View Single Post
08-13-2012, 02:00 PM
Smith - Alfie
CanadianHockey's Avatar
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Ottawa
Country: Canada
Posts: 28,740
vCash: 500
Originally Posted by bert View Post
Thus making it a healthier league, in the NBA and NFL the players get 50% and 48% while in the NHL they get 57% why shouldnt it be the same?

I dont think that if one owner bought a franchise for more, or develops a better product by doing running a franchise more efficiently that he should have to share all of his profits. That doesn't make sense, yes they should be sharing some of the revenue but not to the point where it negates the good work they have done.
You could say the same for the players. They all work hard to earn their money, why should they have to foot the bill for increased revenue sharing? Especially when the owners make more money than just HRR (for example, they might only see 60% of their venue revenues count toward HRR, despite the owner owning both the venue and the team), but the players are only entitled to a portion of the HRR pot.

The reality is the top-5 or so teams make far more money (proportionally) than anybody else in the league, but they're also the ones that don't want to give any of that money up - instead they're trying to change definitions of HRR and the % of HRR players receive to provide more revenue sharing dollars.

CanadianHockey________ __ __________Sens, Oilers, and Team Canada

Last edited by CanadianHockey: 08-13-2012 at 02:06 PM.
CanadianHockey is offline