View Single Post
Old
10-21-2004, 12:10 AM
  #32
Chief
Registered User
 
Chief's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: NY, NY
Country: United States
Posts: 1,841
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fletch
are you saying that the level playing ground in the NHL isn't really the biggest problem facing franchises, rather it's the ability of some to make money (i.e., low attendance, little sponsorship, etc.?)? And with a luxury tax moving money from the Rangers to the Flames, wouldn't that curb the spending on salaries by the Rangers, and increase the Flames' ability to spend, or profit from the tax and other revenue sharing arrangements, thus setting a more healthy league overall?
I don't necessarily agree with your assumptions.

#1 - I don't think there's a problem with low payroll clubs being competitive and the facts make a pretty strong argument for that position.

#2 - I don't really believe that there are that many franchises who are hurting when it comes to making money. All franchises aren't as profitable as every other franchise but I don't think that's a problem, just a reality of business.

#3 - As for a luxury tax helping create a more healthy league, I guess if the rich teams, who can afford it, just hand over some money to poorer teams, then I guess that could be considered a healthier league. I think the same result could be accomplished by more revenue sharing among the owners. At every game, there are two teams, so why shouldn't they both share the income (at least some of it) from that game? Why doesn't the visiting team get half of the gate receipts or a part of the TV revenue?

Although I posted about this topic, I don't care all that much about it. In the end it's still millionaires vs. billionaires and none of them give a crap about the fans.

Chief is offline