Should there be Revenue Sharing limits?
View Single Post
11-07-2012, 03:23 PM
Join Date: Dec 2011
Originally Posted by
If the Salary Floor is sufficient for a well-run team to be competitive, then teams that remain stuck near the Salary Floor and are constant recepients of Revenue sharing are so because they "suck" = are poorly run (or because being competitive doesn't matter because not enough people in the area have an interest in hockey).
I'm with you but there are a lot of things that go into it. For example, is the team trying to develop a new market ? I think that everyone agrees that making a go of the blue jackets is much harder than the Jets 2.0. But if a team gets RS for a decade and still needs these funds to prevent catastrophic losses, can one still blame the emerging market scenario ? Like people have said the senators had a rough start for 5 or 6 years. If they were protected for that time, is it unreasonable to ask for 10 or 20 years in non traditional markets ?
This isn't rhetorical, I really don't know what a reasonable amount of time to establish a completely new market would be.
View Public Profile
Find More Posts by sandysan