View Single Post
11-12-2012, 04:03 AM
Disgruntled Observer*
Join Date: Dec 2005
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,713
vCash: 500
Originally Posted by KevFu View Post
Toronto voted yes to adding expansion teams in Tampa, Miami, Nashville, Columbus and Atlanta (and Anaheim, who's ineligible for RS)
Toronto voted yes to the Jets relocating to Phoenix (and the North Stars relocating to Dallas, who are ineligible)
So because they voted yes all those years ago in an attempt and grow the sport, they now have to pay dozens of millions of dollars per year to their direct competition whenever those owners make mistakes?
This is insane.

Originally Posted by KevFu View Post
#1 - Because Leafs fans will pay those prices unless some major incident makes them stop buying tickets. An increase from $200 to $300 might make people question the expense of that kind of money on tickets. "I didn't like it at $200, but $300? I can't really afford that." But no one ever says "Well, I could afford $200, but $208? Where am I gonna get an extra eight bucks?"

#2 - Revenue sharing is 4.5% of local revenues. Tickets are less than half of local revenues. The Leafs raised ticket prices 3.5% in 2009. So, they kind of are increasing prices to "make up the difference".

#3 - Make up WHAT difference?

You are looking at this all backward. How much money did the Leafs hand out BEFORE revenue sharing?

59% of their revenues in 2004 went to the players. The Leafs got 41% of their revenues.

How much money do the Leafs hand out NOW?
4.5% of their revenues, into revenue sharing.
30.8% of their revenues to the players if they spend to the cap.
With Revenue Sharing, only 35.3% or their revenues went to the players

The Leafs' "Owners Share" jumped from 41% to 64.7% --- which is why they VOTED IN FAVOR of revenue sharing.

You can blame revenue sharing/poor teams/southern markets all you like. But it looks to me like the Leafs are screwing you over by putting profits ahead of winning; squeezing every dime they can out of their fan base while not delivering a quality product. And you keep paying for it.
If the options are,
a) revenue sharing (which is dramatically unfair to the fans of rich teams)
b) the millionaire players simply take a smaller piece of the pie and can buy one less mansion

i'd go with option b) a million times out of a million.

Disgruntled Observer* is offline   Reply With Quote