View Single Post
08-10-2012, 09:18 AM
Hank Chinaski
Hank Chinaski's Avatar
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Winnipeg
Country: Canada
Posts: 13,680
vCash: 50
Originally Posted by garret9 View Post
Now I've only taken introductory economics/business courses so I'm faaaar from an expert on this relative to a lot of people here... but isn't really the only long term answer a better revenue sharing program and even that won't be perfect.
I wouldn't say it's the only answer, but it's probably the most logical one. And it's almost certainly what the PA's counteroffer will revolve around.

The biggest issue with revenue sharing is there's an absence of large TV contract money that can prop up the bottom end teams while still allowing the top end to retain their values. It then becomes a matter of the top end teams subsidizing low revenue teams. They already do to an extent, but the current system is so convoluted in terms of the requirements that need to be met, many of the teams in most dire need aren't benefitting.

Judging by their first proposal, the owners clearly feel they'll have more success asking the players to subsidize the bottom feeders than they will asking the top earning teams to do so.

Originally Posted by garret9 View Post
No matter what you will have winners and losers. If you don't have winners than no one will be making a proffit. If you don't have losers than the cap floor/ceiling will continue to move up until there is a loser.
More to the point, you'll always have problem franchises, which is why I have a hard time taking contraction talk seriously. 5 years ago, Nashville probably would have been a prime contraction candidate, but they've done a pretty good job of treading water in recent years.

However, the league is going to have to look long and hard about keeping teams in locations that consistently lose money (eg. Phoenix).

Last edited by Hank Chinaski: 08-10-2012 at 09:23 AM.
Hank Chinaski is offline