Should there be Revenue Sharing limits?
View Single Post
11-07-2012, 01:06 PM
Join Date: Nov 2008
Originally Posted by
Just taking your post in general, I'm in total agreement. Revenue Sharing is a good thing, definitely, especially in any league where is exists economic disparities and especially to the degree that it exists in the NHL. But I'm really being specific with respect to certain teams continually and always being on the receiving end of Revenue Sharing. One would think that, as a League, all teams would be expected to at least ocassionally be among the 'givers' in Revenue Sharing and not always the 'receivers' (or at the very minimum, be among a group of teams that not gives nor receives because they're in the middle).
I think you slightly misunderstood his point.
The issue isn't the disparity. The issue is that
the disparity itself is enforced by the rules of the current CBA.
However much money the lowest revenue team makes, the floor
be above that point, just by the way the cap and floor are calculated.
That means that
the team at the bottom of the revenue list will always lose money, regardless of how much money that team makes,
and there will always be one team at the bottom of the revenue pile because that's the math -- in any list involving varying values, one value is always the lowest. That team is guaranteed to lose money where there's 30 teams in the league or only 6.
One would think that when you eliminate your worst money loser, a rising tide would raise all boats. In this case, removing the leakiest boat just sinks someone else.
We need to overhaul the system from top to bottom because the current system is broken. That's at the core of why there's really a lockout right now, whether the owners and PA recognize that or not.
Last edited by Dojji*: 11-07-2012 at
View Public Profile
Find More Posts by Dojji*