Im on the side of the fans too. Its just that I think if fans pay attention to what people around the NFL are saying, they will realize that the parity the NFL has is not so great after all. NFL was always great. Part of american culture, a great tv time slot, sunday afternoons, all american boys and cheerleaders. But its not great because of its parity. In fact, they are all having a good 2nd look at that idea. I think we should too. The grass may not be greener.
George Bachul said:
It isn't that simple JW. I am certain most losses are approved through ownership.
Let me ask you the same questions that I ask everyone.
1. You are the Rangers, your revenue is $70 Million a year. You determine that your RFA 27 year old 40 goal scorer is worth $7 million dollars. You sign him.
2. You are the Pittsburgh Penguins, your revenue is $40 million a year. Proportionately you determine that your RFA 27 year old 40 goal scorer is worth $4 million dollars. The player won't sign because he wants to be paid the same as the Rangers 40 goal man. Not coming to a deal, he files for arbitration.
3. You are the agent for the Penguins 27 year old. You file for arbitration using the Rangers player as the comparable. You are awarded $6.75 million. The Penguins have a choice to either not compete on the ice or financially go in the red.
The owners aren't saying they didn't contribute to the mess, but that also doesn't mean they should continue with the same system they have. They need 30 financially and competitively viable franchises.
First off, why would NYR willingly pay $7mil for an RFa who's value is clearly on $4mil in the league?
Second off, its a nice theory, but in practice, it has been all small market teams setting the salary bars for RFAs. NYR never has any of consequence.
Third, why is it always Pitt matching NYR's offers? YOu know it can happen the other way around too.
cw7 said:
In the NHL, getting rid of the competition is a bad thing. You need other teams for the games to actually take place, driving them out of the league means you have one less opponent with which you can play your games and make your money against. In the short run, lossing a team here or there could possibly improve the situation. But in the long run, it will end up costing you revenue that you could have obtained from playing that team
I dont think this is really getting rid of the competition as in shutting them down. Why would the team move? Its not the markets fault. The owner would go bankrupt if he has spent foolishly as any businessman would. IF NYRs figures are to be believed, they are heavy in debt. That must be what happens when teams lose money. Lets assume they arent lending the money to themselves at treadmill to obscurity rates, but are borrowing from the bank. They have to be making these payments to the bank or explaining why they arent. But if they go bankrupt, they lose money, and someone else buys the team at a better rate and carrys on responsibly. Happened in Buffalo. Happened in Ottawa.
Vancouver old owner sold 5 years ago because he said he couldnt make any money off the team, salaries were out of control. A new owner bought in, managed it properly and made a killing. Was Griffiths wrong or foolish?
I dont thikn the other owners like Jacobs and karmanos are trying to drive Detroit out of business, they are trying to hurt Illitch personally. Thats just the princes they are.