Actually,Thats harder being an Owner than a player. The Owners dont get guaranteed income like the players do
Right, employees get a guaranteed salary but owners aren't guaranteed a profit. Employee salaries are a cost of doing business. Profit for owners is the reward for running the business well. The two are not the same thing and can not be fairly compared.
People keep talking about how much owners get versus players and I can't help but wonder, how many make sure their company's owner gets a sufficient return in their pocket before taking their salary. None do, of course, because the employee's business is to do their job and get paid. It's on the owner to make sure employees doing their jobs equals profit.
Besides, we don't know how much owners of NHL teams are making. In reality, owners of teams reporting loses could be taking home millions each year in salary as the president or CEO of the company. Remember, owners buy into a business but they don't take personal responsibility for the company after that. That's why it's incorporated, so if the company doesn't pay its bills the creditors just go without and the owners' personal wealth remains untouched, even if they were getting a yearly salary from the company. (If you can find any information about how much CEOs of the companies who own NHL teams make, your Google skills are better than mine...)
Corporates and fans may find it to hard to spend money on hockey, especially now
Sorry, I don't understand your point. Do you mean because of the economy? If so, that's proven to not be true. The NHL has had record profits for like 6 years running, including major increases in merchandising, game attendance, and corporate sponsorship.
If you mean because people are pissed because of the lockout and may withhold money as punishment, well I certainly hope that's true!
I think some bought on speculation and potential, Even strong markets have died
That may be true, but that's still on them. If they choose to gamble their money they have to be big boys and girls and deal with the consequences when that gamble doesn't pay off.
I am curious, though, which strong markets have died?
Alot of times the weaker teams are forced to pay more than they can afford to players. If the rich teams keep stealing and signing the stars. No fan wants to be a farm team for the rich teams and have no stars on their team to see.
I know people keep saying it, but it doesn't make it true. Teams are NOT forced to overpay players. They can choose not to. If there's no proof that a big name player will bring in big revenue in a crappy market it's simply not a good investment to overpay for a big name. A single player does not make a team and name recognition only equals revenue if there are fans to recognize the name to begin with. Instead, those teams could choose to spend their money on a better quality team of lesser known players that can win games and hopefully attract fans that way. They could also spend their money on scouting and developing underrated talent. Not all great players come into the league with name recognition like Crosby (who people seem to have been crowing about since he was in diapers.) Look at our own Burrows. He's exciting to watch, team loyal, extremely hardworking and a steal at his current salary. He's just one example. I'm sure if you asked people could give you name after name of underrated players with comparatively cheap salaries but big impact. Frankly, if teams are not up to the challenge of properly scouting and building a team then players shouldn't be the first employees they look at replacing.
That being said, the disparity in the level of talent teams can afford is the major thrust of the problem plaguing the NHL right now. Teams in bad markets are never going to be able to compete on a level playing field with teams in successful markets. The NHL has to deal with that in a way that actually addresses the problem. Simply lowering the salary every single NHLer to the level of the most poorly managed, poorly located teams is unfair to the players and unwise for the NHL in terms of keeping talent in the NHL. And at best, it increases profits for the already profitable teams but does little more than minimize loses for the teams losing money. We know that because that's what happened last time. The percentage spent on players was significantly lowered under the old CBA but the result was the richer teams got richer while the poorer teams continued to lose money, albeit less overall. The NHL's preferred fix of lowering players' share and doing little else to address the problem will only ensure this merry-go-round keeps turning each and every CBA.
Take away 6 or so teams make the Teams of better quality,play the same amount of games,maybe instead of playing a team an eastern team 2x you make it 6x. Create more rivalries
Moving a team everytime You have a problem is not very stable or the answer I dont believe
Winnipeg/Colorado lost teams then returned, now maybe Quebec City?
Vancouver probabily would have too as others
I think You take the ones who have shown no growth,no strong support at all no potential and skid them
I'm not arguing that the league would be healthier financially if it just shed its bottom feeding teams, I'm just being realistic that they aren't going to. Those bottom 6 teams all play (and probably beat) teams like Toronto. That means that's a lot of games each season Toronto gets to sell tickets and merchandise for and gets to sell concessions at. That equals huge profits for Toronto. Which team do you think has the power in the NHL? The sugar daddies or the bottle fed?
I do believe there's enough talent currently to go around, and probably enough for the 2-team expansion many have argued for and that it's rumored Bettman has planned. The problem is not the players so much as the business model of the NHL. Any sports league is a weird system of companies who are dependent on yet in direct competition with other companies. Without the other teams, none of them have value. Toronto might finally be the best team in the league if it were the only one, but it wouldn't be worth spit. I know, it seems counterintuitive but the reality of the unique setup of a sports league is that teams are symbiotic, and like any symbiotic relationship that means some will have the feed the others.