Should there be Revenue Sharing limits?
View Single Post
11-13-2012, 02:47 AM
Join Date: Dec 2005
Originally Posted by
The sole "argument" you have in this is "direct competition."
a) Parity helps popularity, which helps the league.
b) While the league mandates the minimum salary, the real reason RS exists is because without it, the poor teams are spending 70% of HRR on players... which eliminates their TRAVEL budget, and their MARKETING budget.
Would you be okay with each team paying 10% of HRR into a league-wide "Travel and Marketing Fund" and all 30 teams taking an equal slice of that, so the RS money wasn't "paying the payrolls of direct competition" ??
Having a cap basement/ceiling at... say... (just ballparking)... 35/50 mil would still have the players being ABSOLUTELY FILTHY RICH, would be very good league parity, and neither rich team nor poor team fans would be ****ed over.
This is something the league would DEFINITELY agree to but the nhlpa wouldn't
I support this more than the millionaire players each having a few extra sports cars.
Again... I understand the nhlpa fighting for more than this. Why wouldn't they?
why would the fans support the nhlpa in that battle?
Why would the fans POSSIBLY care how many more sports cars the players can get at the expense of the league and fans in general?
View Public Profile
Disgruntled Observer*'s albums
Find More Posts by Disgruntled Observer*