DESPITE OWNER PROFITABILITY (ECONOMICS lingo)

If 15 teams are X profitable resulting in say 10 dollars and 15 teams that are not so profitable resulting in 5 dollars that means there are 15 dollars to split amongst 30 teams with 21 players.

Suddenly we vanquish unprofitable markets.

If 15 teams are X profitable resulting in say 10 dollars and 5 teams that are not so profitable resulting in resulting in 5 dollars that means there are 15 dollars to split amongst 20 teams with 21 players

Suddenly we add 5 Canadian markets.

If 20 teams are X profitable resulting in say 15 dollars and 5 teams that are not so profitable resulting in resulting in 5 dollars that means there are 20 dollars to split amongst 25 teams with 21 players

See? A very simple example for everyone to understand, including you.

Bomber0104 is offline  
Old
12-19-2012, 02:37 AM
  #669
4evaBlue
Corsi != Possession
 
4evaBlue's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 4,736
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bomber0104 View Post
You don't understand the league financials then.

If you accept that there are teams that are in the reds (that means they are losing money) like Phoenix (who the league controls), New Jersey (Gretzky called a Mickey Mouse organization), Florida (bleeding money forever), LA Kings (hasn't made a dollar since god knows when), Dallas, Columbus, maybe more, then YOU HAVE TO UNDERSTAND THAT PLAYERS ARE BEING PAID THE SAME MARKET RATES FOR SALARY DESPITE OWNER PROFITABILITY (ECONOMICS lingo)

If 15 teams are X profitable resulting in say 10 dollars and 15 teams that are not so profitable resulting in 5 dollars that means there are 15 dollars to split amongst 30 teams with 21 players.

Suddenly we vanquish unprofitable markets.

If 15 teams are X profitable resulting in say 10 dollars and 5 teams that are not so profitable resulting in resulting in 5 dollars that means there are 15 dollars to split amongst 20 teams with 21 players

See? A very simple example for everyone to understand, including you.
So your reasoning is that the cap would increase by removing the unprofitable teams, and it would give players a bigger pie to share. While this is true, it may or may not offset the cap space reduction caused by going from 57-43 to 50-50 ($12M or so reduction per team).

As long as there's a cap on team salary, and it stays fairly similar, players like Crosby wouldn't be making much more than they currently are. If the cap is doubled, or completely removed, all bets are off, though.

4evaBlue is offline  
Old
12-19-2012, 05:07 AM
  #670
charliolemieux
rsTmf
 
charliolemieux's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Country: Canada
Posts: 9,578
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bomber0104 View Post
You don't understand the league financials and economics then.

If you accept that there are teams that are in the reds (that means they are losing money) like Phoenix (who the league controls), New Jersey (Gretzky called a Mickey Mouse organization), Florida (bleeding money forever), LA Kings (hasn't made a dollar since god knows when), Dallas, Columbus, maybe more, then YOU HAVE TO UNDERSTAND THAT PLAYERS ARE BEING PAID THE SAME MARKET RATES FOR SALARY DESPITE OWNER PROFITABILITY (ECONOMICS lingo)

If 15 teams are X profitable resulting in say 10 dollars and 15 teams that are not so profitable resulting in 5 dollars that means there are 15 dollars to split amongst 30 teams with 21 players.

Suddenly we vanquish unprofitable markets.

If 15 teams are X profitable resulting in say 10 dollars and 5 teams that are not so profitable resulting in resulting in 5 dollars that means there are 15 dollars to split amongst 20 teams with 21 players

Suddenly we add 5 Canadian markets.

If 20 teams are X profitable resulting in say 15 dollars and 5 teams that are not so profitable resulting in resulting in 5 dollars that means there are 20 dollars to split amongst 25 teams with 21 players

See? A very simple example for everyone to understand, including you.
I am not about to find it but that is a famous quote that says show me a team with "X" amount of profit and I can make it show "Y" amount of losses. MooseOak would know the quote I am talking about.

This is why players don't trust owners.

charliolemieux is offline  
Old
12-19-2012, 05:10 AM
  #671
charliolemieux
rsTmf
 
charliolemieux's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Country: Canada
Posts: 9,578
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by 4evaBlue View Post
So your reasoning is that the cap would increase by removing the unprofitable teams, and it would give players a bigger pie to share. While this is true, it may or may not offset the cap space reduction caused by going from 57-43 to 50-50 ($12M or so reduction per team).

As long as there's a cap on team salary, and it stays fairly similar, players like Crosby wouldn't be making much more than they currently are. If the cap is doubled, or completely removed, all bets are off, though.
Some idiot (Sather) would offer Sid the Kid 20M on day one of the open market.

charliolemieux is offline  
Old
12-19-2012, 07:17 AM
  #672
Disgruntled Observer*
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,713
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bomber0104 View Post
Maybe there are too many teams to allow for a competitive league.

In the interest of diffusion and marketing, the NHL has expanded beyond its capabilities which have in turn harmed the traditional franchises in the form of revenue sharing, salary cap, contract restrictions.

This is in contrast to allowing franchises like Winnipeg and Quebec City, Hamilton, Kitchener-Waterloo arising by natural diffusion where there would be nearly no impact to the players.

Do you think the players would oppose Columbus opening shop in Quebec City?
The traditional franchises haven't been "harmed" by the cap. The owners are even richer because of the cap. It simply means that intelligent decisions wins championships... not chequebooks. The leafs haven't been "harmed" by the cap... they've been harmed by idiotic GM's like JFJ and Burke.

If the millionaire players taking a pay cut allows for a healthier 30 team league... then taht's what i support.

Disgruntled Observer* is offline  
Old
12-19-2012, 09:13 AM
  #673
Mess
Global Moderator
 
Mess's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Country: Canada
Posts: 64,770
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Disgruntled Observer View Post
If the millionaire players taking a pay cut allows for a healthier 30 team league... then taht's what i support.
But that is where reasoning needs to come into play as well here, and to get to the root of of why some hockey markets are struggling financially.

How does Shane Doan in Phoenix taking a 12% pay cut, help fill the 1/2 empty hockey arena on a nightly basis?.

So when ticket prices remain static for consumers, do more fans show up at the gates in non traditional hockey markets to cheer on their favourite home team players because they're taking a slight pay cut?. Attendance figures are tied to ticket prices and team interest and not directly player salaries. If Doan makes $5.3 mil or $4.7 mil (after reduction), its doesn't put more butts in the seats to watch him perform, so Owners are not addressing the real problem which is location, location, location the basic starting essential component of any profitable business.

Owner profitability is tied to attendance figures far more than players salary expenses. Particularly since cost certainty is provided by a hard cap system, which regulates spending, and guarantees through escrow countermeasures that it doesn't exceed previously established profitability quotients as its linked to HRR.

__________________
---------------------------------------------------
Signature:
---------------------------------------------------

Last edited by Mess: 12-19-2012 at 09:20 AM.
Mess is offline  
Old
12-19-2012, 09:20 AM
  #674
ULF_55
Global Moderator
 
ULF_55's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Mountain Standard Ti
Posts: 59,125
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Disgruntled Observer View Post
The traditional franchises haven't been "harmed" by the cap. The owners are even richer because of the cap. It simply means that intelligent decisions wins championships... not chequebooks. The leafs haven't been "harmed" by the cap... they've been harmed by idiotic GM's like JFJ and Burke.

If the millionaire players taking a pay cut allows for a healthier 30 team league... then taht's what i support.
Just eliminate the cap system. Without a cap there is no floor so player would have to take what was offered.

As you point out GM's make a team successful not their budget.

__________________
http://kuklaskorner.com/index.php/ps...e_corsi_issues

Desjardins estimates that about 40% of the game is captured by Corsi analysis.

Babs - short for Barbara
ULF_55 is offline  
Old
12-19-2012, 09:35 AM
  #675
G51 K81*
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 1,556
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bomber0104 View Post
You don't understand the league financials and economics then.

If you accept that there are teams that are in the reds (that means they are losing money) like Phoenix (who the league controls), New Jersey (Gretzky called a Mickey Mouse organization), Florida (bleeding money forever), LA Kings (hasn't made a dollar since god knows when), Dallas, Columbus, maybe more, then YOU HAVE TO UNDERSTAND THAT PLAYERS ARE BEING PAID THE SAME MARKET RATES FOR SALARY DESPITE OWNER PROFITABILITY (ECONOMICS lingo)

If 15 teams are X profitable resulting in say 10 dollars and 15 teams that are not so profitable resulting in 5 dollars that means there are 15 dollars to split amongst 30 teams with 21 players.

Suddenly we vanquish unprofitable markets.

If 15 teams are X profitable resulting in say 10 dollars and 5 teams that are not so profitable resulting in resulting in 5 dollars that means there are 15 dollars to split amongst 20 teams with 21 players

Suddenly we add 5 Canadian markets.

If 20 teams are X profitable resulting in say 15 dollars and 5 teams that are not so profitable resulting in resulting in 5 dollars that means there are 20 dollars to split amongst 25 teams with 21 players

See? A very simple example for everyone to understand, including you.
Fail. Basic “microeconomics" says as you increase the amount of entrants, internal rivalry sparks price competition which erodes profits. Why increase the market concentration of our most profitable teams? The reason why the Leafs can charge an arm and a leg is because they have monopoly power over hockey in Toronto. On top of that you are generating no NEW fans by adding 5 teams to Canada. Basically all you get is the incremental revenue generated from the gates of the new arenas. As long as this revenue is greater than the loss from monopoly to duopoly revenue (opportunity cost) + revenues from the 10 unprofitable teams would it make sense to move "X” teams.

G51 K81* is offline  
Closed Thread

Forum Jump


Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 12:53 AM.

monitoring_string = "e4251c93e2ba248d29da988d93bf5144"
Contact Us - HFBoards - Archive - Privacy Statement - Terms of Use - Advertise - Top - AdChoices

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. 2015 All Rights Reserved.