View Single Post
Old
09-30-2003, 08:50 AM
  #26
TehDoak
General Zad
 
TehDoak's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Country: United States
Posts: 17,716
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to TehDoak
Great article. In order for any cap to be in place, there HAS to be full disclosure. I think if teams were to fully disclose, it would be shocking the disparity between the rich and the poor teams. The most rational thing that could be done in revenue sharing, IMHO. Perhaps something along the lines of 'Here the average revenue of an NHL team' If you are more than 25% above this line, 10% of the revenue generated will have to go into a pool that is distrubuted to teams who are losing money according to some index (lets call it the Market Revenue Index, or MRI) i.e. a team like Calgary or Buffalo is losing money because they reside in a very small market with a struggling economy, not because of lack of fan commitment or general intrest while a team like Chicago is losing money because they simply haven't put forth a commitment to bring in a winning team. I think the biggest problem with this is that, to accuratly measure the market vs. the teams revenue, it would have to be measured over at least a 10 year span, simply because if a team is in rebuilding or expansion team, the revenue will be down for that season vs. the market and would hurt the MRI. If properly implemented, a tool like the MRI could accuratly determine what teams NEED the pooled money vs. teams who have incompetent ownership. A system like this would reward building through the draft, and allow players to stay with the smaller market teams. Personally, i enjoy watching large market teams add big name players for big money just to watch them flop in the 1st or 2nd round of the playoffs while smartly built teams (i.e. NJ, Ottawa, pre 1999 Detroit, pre 2001 Dallas) thrive with a few smartly chosen UFAs and a team built from the ground up.

TehDoak is online now