Quote:
Originally Posted by y2kcanucks
Are you suggesting that its due to economical conditions that revenues have grown at a greater rate in Toronto, New York, Vancouver, Philadelphia, and Montreal than Phoenix, Florida, Dallas, and Carolina? I think you've missed the point completely.
The top hockey markets have experienced high growth in revenues, while poor "experimental" hockey markets haven't. The expansion into non-traditional markets has hurt the league, and should be deemed a failure by now. Relocate some of those teams to better markets and now the gap between the top and bottom teams isn't as large. Only at that point will a linkage to macro revenues work decently.
|
Some of those markets haven't had a chance. Do you think the Canucks would be in this position if they had made the playoffs only twice in the last 20 years? This franchise went to the finals in '94 and were playing in an empty building by '99, and that's in a Canadian market. Other than a couple markets (Toronto, Montreal, NYR?) you have to run your team well to have financial success. There are some exceptions, like the oil boom in Alberta, but for the most part all the teams making money have been run well and competitive, as it should be. The troubling ones are Washington and Nashville, where they have been well run teams. Those teams need help.
Phoenix lost a lot of money? No ****! you build the rink in a different city and have been jerking the fans around for 3 years.
Revenue sharing should be tied to winning. Exclude teams in the biggest markets, give small market teams bonuses for making the playoffs and winning playoff series. It gives them incentive to spend on payroll and put a winning product on the ice, the only thing that's going to grow the game in those markets.