Should there be Revenue Sharing limits?
View Single Post
11-06-2012, 11:30 PM
Join Date: May 2009
Location: New Orleans
Originally Posted by
I don't think it is in the leagues best interest to help a team that isn't helping itself. Propping up teams in emerging markets makes sense, if they're run well eventually they will gain a fan base, add to national TV numbers and make money for themselves and everyone else. That's a good investment.
Giving money to Charles Wang so he can continue to run a mickey mouse operation with little chance of ever being successful is a bad investment.
The Predators, on the other hand, run a tight ship. They draft and develop well, sign good contracts and have had good success. It's not because their building is better than the Islanders, it's because they are run better.
Help the teams that are helping themselves.
Sorry, I was busy writing an epic about your previous post.
Let's recap what you're saying.
The Predators were good, the Islanders were bad.
The Predators got $12 million from the state and city in subsidy. The Islanders got nothing.
The Predators got $12 to $15 million from the NHL Revenue Sharing. The Islanders got nothing.
The Predators paid their players $51,387,500 in paychecks (not phantom cap dollars via buyouts and bonuses)
The Islanders paid their players $29,727,500 in paychecks (not phantom cap dollars via buyouts and bonuses)
The Predators performed better on the ice.
What does that tell you about the relationship between available money and on-ice success? Your use of the Panthers is fine to argue that they Panthers don't deserve to get revenue sharing. But the Islanders haven't got a single dime of revenue sharing. Sucked before it existed, sucked after it existed. Never got a dime. Changed GMs and owners 4-5 times. The only constant has been their crappy arena and horrible lease (and stagnant politicians in Nassau and Hempstead).
I am by no means trashing the Preds here. (I like the Preds. I'm the guy on the BOH forum that defends non-traditional markets more than anyone. Hell, I even own a Preds t-shirt).
Your argument boils down to:
-- It's really hard to be good without money.
-- If you don't have the money to be good, but get some for free and are good you deserve money.
-- If you don't have the money to be good, but don't get any for free and aren't good, you don't deserve money.
That's circular at best.
Last edited by KevFu: 11-06-2012 at
View Public Profile
Find More Posts by KevFu