When I say "Wall Street" I mean the institutions that take the other sides of my trades every day. A retail trader like me, trading his own money independently, is NOT "Wall Street", my account size is far too small for any of them to even care that I exist.
That's not a RULE, though. If Alex Edler wants $6.0M per year because player $X is making $Y, does Mike Gillis have to sign him? NO! There's always a choice. You have $X available every year to ice a team with, and it's management's job (who was hired by their owner) to do just that.
Owners who are "bleeding money" are propped-up by the Toronto's and the Vancouver's of the league.
If HRR is growing, where is the basis for rolling back salaries? Have expenses grown as much as HRR has over the past 8 years? Unlikely.
Owners DO have a chance at making a profit. Why do you say that they don't? Vancouver was not profitable when McCaw was the owner, which wasn't too long ago.
No, the owners bought a business, at their own discretion, and assumed that risk. If it went the other way, they'd be local heroes, swimming in money, and laughing all the way to the bank. The fact that they're bleeding money should've been one of the possible circumstances associated with ownership; which, since they're so business savvy as you say, I hope they would've considered before ploughing all that money into the franchise.
Unless...as I said before...could it be that owning a sports team is a vanity/ego play, far more than it is one of strong fundamental economic reasoning?!
Says the guy who's calling Gary Bettman, the man who championed the NHL into markets like Phoenix, Atlanta, Tampa Bay, etc., some sort of "business guru". Right.
Clearly if you are losing money and your revenues are increasing your expenses are rising faster than your revenue growth...Not sure what part of that you don't want to accept.
Yes GM's don't have to sign players to certain amounts, but if the Sedin's didn't take the home town discount, Burrows, (Edler likely going to have to) etc, then would we have kept them? No, so the logical outcome is that you have a league of haves and have nots.
How would you like to watch the canucks with out Hank and Daniel, Burrows, etc? We'd be back in the Keenan days wouldn't we?
Can't argue the decisions of Bettman in his placement of some teams, but its easy to argue in hindsight, he was trying to grow the game in big cities that support major league franchises and have the population/money to maintain them. Mr. Bettman has also lead the league to that same incredible revenue growth you suggest and a huge contract from NBC. So you can't argue both sides of the same coin...again easy to cherry pick to support arguments.
Clearly losing teams are not propped up as this is one of the issues the NHLPA has mentioned they are trying to address in their counter proposal, fact checking sir.
Sure, owning a team is a vanity ego play, no one suggested otherwise, its a factor but so is making money. Rich men don't stay rich by putting money in losing enterprises, I have stated this before. Eventually people will not want to invest money in a losing proposition (NASL maybe?)
Yes owners bought a business, but if the rules of the game are such that they can't afford to compete without losing money, only those with the deepest pockets/willingness to bleed/biggest egos will win. Those teams that don't have that will become feeders for those 4-5 teams.
If you haven't noticed the parity in the league over the last 10 yrs has improved significantly well, not sure what you're watching. Just like the NFL this is what keeps fans engaged in the long term, that year to year, even if you have an off season, you might win the cup the next, thats how a league survives. When you have end up having dynasties, have and have nots, expensive tickets, economic challenges in north america, alternatives for your entertainment dollars, and your team is losing well eventually the team disappears (grizzlies anyone? raptors soon enough?).
My final word on this. Owners will not support a league that makes them lose money. Its a stupid decision. They are not here to provide charity to you or I or the players because we love hockey. Why don't you pay $500 a seat instead, that way the player makes his money, the owner the profit and you can watch your game. You don't want to do that right? But you expect the owner to subsidize your entertainment, the player, and lose money.
Makes zero sense to me. You're not going to convince me otherwise, I have bought, run. and sold numerous businesses in my life. If you want to at least maintain your wealth you need to break even, if you want to increase it you need to make money. If you're in an industry that causes you to lose money year after year, after a certain amount of time, you will just exit, and there isn't often buyers for businesses in industries that are constantly losing money.
Again profits not revenues, profits matter.
Edited by BuretoMogilny, 21 September 2012 - 04:27 PM.