Bob McKenzie: NHL doesn't need max contract length
View Single Post
11-12-2012, 11:04 AM
Join Date: Dec 2008
Originally Posted by
I've said numerous times that I have absolutely no issues with a massive increase in RS. I don't think it's the right answer, but I think it's a more realistic answer than the right answer (sadly). And I've never once proposed dropping the split to what the weakest can afford. Please don't insinuate otherwise.
Just so my point is made to those asking for increased revenue sharing of 200-250 mil.
If you take the top 10 teams in operating income from 2010, the total for all 10 was roughly 250 mil. And operating income still has a few deductions before it becomes profit. So that number is probably around 200 mil in profit.
If you base it strictly on revenue the top 10 in 2010 had operating income of roughly 235-240 mil. Again that number is probably just below 200 mil in profit.
So in essence, as you push the 200 mil in revenue sharing threshold, let alone the 250 mil mark, youre essentially swiping the ENTIRE profits of the top 10 teams. Sure those numbers went up a bit in the past two years, but not enough to leave much for the owners.
IF they push RS toward 200 mil more than just the top 10 teams would probably need to pay, but as of 2010 only the top 12 teams made profit. So you could conceivably have a situation where teams 11-14 in revenue or op income have to pay into RS but are losing money. And the fact that big market owners will have the MAJORITY of their profit taken will only hurt the most successful teams.
View Public Profile
Find More Posts by sina220*