View Single Post
11-07-2012, 01:17 PM
Registered User
htpwn's Avatar
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Toronto
Country: Poland
Posts: 17,443
vCash: 500
Originally Posted by MoreOrr View Post
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?
Yes but it should not be solely based on number of years receiving revenue sharing or amount received. Unless those bars are set very high, it inevitably will hurt a well-run team that is simply going through a rough patch.

Instead, a broader formula should be developed. How big is the market? How long has the team been located where it is? What's the arena situation? How many years has revenue sharing been needed? How much has the team received total? How much money has the team been spending on players? Is the team under performing amongst a group of similar franchises? All these and more should be taken into account, each varying in importance.

A baseball-type system, where teams like Kansas City and Pittsburgh can make profits in the tens of millions and yet spent little on the on-field product, is not desirable. Owners should be held to account for both continued incompetence and negligence (Owners need to make efforts to grow the sport; the team cannot simply be used as a breakeven enterprise while ownership reaps profit from an associated arena management contract).

htpwn is offline   Reply With Quote