View Single Post
Old
09-28-2004, 03:05 PM
  #16
degroat*
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: http://nhl.degroat.n
Posts: 8,108
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vlad The Impaler
Stich, I find the proposition interesting, except part 3: Revenue sharing.

I am against any form of revenue sharing. The NHL needs to find a system that works for every team, without the need for charity in any way, shape or form.
I understand your stance, but it's not very rational in today's world of sports (which is why the prosposals from the owners to the players have included revenue sharing). Even with the huge amount of TV money the NFL gets, they still share gate revenue.

The difference in size between the biggest market and the 30th market is simply too big for a league to not have some of the money generated by the largest market teams being funnelled in some way to the smaller markets (and the difference would still be too big if the league dropped to 24 teams).

What I'm against is a system that takes directly from the rich and gives directly the X teams that generate the smallest amount of money. Such a system would give those teams no reason to make an effort to increase their revenue. That's why the system that I suggested has money going into a pool and divided evenly among all the teams. That way, every team benefits from a team getting more money out of a team's local TV deal, but that team itself benefits the most.

The only system the league could put in place that would work without revenue sharing would be one where the team with the lowest revenue generation can still reach the cap. Getting a number that low simply isn't going to happen.

degroat* is offline