View Single Post
Old
11-06-2012, 02:09 PM
  #6
MoreOrr
B4
 
MoreOrr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Mexico
Country: Canada
Posts: 20,438
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by cheswick View Post
There was limits placed on revceiving in the previous CBA and it just exasperated the porblems those teams faced.

There should be no limits on it whatsoever if the system is how the NHL wants. ie cap and floor based on overall league revenues. Even if you relocated 3 or 4 teams, the fundamental issue is that certain teams may be driving the revenue growth, those teams that don't can't afford to pay to the floor. Revenue sharing bridges that gap. That will always exist whenever there is disparity in the amount of revenue different teams in the league generates.
Just taking your post in general, I'm in total agreement. Revenue Sharing is a good thing, definitely, especially in any league where is exists economic disparities and especially to the degree that it exists in the NHL. But I'm really being specific with respect to certain teams continually and always being on the receiving end of Revenue Sharing. One would think that, as a League, all teams would be expected to at least ocassionally be among the 'givers' in Revenue Sharing and not always the 'receivers' (or at the very minimum, be among a group of teams that not gives nor receives because they're in the middle).

MoreOrr is offline   Reply With Quote