View Single Post
11-07-2012, 08:07 PM
Registered User
Join Date: May 2009
Location: New Orleans
Country: United States
Posts: 5,048
vCash: 500
Originally Posted by sandysan View Post
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.
That's what I mean. To a novice, it might be that "hey, they draft poorly, or trade players too early, or don't sign enough free agents."

But when you look at someone like Phoenix for example. Yeah, they were horribly mismanaged by Moyes, but their attendance went from bad to abysmal when the team went into bankruptcy.

Columbus is another team that has sucked on the ice, but at the same time, they had a horrible lease because of Ohio State's meddling. They've renegotiated, as has Nashville.

I posted it before: The Islanders are bad and have been terrible for most of the last two decades. Multiple owners and GMs. The constant is their inferior arena and horrible lease (we'll see how Brooklyn pans out). The same measures of "no improvement" for NYI aren't due to not developing a fan base. Their fans chanted "S-M-G Set Us Free." And when they didn't, stopped going to games. That's a savvy fan base to realize they're not going to pay SMG to watch the Islanders.

Originally Posted by Stewie Griffin View Post
And how do you define "suck"? On ice product? Off-ice management?

Why does Florida lose $7 million with revenues of $81 million, yet Columbus has operating losses of $13.7 million, with similar revenues? (based on Forbes' #'s). I'm really asking because I'm curious, not being a smart-ass.

Would revenue sharing actually do anything to remedy these discrepancies?
That's the crux of my argument. Every situation is different. And when you look at the top revenue teams (NYR, TOR, MON, CHI, DET, VAN, PHI, BOS, etc) and look at the bottom (PHX, NYI, CBJ, NASH) the common denominator isn't market size, geographic latitude, "traditional hockey market" or anything like that. It's WHO OWNS/OPERATES THE ARENA. Of the top 14 teams in revenue 12 own/operate their arenas. The teams at the bottom lease with bad terms.

There shouldn't be a single restriction on who's eligible for revenue sharing. Teams who have to spend over the negotiated percentage of HRR to reach THE FLOOR should get revenue sharing. Period. Anything else blows up the equilibrium of the system.

I think the percentage of HRR comes second; then revenue sharing third; then player contract issues fourth. The key issue to address for me, is Median instead of Average for the midpoint. Fix that, and you instantly get balance of haves, have nots, and middle class. Then figure out the percentage with the NHLPA to get them their share and get most teams possible within the salary range within reason; THEN figure out revenue sharing so that those teams who don't fall within the payroll range (this is all assuming everyone spends their Pct on payroll) can hit the floor. THEN give and take on player contract issues.

KevFu is offline   Reply With Quote