View Single Post
Old
11-06-2012, 09:14 PM
  #37
KevFu
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: New Orleans
Country: United States
Posts: 3,800
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by The CyNick View Post
At some point the teams need to get off welfare and survive on their own. Any franchises that need years and years of revenue sharing shouldnt be in the league.
Because under the current setup tying payroll to revenue, it is a never-ending cycle of creating more poor teams?

If you simply eliminated revenue sharing, left Darwinism to kill off the weak markets, the middle markets would become the week ones. I can illustrate this using the 2011 revenues with the bottom removed, the new midpoint/cap/floor and you can see how every year, fewer teams will be left alive.

Under the current system, the majority of teams would be better off if we moved Toronto to Sante Fe. That's a problem. That means the SYSTEM is broken and the markets are not necessarily the problem (Some are, but it's two separate issues).

What happens if everyone is healthy and flourishing? The league implemented Revenue sharing in 2006 with 29 teams safely in the payroll range. That money wouldn't disappear, it would simply offset the fact that Raleigh isn't Toronto, Buffalo isn't New York City, and Winnipeg isn't Montreal.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Scurr View Post
Revenue sharing should only go to teams that deserve it, like Nashville. That's a well run business that needs help now but with a realistic shot at making everyone money later. The Islanders shouldn't get revenue sharing, they're a terribly run business that deserves to lose money.

I have no idea what you can tie revenue sharing to that reflects how well run your team is.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Scurr View Post
I'd tie revenue sharing to wins. If you finish in the top half in points and are still losing money, you qualify for revenue sharing. If you make the playoffs 3 times in 18 years like the Panthers, you shouldn't be getting handouts on a regular basis.
I don't understand your concept of "that deserve it." No one "deserves" help. It's in the best interest of everyone to help. That's why it's there. Apply that to other professions: "Well, they shouldn't get a safety net because they're a horrible tight-rope walker" ???

Certain things are outside of your control. Your arena being old, leases signed in 1985, your last owner buying a soccer team, or running your team into bankruptcy.

Tying revenue sharing to WINS is a horrible idea. It is a a chicken/egg scenario: What is the difference between sucking because you have no money and having no money because you suck?

Revenue sharing is a safety net. It's not bonus money. The owners wanted the protection for the bottom of the league because a strong league helps everyone.

The goal here isn't "pay for play" but "a rising tide raises all boats."

KevFu is offline   Reply With Quote