View Single Post
Old
11-06-2012, 02:45 PM
  #11
Mayor Bee
\/me_____you\/
 
Mayor Bee's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 15,078
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by The CyNick View Post
revenue sharing has always seemed like a flawed concept designed to help failing businesses.

if a team like the islanders can't sell tickets, should they get money from the league? they are in a huge market, and therefore shouldn't need a handout.

on the other hand should a team in a market that shouldn't have hockey to begin with get revenue sharing? or should the league move them?

what about the team like winnipeg that should be failing based on the size of their market, but because of the fact that they are good at selling hockey, they generate a lot of revenues, they don't get free money?

revenue sharing will really only serve to delay the death of a few markets that shouldn't have hockey and reward failing franchises.

the only money that should be shared are things like the national tv contract. the rest should be left up to the teams to manage based in their market size and the demands for hockey in that market.
So when Winnipeg originally went all those years without drawing a profit (or much of a crowd), their demise was not only to be expected but actually deserved? When Minnesota had the same problem, were they a market that "shouldn't have hockey"?

Mayor Bee is offline   Reply With Quote