View Single Post
Old
09-30-2003, 06:59 PM
  #28
Weary
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 1,068
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by mdoak
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.
Rational depends on who is evaluating the idea. If you take the teams generating tons of money (Toronto, Rangers, Colorado, etc.), they could care less if Calgary or Buffalo goes bankrupt. In order to make revenue sharing work, there must be motivation for the 'haves' to share with the 'have-nots'. In the NFL this works because national exposure equates into better national television ratings which is the league's largest revenue source. On the other hand, NHL revenues are dependent upon ticket sales. The big money teams would rather play more games against teams that draw big crowds than host the Flames or the Sabres. Revenue sharing is not going to seem 'rational' to the big boys.

Weary is offline