ukcanuck wrote:
However, it doesn't change the fact that opinions on this thread have skewered the players for actions no worse than the owners and that's if you believe that the owners intentions are purely honourable.
Everyone is greedy.
Hell economics and most philosophical theories revolve around the belief that all people are greedy and will almost always act in their own self interest.
Obviously I don't believe owners are being honorable, I think they would be as happy to have the players as low paid as possible.
My guess is the owners would like to pay the players as little as possible with out affecting the on ice product.
The players of course would like to be paid as much as possible with out actually putting the league out of business.
It's pretty simple to be honest.
and not have to supply any resources for the players beyond what gets them on the ice on game night.
Disagree here.
The Canucks spend a ton of money on "extra stuff" because performance matters.
That said they only do it because it's in their best interest to do so.
An example of what I think the NHL would be like without an organised players union is the WWE which has no union and the performers in that business live and die with drug addiction and physical pain at a staggeringly higher rate than other similar businesses (400% higher by some sources)
Again I don't agree. It's not in the owners best interest to do what you are describing.
The parent company and owners of that corporation have made their wealth driving those men into the ground. The list is of wrestlers who have dies from steroids, heart attacks, and drug overdoses is obscene by comparison to the NHL and although there are contributing factors not present in hockey the business part of the equation is essentially the same.
WWE is a terrible example.
Like the worst example ever....
yes but you would likely spend it on something and unless you take your money out of the city and province, your money is still grist for the mill.
Why do I have to spend my money at all?
If If the Canucks left town I would not spend as much in the local economy,,, full stop end of discussion.
I don't think I'm alone.
And as far as subsidies go,,,,,
Like I said I think it's silly to do it in Canada because we have the best hockey markets in the world plus the NHL is not a fan of relocation.
That said, if one particular city wants to throw money out to attract a sports team I have no problem with it as long as it's a calculated financial decision.
Sports teams not only help the local economy, but the raw tax revenue from income / corporate / payroll / sales etc is huge. If we are just talking income tax I suspect most of the Canucks pay in the 40 to 50% range with a payroll (including management) of around 80 mill.
It's probably 40+ mill just in income tax, not to mention HST, Payroll taxes, and corporate tax. When all is said and done it's probably well over 100 mill going to the federal and provincial gov, and that's just the direct tax and none of the spin off.
Then you start throwing in all the spin off stuff in terms of restaurant bizz, trickle down spending, jobs, etc, who knows what the figure is but it's a shit load.