Should there be Revenue Sharing limits?
View Single Post
11-06-2012, 08:42 PM
Join Date: Jan 2011
Originally Posted by
Asking the question in the title, but being a bit more specific, meaning a Revenue Sharing limit as to how many consecutive years a team can be on the receiving end of Revenue Sharing, and how much money in total any particular team might be shared over a period of time.
I would think that, No, there shouldn't necessarily be a limit as to how many years and how much money a team receives in Revenue Sharing, not if the teams handing out the money are willing to keep handing it out. However, to me it seems counter-productive to maintain a certain team indefinitely if it's never going to earn a profit. Eventually, one would think, it might be better to cut and move on to potentially better pastures.
But then, what if it's the owners and the management of the franchise and the team which is deemed the cause for the franchises failures and economic woes? Is there never anything the League can do to fix such problems and actually give a team and its city a real chance to have some success?
The NBA has an upper limit of 50% of profit that can be put into revenue sharing by any one team. I've used that number here to show how revenue sharing. if equivalent to the NBA, was in the NHL it would help, but only so much, and its a punitive enough tax (when combined with corporate taxes) to dissuade teams from wanting to make too much profit.
And the last thing I want to see is an MLB system where your RS is used simply as profit to a non interested owner.
I'm a big proponent of RS, but it has limited applications in the NHL compared to the other sports, especially NFL and MLB because their massive TV deals evens it all out.
View Public Profile
Find More Posts by ottawah