Quote:
Originally Posted by damacles1156
You could put an NFL team in Alaska, it would make money. The NHL does not have that luxury.
|
Only the NFL has that Luxury. Each sport is unique. The NHL's situation is closest to the NBA. 30 teams, same number of teams, same playoffs,a franchise run by the league , small market teams having trouble paying to the floor, a bunch of teams losing money
Note the parallels. Also note 2005
Quote:
However, negotiations went smoothly and the two sides were able to reach a deal in June 2005, avoiding the lockout.[11][12] That deal guaranteed players 57*percent of basketball-related income (BRI) and lasted for six years, until June 30, 2011.[13]
A year after signing the deal, eight owners signed a petition requesting NBA commissioner David Stern address the disparity between small-market and large-market teams. They wrote that "the hard truth is that our current economic system works only for larger-market teams and a few teams that have extraordinary success ...The rest of us are looking at significant and unacceptable annual financial losses.
|
Here is a quote from an owner
Quote:
|
: "The only way for this league to really have financial viability across all of the teams is to have team revenue sharing like the NFL has ... with current economic conditions and with the attendance and so on being what it is in Memphis, we're not going to indiscriminately spend millions and millions of dollars on players unless they take us deep into the playoffs"
|
http://www.sportsbusinessdaily.com/D...pproaches.aspx
Quote:
|
The league contends that 22 of the 30 teams are losing money
|
http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/column...ancials-110630
Quote:
Originally Posted by damacles1156
Yes the NBA did increase revenue sharing; but it was peanuts compared to what the NBA players gave up in revenue(close to 3 Billion over the contract length).
The NBA owners got what they wanted, that is why they are playing at all
|
Management always wins a labor disputes. The longer it goes on, the longer it favor management. The only time the players "win" is when the courts get involved.
Quote:
|
Players have pushed for stronger revenue sharing, something also sought by a swath of hardline small market owners who blame the league's imbalance on big-spending teams in larger markets. .
|
But after getting the percentage they wanted and increasing revenue sharing... look what happened
Quote:
|
When the NBA owners and players agreed to end the lock out, I think most people thought that was the end of all talks about competitive balance. However, as it turns out, the owners argued that revenue sharing among owners was an owners issue and not something that needed to be collectively bargained. And now it appears the owners are close to agreeing on a groundbreaking new revenue sharing plan.
|
Quote:
|
When fully phased in by the 2013-14 season, it will see a stunning $140 million in additional revenue sharing coming into play compared with last year, moving money through a complex formula that shifts some of the financial wealth of big-market NBA teams to the league's neediest teams, each of which could receive up to $16 million a year as part of the plan.
|
http://sports.yahoo.com/blogs/nba-ba...HRlc3QD;_ylv=3
Quote:
Originally Posted by damacles1156
Both sides are to blame, it's everyone's fault the league is in another lockout.
|
No one is denying this.
The players should have met much much early. It favored them then. Now the longer this goes on the more it favors the owners.
I also have a feeling there are many pro revenue sharing owners that aren't allowed to say they are.