Oh so on top of relocating 10+ teams you are in favour of contraction or how you would say "shutting down". Are you sure you are on the players side?
Instead of asking the players to sign an agreement that reduces their share of revenue by a few percentage points you would rather many players to lose their jobs? Because that's what happens when you "shut down" teams. I'd love to know what players think of this idea.
You still haven't said how you would go about relocating 10+ teams. Do you have a plan for this or are you randomly throwing out ideas?
What would you do about Arena lease agreements that lock in franchises to multiple years. Just answer this one question and the rest we will worry about later.
Edit: prospective market sizes, availabilty of suitable venues (18,000 + seat Arenas) and so on can be talked about later.
Once again, you are missing the point, and your reading comprehension is no better than a 1st grader. Relocation takes time, and no one is asking the league to relocate 10+ team all at once, but things need to be changed, and Bettman's personal agenda should be set aside instead of hindering the franchises. I have said it a good number of times that, you don't go and ask players to take a 20% paycut when the business is profitable and revenue is rising. Poor business decision such as adding or moving teams to unmarketable location is not the fault of the players. Shutting down 1 or 2 teams that should've no business in this league will no doubt means some not too talented players will have to go play in another league, but that would also boost the quality of current teams, while cutting dead weights that hinder the growth of the league as a whole.
As for the lease agreement, is it the players fault that the idiot owner decided to sign a 20 years lease for a franchise that has been losing money like a waterfall? The right move is to stop the bleeding, negotiate a buy out of the lease, and move to a more profitable location. Just because the people in Glendale think they deserve a hockey team, that doesn't mean they should get one if they have to use their tax money to keep the team afloat.
Rebuttal? I merely asked for some info on your claims. You brought up inflation as part of the reason players might leave to go to Russia.
I'm just asking you to tell me about this inflation you speak of. What does inflation have to do with players not leaving for Russian 4 years ago but they will today? What is the inflation rate over the past 4 years? Are you aware of the numbers?
I can tell you Canadian inflation rate was approx 2.9% in 2011. Hardly make me want to move to Russia where the inflation rate was approx 8.46% in 2011 and averaged 13+ % for 2008 and 2009.
Do you have any knowledge of economics at all? You seem absolutely clueless when it comes to numbers. The buying power of 50 mil from 4 years ago is a lot more than what you could get 50 mil nowadays. That is inflation. Comparing Russia's inflation with Canada's means you have zero idea what the argument is about. KHL is already the next best league in the world right now, and some players are already planning to join KHL in the upcoming season if there is a lock out, so I am not sure why you think it is a wild thought for players to jump to KHL if NHL screws up once again with the new CBA.
I am going to ask you this again, are you Bettman?
Edited by Profanity, 29 August 2012 - 07:25 PM.