Should there be Revenue Sharing limits?
View Single Post
11-12-2012, 06:57 PM
Join Date: Dec 2005
Originally Posted by
The Leafs only "have to pay" revenue sharing because THEY VOTED TO so they could make more money in a cap system.
It's not dramatically unfair. It's a system that gives THEM more money.
Your Leafs voted to aide other teams so they could pocket more profits.
Your beef isn't with the league, it's with the Leafs. They choose a system that would make more teams able to compete with them financially, decrease their ability to spend to win, gave them an excuse to jack up prices (which you're falling for), and pocket millions more in profits rather than re-investment.
How is it unfair to someone who has a vote and votes in favor of it?
The leafs voted in favour of revenue sharing as a concession. They would of course had preferred a much lower cap with no revenue sharing.
The players want either
- a completely free market (which is TERRIBLY unfair for fans of small market teams).
- or, if there's a cap, revenue sharing so that the cap is much higher than it should be for a substantial amount of the league (which is TERRIBLY unfair for fans of rich teams).
The league simply wants a very strong cap. This would be fair to ALL fans, and the only people that would take a hit are millionaire players who could now all afford one less sports car. Oh, the horror.
I of course understand that the nhlpa will be trying to protect the players... at ALL costs. That's their job, and I don't even resent them for it.
But as fans? How could anybody possibly side with the players? Why would the fans prefer that the players get more sports cars at the expense of fairness and parity in the league?
View Public Profile
Disgruntled Observer's albums
Find More Posts by Disgruntled Observer