View Single Post
Old
11-15-2012, 12:26 AM
  #164
KevFu
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: New Orleans
Country: United States
Posts: 3,888
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.
There is. It's called "The Stanley Cup."

Quote:
Originally Posted by Scurr View Post
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.
No, you don't have to tie it to wins. Revenue Sharing exists because the floor eliminates the ability for teams to spend within their means. It slashes their budgets from things like scouts and marketing that enables the team to get better. That's why the rich teams are paying the poor teams; because they voted to take away the poor team's ability to control their own expenses.

Revenue Sharing doesn't throw good many after bad. If you want to talk about a team pocking millions and not putting a good product on the ice, look no further than Toronto. They signed off on Revenue Sharing because it gives them someone else to blame while choosing to not go the extra mile to win because they'd rather pocket millions.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Scurr View Post
I'm not sure what you're getting at here.

If I bought a Tim Horton's franchise I would take it upon myself to sign a good lease and hire good people. I would probably make sure I could do both before buying a franchise. I don't think other franchise owners would be willing to cut me a cheque if I signed a bad lease or hired poorly.
If you bought a Tim Horton's you'd be paying corporate a percentage of your HRR (Horton's Related Revenue) that is almost 10% higher (14%) than the Maple Leafs' percentage of Hockey Related Revenue to their corporate body for revenue sharing (4.5%). Tim Horton's can and does redistribute that to other franchises (usually in the form of equipment, signage, etc) that benefits their overall enterprise as a whole. Tim Horton's shares more revenue than the NHL so that their business is in the best possible position. Because it's the smart thing to do.

Do you advocate 14% revenue sharing?

KevFu is offline   Reply With Quote