StrangeVision
Wear a mask.
- Apr 1, 2007
- 24,745
- 9,824
20 years is now immediate? Respect your commitment to the long game.
It was a nice idea that was tried for two decades and the return was never therem time to cut bait.
no economic benefits for the league. Not increase attendance or TV ratings after the games."the return".
what return are you referring to, specifically?
It's a regular game though. People also just want the pre-season to be over, with no injuries, because the games don't count.
An American Islanders fan gets nothing out of the Olympics if Canada wins gold, and Tavares gets hurt. More likely than not even more importantly, the Islanders owner gets nothing if Canada wins the gold and Tavares gets hurt. He does still have pay Tavares, even though he got hurt playing in a jersey that doesn't have the Islanders logo on it. It is true that the Islanders owner agreed to let Tavares go play, so he took the risk of his employee getting hurt outside of the job he's paid to do, but this time the collective ownership of the NHL said no.
that's the thing. You can't properly quantify the economic benefit, at least not easily. (certainly not as easily as you suggest).
I don't disagree with your second point - absolutely.
The NHL should not view the Olympics as an investment. Or if they do, it should not be viewed as an economic investment.
I also don't really like some Americans assuming that Canada has it wrapped up, I think the skill gap is closing and with non-Canadian superstars (or super really really good stars) like Kucherov, Karlsson, Gaudreau, Bobrovsky, Hedman, Klingberg, Barkov, Laine and Matthews emerging since 2014, I think all teams can do very well vs Canada.
I'm not saying they would win for sure, but I don't think Canada would AT ALL roll over teams as they have in past years.
That's a horribly faulty defense to say that NHLers should go to the Olympics. Owners making a lot of money unrelated to the Olympics doesn't mean that they should absorb such risks and costs to send NHLers to the Olympics just out of the goodness of their hearts.
I'm agreeing with you. I mean, some nights I wake up in cold sweats worrying about Daryl Katz's net worth and liabilities and calm myself down thinking about his 1000's of drugstores and it eases me back to sleep. One of my favourite sports memories ever was how he threatened to move the Oilers and held the city of Edmonton 'hostage' until they finally ponied up hundreds of millions of dollars to build him a new arena so he could raise prices and make more money and I was like - Yeah, way to go Daryl! You won! They lost! - was a great day. Why should anyone care about McDavid making his Olympic debut and representing his country in a best on best tournament when I can go to Rexall and talk to people making minimum wage about how important it is that Daryl Katz makes a bit more money. I would never put Daryl Katz in such a tenuous position that one of the people that work for him might get injured while doing something that wasn't directly involved in making him money. That would just be silly. And goes against the whole ideal of sports. Go Daryl! -
Just repeating the same thing over again doesn't make your point valid. You're point is wrong, the wealth of owners outside of the Olympics is 100% irrelevant to the NHL getting shafted in any deal for the Olympics. You'd be a terrible businessman if that's how you operated, "I have a ton of money already so I'll just take massive losses and risks for no reward just out of the goodness of my heart".
No you can't. Perhaps 300lbs, but not much higher.I don't think you know what athletic means. You can be 450 pounds and be incredibly athletic.
Ever see sumo? And Andre the Giant? There's also 350lb football players who are incredibly fast and flexible and deceptively athletic.No you can't. Perhaps 300lbs, but not much higher.
The idea of whether the owners are getting a great deal - as your #1 concern is simply ridiculous. If you're worried more about the financial well-being of NHL owners more than being able to watch a best-on-best tournament of hockey players around the world representing their country... I don't know what to say. Forbes has a website - I'd think you'd be on there. The players will go risk their careers for free but - you're worried about the owners bottom line? Insurance payments? Having to rent hotel rooms? (y'know they stay at Olympic Villages?) Food (once again - Olympic villages) and that the owners still would've gotten 82 games.
Off chance someone gets hurt and they have to pay their insurance premiums.
I almost wrote that, but then I thought it would be too stupid. Sumo wrestlers and NFL linemen aren't exactly athletic. They have mass and couple seconds to use it. They're still about 100lbs short of your 450. As for Andre, c'mon. Who next, Santa Claus?Ever see sumo? And Andre the Giant? There's also 350lb football players who are incredibly fast and flexible and deceptively athletic.
You do know that because it's scripted doesn't mean they magically can float and lift each other right? They are basically a combo of gymnasts and stunt actors...I almost wrote that, but then I thought it would be too stupid. Sumo wrestlers and NFL linemen aren't exactly athletic. They have mass and couple seconds to use it. They're still about 100lbs short of your 450. As for Andre, c'mon. Who next, Santa Claus?
You obviously don't know how to run a business, then. These players are assets for them, they're risking their assets for literally no reward. You don't know what to say because you're not thinking logically about it.
The owners aren't going to say yes to NHL players going to the Olympics if they assume all of the risk for the NHL players going. The fact that you think that is ridiculous just shows how naive you are with the real world. The NHL is a business, that's priority number 1. You thinking it is something different, which is obvious by you saying it's ridiculous for NHL owners to want some sort of benefit by putting their assets on the line, just shows you're not realizing that.
Let's make an analogy here. Let's say you own $5,000 on a stock that is relatively consistent in value. Your friend wants to take that stock and invest it in their own endeavors. They'll either lose the money and you lose your $5,000, or they get rich and you just get your money back. Do you think it would be ridiculous for you to say no to that deal? If you say it wouldn't be ridiculous to say no to that deal, you're a hypocrite for complaining about the NHL owners not wanting NHLers going to the Olympics.
Do you own a team? I don't.
Could've sworn the question was - Do you care that NHL players aren't going to the Olympics - not - let me explain my Economy 101 class to everyone about why the owners are right.
Let me make an analogy. You own a small automotive shop and have done really well through the people in your community allowing you to expand and make a good living. Every once in awhile the local hockey team will ask you for new sweaters (allowing you to put an ad on there) - and you know the ad won't do anything in bringing in clients - but you do it anyway to keep the goodwill and a bit of payback to the people whom have actually allowed you to carve out a pretty good living as the cost of sweaters really is just a drop in the bucket to what you've actually made from and will continue to make from these people.
It's like buying employs drinks every once in awhile or throwing a Christmas party.
And yes. I do work for myself and pay people and have partnerships and have for a long time - and yes sometimes I don't run things perfectly and could definitely make more money - but one thing you don't screw around with are loyal customers and strong partnerships because even if you lose a few bucks in a transaction or two - you tend to come out ahead as you're all happy.
But go back to teaching me your Economy 101 - the owner's are the besest - and I'll continue to be disappointed that I won't get to see the Marchand-Crosby-Bergeron line or McDavid wearing the Maple Leaf this winter.