Should there be Revenue Sharing limits?
View Single Post
11-11-2012, 09:57 PM
Join Date: Dec 2011
Originally Posted by
So if you think it takes 20 years to stable under ideal conditions, i presume you would be okay with a team getting rs for 25 years straight? Since you were kind enough to answer my previous question, do you think that there is a time when you have to say some markets are not sustainable ? If so, when does the clock reach zero?
Something I haven't seen answered. If the NHL has 300m in their RS pot, and the plan is that it goes to the bottom 15 teams (assuming that it doesn't push teams more into the black than those above them), then why does it matter which 15 teams are getting the money?
It's not like the money would be saved for a rainy day it it's not given out. It's either given out, or returned to the other teams somehow. So again, what's the big deal about where it goes? With how the CBA is setup, there will always be teams on the bottom who will need assistance. It doesn't even matter who those teams are... when it's based on average revenue, and when every team brings in different amounts of revenue, those at the bottom will always need RS assistance.
As long as there's an owner who's willing to keep the team there, then there's still time on the clock. Now other than Phoenix, I don't think there's any teams who will be in a position anytime soon to vacate their building/lease anytime soon. Florida, Columbus and now the Islanders all have long term leases. Who else would be in a position to move?
"Itís not as if Donald Fehr was lying to us, several players said. Rather, itís as if he has been economical with information, these players believe, not sharing facts these players consider to be vital."
View Public Profile
Find More Posts by Riptide