You haven't thought much how the economics of a decertified NHL would work. First of all, obviously Devils vs. Rangers would sell out. The Devils could probably charge a fortune for those tickets. Second, there's a limited number of spots available on an NHL team, so would players sign for more to literally not play? Remember, in a decertified NHL the relationship between the AHL and NHL, roster limits, etc. change dramatically. Some would, others probably wouldn't.
The Devils could charge as much for games against the Rangers as they do now, and that assumes that the Rangers would even feel it's worth their while to play a team that's nothing more than a sparring partner.
There are only a limited number of spots on a soccer roster, yet in the past twenty years in the English premier competition, four teams have won the championship, and one team, Man U, has won more than half of them. Something like a total of ten teams during that time have finished in the top three teams. So basically, despite an enormous talent pool, there are ten teams in the premier league that have sniffed a title over the past twenty years. It's even more concentrated in the Spanish premier league.
My guess would be that most of the good players that aren't good enough for those ten to twelve North American teams that could pay players a lot of money (NYR, Flyers, Bruins, Blackhawks, Red Wings, Maple Leafs, Second Toronto team, Canadiens, Nordiques, Vancouver, and let's say two more Canadian teams owned by rich guys would be willing to lose money on) would end up playing in Russia, and a few other Euro teams that would pay them more money than the Panthers, Devils and Hurricanes could.
I collect spores, molds and fungus.
Hello fellow American. This you should vote me. I leave power. Good. Thank you, thank you. If you vote me, I'm hot. What? Taxes, they'll be lower... son. The Democratic vote is the right thing to do Philadelphia, so do.
How do you spot risk? How do you avoid risk? And what makes it so risky?