View Single Post
Old
11-06-2012, 03:58 PM
  #24
KevFu
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: New Orleans
Country: United States
Posts: 4,956
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mayor Bee View Post
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"?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Puckschmuck View Post
Well, Mayor Bee bringing up Winnipeg yet again, and again, and again trying to provoke Winnipeg fans. Color me shocked.
First off, Mayor Bee, don't intentionally provoke people (not saying you were here, but don't in the future).
Secondly, Puck, even if he was (I didn't see it that way), he brings up the point I'm trying to make:

In a situation where everyone in the league was well managed and profitable; competitive for a playoff spot. And no team had those circumstances that made them revenue disasters (bankruptcy, arena/lease issues, etc)...

... odds are that the teams who would be in the bottom of revenues are going to be those with the smallest fan bases by total number of people. Teams like Buffalo, Carolina, Nashville, Columbus, Florida, Tampa, Phoenix and yes, possibly Winnipeg.

There's only so much small markets like BUF, CAR, WIN, NASH can rely on the limited number of people in their market to give the teams. Per person in the market, that's a lot of dough for each fan to contribute.

It's the same principle at work as "market saturation" where teams in four-sport cities, the fourth franchise doesn't draw so well (FLA and PHX, who are also likely to be at the bottom). There's a finite number of dollars per market.

So my question from above:If everyone was LOCKED IN at maximizing revenues for six straight years: There's no more they can squeeze aside from matching inflation. Everyone's doing great, making money, the CBA is working perfectly: Revenue sharing doesn't go away. And the same teams are going to get revenue sharing year after year after year. "Revenue Sharing" wouldn't be bailing out or subsidizing poor teams, it would simply be "market equalization."

And there's zero problem with that. That would be great for the league and the game would GROW. That's the ideal situation, isn't it?

KevFu is offline   Reply With Quote