« REVIEWS: Monster, The Station Agent, Something's Gotta Give, Paycheck | Main | In the Black, In the Red, In the Pink »

Wednesday, January 28, 2004


Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

Very interesting read, but am I to understand that the author believes that since most of the owners are very rich, players should get over 75 % of revenue and that its okay that teams lose money? Personally I think the fact that only the very rich can afford to own an NHL team shows exactly what kind of state the NHL is in. Players love to talk about how it’s a business when negotiating salaries, but when the owners talk business the players don't believe their numbers or start talking about the good of the game.

These guys didn't get rich by making poor business decisions - ie. investing in a business that consistently lost money. You didn't need to state that you're not a journalist; it's quite clear from reading your interpretation of your findings. Of course only very rich men own NHL teams. But that doesn't mean the league should operate under a business model which doesn't generate revenue.

Whether the owners are wealthy or not is of little importance...if the NHL and team owners lose a collective US$350 Million each year, who is going to make the investment? Salaries should be tied to profits, with a minimum per player and bonuses paid out of profits based upon skill level and contribution to the team - how that formula would or could be measured would need to be in the player's contract. Nobody would want to play for an unprofitable team, so the league would shrink to a size and appear in markets where fans appreciate the quality and talent of players.

The comments to this entry are closed.