The NHL owners need a reality check... I think

[27Blue]

why not?

both sides are full of douchebags...

but i figured that if the players have their own thread, the owners should too...

that's the reality of the situation

[doulos]

Nah they are too busy making money off of their other ventures to be bothered with silly things like reality.

[metaldude26]

I still don't understand the point of owners in today's professional sports. Tax payers provide the arenas. TV deals, revenue sharing, ticket sales and merchandise pay for the salaries, as well as the salaries of the coaching staff, trainers, GM, etc.

Obviously this is a much too simplistic view but really is the point of the owner to simply collect profit while delegating every single responsibility of running their business to other people?

[27Blue]

i saw this idea elsewhere and really liked it,
especially considering how top heavy the nhl is...

I think the league needs to act as a league, not 30 businesses.
50/50 revenue split of the gate.
I think there's a way to do this with local television revenues, as well.
Pie in the sky? Sure. But the NHL has to address the accelerating problem revenue differences.

Players can't solve that. Forget LUMP SUM revenue sharing. If a team comes into your barn, they get 50 percent of the gate. Period. If a team plays on your local TV network, that team gets a a percentage of the share of the revenue for that date.

And there's a simple reason for this: If you're a hockey team without an opponent, you can't play.

[Loch]

And there's a simple reason for this: If you're a hockey team without an opponent, you can't play.

Yeah, despite what the internet might make us think people aren't going to shell out big bucks to watch you play with yourself...

[metaldude26]

Yeah, despite what the internet might make us think people aren't going to shell out big bucks to watch you play with yourself...

Unless you have lady parts...

[arctic_rogue]

Unless you have lady parts...

Apparently, some will pay if you have lady and manly parts.

Getting back on track... I agree entirely with innocentbystander's posts.

[kevinsrangers]

I still don't understand the point of owners in today's professional sports. Tax payers provide the arenas. TV deals, revenue sharing, ticket sales and merchandise pay for the salaries, as well as the salaries of the coaching staff, trainers, GM, etc.

Obviously this is a much too simplistic view but really is the point of the owner to simply collect profit while delegating every single responsibility of running their business to other people?

maybe a co-op could be started. and then run as a league and not individual teams.

someone would have to be making big decisions as to where to move a bunch of teams if the league shared all money.

[Loch]

Obviously this is a much too simplistic view but really is the point of the owner to simply collect profit while delegating every single responsibility of running their business to other people?

According to The Ontario Teacher's Pension Plan? Yes.

[Skin Blues]

I still don't understand the point of owners in today's professional sports. Tax payers provide the arenas. TV deals, revenue sharing, ticket sales and merchandise pay for the salaries, as well as the salaries of the coaching staff, trainers, GM, etc.

Obviously this is a much too simplistic view but really is the point of the owner to simply collect profit while delegating every single responsibility of running their business to other people?

The last thing I want is the government to run the NHL. I don't know what your'e smoking, haha. It's not as simple as hiring a GM to do all the work. I sure as hell don't want somebody with a political agenda rather than a money-making agenda to be making decisions on hockey teams. We'd have to have 3 members of each race on each roster, Peter MacKay and Vic Toews would be made GMs of their favourite teams, Jim Flaherty would have final say on all goal reviews with a 3 hour appeal allotment which if inconclusive would be sent to a human rights tribunal, Tony Clement would be the new NHL Commissioner, mean insults would be banned, players would be taxed for 75% of their revenue and they'd all have to learn french. I'm about as liberal as it gets and the thought of the NHL being publicly owned scares the hell out of me!

[metaldude26]

The last thing I want is the government to run the NHL. I don't know what your'e smoking, haha. It's not as simple as hiring a GM to do all the work. I sure as hell don't want somebody with a political agenda rather than a money-making agenda to be making decisions on hockey teams. We'd have to have 3 members of each race on each roster, Peter MacKay and Vic Toews would be made GMs of their favourite teams, Jim Flaherty would have final say on all goal reviews with a 3 hour appeal allotment which if inconclusive would be sent to a human rights tribunal, Tony Clement would be the new NHL Commissioner, mean insults would be banned, players would be taxed for 75% of their revenue and they'd all have to learn french. I'm about as liberal as it gets and the thought of the NHL being publicly owned scares the hell out of me!

In no way did I suggest this.

[Skin Blues]

In no way did I suggest this.

Well it's what would happen if the tax payers, AKA government, owned the league. I was being facetious obviously, but public ownership is rarely a good thing. Maybe I misunderstood what you were suggesting, or maybe you weren't suggesting anything, but the role of an owner with a financial stake in a business is pretty important to that business thriving.

[SlobTheGreat]

who said the government should be involved? Governments don't run co-ops, members do.

[Skin Blues]

I got the impression from the tax-payers owning the arenas that they should be considered the owners of the teams. Is the suggestion that a giant co-op should buy all of, or some of, the teams? Why would the existing owners sell the teams? I'm just not getting the point in any of this I guess. Is it that you think a co-op wouldn't have allowed a lockout to happen? That they'd concede to the players in CBA negotiations, or "do what's fair"? That's a grand idea but I'm not so sure would work in practice.

[Bomm Bastic]

Well it's what would happen if the tax payers, AKA government, owned the league. I was being facetious obviously, but public ownership is rarely a good thing. Maybe I misunderstood what you were suggesting, or maybe you weren't suggesting anything, but the role of an owner with a financial stake in a business is pretty important to that business thriving.

I believe he was coming at it from a perspective of financial investment/risk, or rather lack thereof. Of which I agree.

At least that was my interpretation