Nothing wrong with making a profit. But to me there is something wrong with being greedy.
- Dkos

Who decides what or who is greedy?

im gonna stop making fun of phil kessel. seems like he gets that enough from his own peers throughout the league. legit feel bad for the guy now.

Ethics is a branch of philosophy we could debate all day.

The point, as was already made, is that millionaires and billionaires are receiving taxpayer help with for-profit businesses when those same businesses already rely upon taxpayers to support them via tickets, parking, jerseys, etc. for their very existence.

Please, defend that.
- wolfhounds

Before I defend that, which is pretty easy to do, why do you think local or state governments give taxpayer help to sports teams?

Before I defend that, which is pretty easy to do, why do you think local or state governments give taxpayer help to sports teams?
- MJL

To keep them in town and in-state.

Easy? Really? That's amazingly arrogant.

Who decides what or who is greedy?
- MJL

Why not ask who decides anything?

To keep them in town and in-state.

Easy? Really? That's amazingly arrogant.
- wolfhounds

Why do they want to keep them in town and in state? Nothing arrogant about it.

Why not ask who decides anything?
- wolfhounds

Outside the scope of the discussion.

Nobody is being exploited, as a human, you have a choice, nobody holds a gun to anyone's head to go to an NHL game. Also have a choice not to buy any NHL products. There is nothing unethical about selling a product for a price.
- MJL

Wait!? You are saying I don't have to go to the Philly Bufallo game in Feb. Phew All this time I thought I was being forced to watch this train wreck

Who decides what or who is greedy?
- MJL

Oh, please... That's a ridiculous question. What came first the chicken or the egg? Are you going to try to tell me Ed Snyder isn't greedy. That Ayn Rand disciples whole philosophy of life is based on greed.

Oh, please... That's a ridiculous question. What came first the chicken or the egg? Are you going to try to tell me Ed Snyder isn't greedy. That Ayn Rand disciples whole philosophy of life is based on greed.
- Dkos

Not ridiculous at all, the point is just because you or I, or anybody deems it as greedy, doesn't mean that it is. If someone can make 8M bucks a year to play hockey, good for them. More power to them. I would do the same thing if I could.

Why do they want to keep them in town and in state? Nothing arrogant about it.
- MJL

The idea that you can easily explain, and apparently justify a very complex issue is, imo, more than a little arrogant.

There is no one reason as to why they want to keep a franchise in town/state. Why don't you tell me since it's so easy?

Regardless, this is all skirting the point: using taxpayer funds to pay for-profit business expenses when those same taxpayers keep those businesses afloat in the first place seems more than a little wrong to me.

Not ridiculous at all, the point is just because you or I, or anybody deems it as greedy, doesn't mean that it is. If someone can make 8M bucks a year to play hockey, good for them. More power to them. I would do the same thing if I could.
- MJL

Ah what? If you and I deem something greedy than it is greedy. That is exactly how you determine it.

I don't begrudge the players for wanting to get their fare share, but I still think its greedy.

The idea that you can easily explain, and apparently justify a very complex issue is, imo, more than a little arrogant.

There is no one reason as to why they want to keep a franchise in town/state. Why don't you tell me since it's so easy?

Regardless, this is all skirting the point: using taxpayer funds to pay for-profit business expenses when those same taxpayers keep those businesses afloat in the first place. seems more than a little wrong to me.
- wolfhounds

There's lot's of varying opinions on whether it has a true economic impact or it doesn't. Economic experts duel back and forth. From a layman's perspective it is easy to know why they give taxpayer money to sports teams. It's really common sense WHY they do it. If you want to discuss if it's economically correct to do so, then the issue becomes complex. Call me arrogant all you want, but I disagree that there is anything wrong with it. I suspect you declined to answer the question for obvious reasons.

Ah what? If you and I deem something greedy than it is greedy. That is exactly how you determine it.
- Dkos

Not really, because you or I could be wrong.

Not really, because you or I could be wrong.
- MJL

I acknowledge that I could be wrong, but you? I don't believe you could be wrong.

http://www.huffingtonpost...-of-the-za_b_6525890.html

There's lot's of varying opinions on whether it has a true economic impact or it doesn't. Economic experts duel back and forth. From a layman's perspective it is easy to know why they give taxpayer money to sports teams. It's really common sense WHY they do it. If you want to discuss if it's economically correct to do so, then the issue becomes complex. Call me arrogant all you want, but I disagree that there is anything wrong with it. I suspect you declined to answer the question for obvious reasons.
- MJL

I'm not calling you arrogant. The idea you could explain something so easily was arrogant.

I answered the question as well as you did. We all know the idea regarding pre and post construction jobs, revenue, out of state appeal, musicians, circuses, entertainment, lobbying, etc.

This discussion started, for me, with the following:

There isn't a single logical or reasonable argument that can be made to show that the money either the owners or the players make, is unethical.

Everything else is a sidebar.

So we're back to the idea that there is a reasonable argument to be made regarding unethical money in sports. In my opinion.

There's lot's of varying opinions on whether it has a true economic impact or it doesn't. Economic experts duel back and forth. From a layman's perspective it is easy to know why they give taxpayer money to sports teams. It's really common sense WHY they do it. If you want to discuss if it's economically correct to do so, then the issue becomes complex. Call me arrogant all you want, but I disagree that there is anything wrong with it. I suspect you declined to answer the question for obvious reasons.
- MJL

It's not all about economic impact. Major cities have major sports clubs. It's a status thing.

http://www.huffingtonpost...-of-the-za_b_6525890.html
- MBFlyerfan

On Thursday night in Philadelphia, Flyers forward Zac Rinaldo threw a despicable hit on Pittsburgh Penguins defenseman Kris Letang. The victim's back was turned to Rinaldo the entire time and Rinaldo jumped into the hit. Letang was injured on the play, missing the rest of the game against Philly as well as Wednesday's game against Chicago. He is out indefinitely as the NHL enters the All-Star break.

Such language. Despicable. Victim. Oh my.

Here's a thought for dealing with teams whose players chronically end up on the suspension blotter: What if coaches themselves actually had more skin in the game? What if the coaches themselves started to face suspensions after, say, three incidents involving players on their team in a single season?

Would only work if the league actually enforced all on-book rules equally every single time. Way too subjective to start taking it out on coaches.

Bruce Garrioch of Ottawa Sun is stating " Hextall has been busy with the deadline approaching, saying he would like to make a move or two involving some blue liners..but the issue is nobody wants what Philly has to offer.

Now that Detroit has become the biggest U.S. municipality to declare bankruptcy, it’s Republican Governor Rick Snyder’s turn to tout a comeback spurred by a stadium for a suburban fan base financed with help from city taxpayers. Snyder approved a plan to put public money toward a $450 million downtown arena on behalf of the the National Hockey League’s Red Wings and their billionaire owners.

The 18,000-seat complex and a planned $200 million private development nearby would transform a blighted area into one with apartments, offices, restaurants and shops, says Snyder, who controls the city through an appointed manager. Critics call the plan a giveaway to Mike Ilitch, owner of the Red Wings, the Tigers and the Little Caesar’s pizza chain.

$200 million from taxpayers to help fund a stadium owned by billionaire owners. Plural.

http://www.huffingtonpost...-of-the-za_b_6525890.html
- MBFlyerfan

Majority of people are ignorant and blind. They complain about stuff like this and says the league does nothing when actually the league comes down hard on players like Rinaldo. The problem lies in giving the Star players the same treatment when it comes to suspensions. Guys like Neal, Malkin ect get a slap on the hand while Rinaldos, Cookes ect get slammed hard.

I'm not calling you arrogant. The idea you could explain something so easily was arrogant.

I answered the question as well as you did. We all know the idea regarding pre and post construction jobs, revenue, out of state appeal, musicians, circuses, entertainment, lobbying, etc.

This discussion started, for me, with the following:

Everything else is a sidebar.

So we're back to the idea that there is a reasonable argument to be made regarding unethical money in sports. In my opinion.
- wolfhounds

Yes, it is easy to explain why governments give taxpayer money to sports teams. Again, if you want to discuss aspects of , is it worthwhile economically to do so, then that becomes complex and best left to the experts. I think you're wrong to call it arrogant, because it is easily explained why they do so.
As far as answering the question, I haven't answered it. My hope was to ask a question where the answer would explain why they do it.

The debate is about if players and owners are unethical because of the money they make. I haven't read a reasonable argument that states that they are.

Yes, it is easy to explain why governments give taxpayer money to sports teams. Again, if you want to discuss aspects of , is it worthwhile economically to do so, then that becomes complex and best left to the experts. I think you're wrong to call it arrogant, because it is easily explained why they do so.
As far as answering the question, I haven't answered it. My hope was to ask a question where the answer would explain why they do it.

The debate is about if players and owners are unethical because of the money they make. I haven't read a reasonable argument that states that they are.
- MJL

Again, here is the original statement I replied to:

There isn't a single logical or reasonable argument that can be made to show that the money either the owners or the players make, is unethical.

And you haven't explained how it's ethical (right) for millionaire and billionaire owners to receive taxpayer money for their for-profit playgrounds.