Why should taxpayers NOT be subsidizing struggling NHL teams?
929384
1: Because they are private enterprises and private enterprises that can't be kept alive under normal means shouldn't be subsidized because  the enterprise will end up becomming a money pit that increases an undue burden on taxpayers.
590029
Yes, they should have a salary cap in all big european leagues.  If a straight salary cap won't work, they should at least implement some sort of revenue sharing where the biggest clubs pay a luxury tax and spread some money to the smaller clubs so they can compete.
691647
Maybe because they are one of the top teams in the country.  Behind the Yankees, they are also the highest paid so they should be getting their moneys worth out of them. They also have been kicking butt in the pennant race the last few years.
850469
Some cities tire of losing minor league teams and pressure the parent team to either improve conditions or else.\n\nThe Baltimore Orioles lost their 40 year relationship with the Rochester Red Wings for the above reason.  Other parent teams have followed suit - creating new affiliates and some confusion.
35963
Not all private companies/franchises effect the community tax base the way a stadium can. The more revenue a stadium collects, the more tax dollars are collected. The more businesses that pop up AROUND the stadium, the more tax dollars are collected. \n\nI believe they should be jointly funded. While ABC Co. may offer a few jobs downtown that people can apply for, new stadiums tend to draw in other businesses as well as create new jobs. Because of "incentives" like property tax breaks or personal property tax breaks for XXX amount of years, it is unfair to give the stadiums or teams a free ride. Because any town would want to increase their potential revenue futures, they need to be willing to give a little to get a lot back. :-) \n\nI'm always curious about who is responsible for the bill once a stadium is torn down... they never seem to tear them down and put them up in the same place again...
835855
I agree that they should open a team in Halifax,They should get moving on building  a new stadium for it.Ottawa may as well try a community based team, unless they can manage a dedicated,responsible owner No more flakey owners causing problems for the CFL.They should wait a year and get their act together.
836828
I agree with him they are going from bad to worse...I would rather pack in for the time being and resume when they pull their socks up a bit...the price for a season ticket is huge...they aren't earning it..lets talk with our feet and walk away till they start giving us something to be proud of...
802569
Shutting down the other team is as valuable or even more than scoring. There are a lot of guys who can score goals but the coach won't play them. They figure the guy is a liability because he won't back-check or that he doesn't deserve the ice-time when other guys are working hard but he is a floater ( like Gretzky). If he wasn't surrounded by other star players he would have been a horrible liability.
39805
I think it is necessary at times for the tax payer to bail individuals and corporations out of financial hell. Abuse is the problem. Conservatives always want to beat up the individual abuser because they are easy targets. They do not have a voice, a Public Relations firm, or teams of attorneys.
644243
I don't believe in the salary cap. It would ruin the game bu making free agency an overly used option. I like seeing the same players on teams. If George Steinbrenner wants to spend $200M a year, that is his choice and his choice only. MLB currently has a luxury tax. Teams that pay a total of X for their team has to pay this tax and it is spread around to the other teams.
470055
on the one hand its hard not to say, well no because they are getting a free education with free room and board but on the other hand, they see people making so much money off of their name and they dont see any of the profits, so i can understand the argument that in revenue sports athelets could get some kind of stipend. Yet that hurts the other sports and cuts their programs. So i think in the end you have to keep atheletes from getting paid and live with the occasional shady activities and hope the system keeps it in check
494120
Usually tax payers pay for the stadium but in some cases, the stadium is paid for by private individuals, like the owners who get investors.\n\nThe good part if the investors pay for it, is the city is not obligated to tax the residents who may not even like sports.
634604
Sure they should...\n\nYes, they had two teams. Two teams that made no effort to improve themselves, yet wanted the city to pay millions in taxpayer revenues to build stadiums that the team owners would get to use FOR FREE....And frankly, the loss of the Raiders was no loss...the fights in stands were more entertaining than the team...\n\nYes, it would be different now because the league would fund a great deal of the construction costs, the NFL has \nnot had a team in the 2nd largest media market in the country for over a decade, which has cost the league MILLIONS in advertiser revenues and TV contact money. All a owner has to do is put a decent product on the field and fans will come. With a new stadium, this should be a lot easier. Just look at the Lakers and Clippers!\n\nLA is NOT a soccer city, you forget about USC & UCLA! Their teams draw huge crowds, so can a Pro football team.\n\nAnd a far as the blackout argument, you wanna watch other games? Great, buy NFL Sunday ticket through your Direct TV and watch what you want....
1017546
All athletes face temptation in their quest to get ahead.  They are protected by their organization which is why laws need to be changed and actually enforced.  Owners are reluctant to kick them off the team because then they're not getting their money's worth, but this has to change.
817338
The luxury tax's purpose is to help maintain competitive balance, which is why you'll sometimes see it called the "competitive balance tax."  It's often confused with revenue sharing, but they are completely different issues.\n\nFor each year of the CBA, a threshold is set - for example, that in 2007 will be $136.5 million.  Any team that exceeds that amount will be assessed a level of taxation, and the amount will depend on how many times they've exceeded the threshold.  For a first-time offender, it's 22.5%.  For more info on thresholds and tax percentages, check this page:\n\nhttp://www.bizofbaseball.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=394&Itemid=39\n\nI'm not sure how much this luxury tax really helps.  I'd personally rather see more go to the revenue sharing pool, where I believe the "poor" teams should have to spend a certain amount instead of pocketing the cash.\n\nHope this helps.
851656
1,  It could go to more useful programs such as education and health programs.\n2. Why do huge corporations deserve major tax breaks when most corporations or individuals do not see any.\n3. It is a quality of life issue, if the team is forced to leave to a market that can support it better does that really affect the average persons day to day life who lives in that community.
273579
The NHL is thriving and has never been better! Attendance is up! TV ratings are up! Everything is up!\n\nYou sound like a dinosaur fan lamenting the "glory days" when no-talent thugs ruled the game and bench-clearing brawls were a nightly occurrence. I found that to be abject and embarrassing! All it did was made the NHL look like some bush league where professional wrestling fans and other such losers could go to swill bear, scream obscenities and pick fights in the stands. No thanks!\n\n*Update: I'm glad we had our little offsite IM exchange, bugman, as I think we understand each other better now. We might not be on the same page, but we both love the game. And I promise you it is only going to get better! Go Sabres!