View Single Post
Old
11-14-2012, 11:25 PM
  #160
SJeasy
Registered User
 
SJeasy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: San Jose
Country: United States
Posts: 12,270
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Scurr View Post
It's best for the players and teams giving out revenue sharing if it's given as incentive for owners with smaller fanbases to run their teams well. That's the only way those teams are going to increase their fanbase and therefore their revenue. You have to tie it to wins. It gives those owners incentive to hire well and spend money on their hockey ops and payroll. Revenue sharing that throws good money at bad is not good for anyone except the guy doing a poor job running their franchise, which doesn't make any sense.
But what do you say when the guys who are giving up sharing handcuff the guys who receive it through draconian expansion draft rules? Teams that don't offer advice on arena lease arrangements? Teams that haven't prepped the next group of GMs and HCs? A lot of franchise operations do offer advice and either control or oversee lease arrangements. It's like saying "we'll tie your hands behind your back and then complain when it doesn't work". It's a minor miracle that some teams have thrived.

And better yet, negotiate a CBA that requires that a team may overspend its means so that the wealthy teams can pocket even more profits. That is called robbing from the poor to pay the rich.

SJeasy is offline   Reply With Quote