View Single Post
Old
11-15-2012, 01:18 AM
  #166
KevFu
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: New Orleans
Country: United States
Posts: 3,877
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Scurr View Post
Obviously not enough incentive for a lot of franchises.
If it's so easy to put a winning team on the ice, why hasn't the richest team in the sport won a Cup since 1967?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Scurr View Post
Interesting. You'd think that the poor teams would be able to out vote the rich teams considering how many poor teams the NHL is claiming. How many votes does Toronto have?
Because it isn't "Rich" vs "poor." There's three tiers of teams, and they're not in perfect balance.

They were all in favor of the cap and cutting costs; the players demanded a floor, and the poor teams obviously would be against that. Revenue sharing gave them the money they need to afford the floor -- at the time. It worked in 2006. It doesn't now because of growth.

The league got a consensus: it's impossible for everyone to get what they want, but everyone could live with it.
Ultimately, the situation for the poor got better -- while they were still poor, the rich were capped, so they had limits on how far behind they were.
The rich -- capped on what they could spend and giving up some parity in the league got what they wanted -- more dough in the pockets, even after revenue sharing.
The middle -- best of both worlds: closer to the top if they want to spend; cost certainty so they don't have to spend; more dough to keep; and a safety net if they hit hard times and dipped to the lower class

Quote:
Originally Posted by Scurr View Post
The Vancouver Canucks make money, some of it mine. They do it by running their team well, signing good contracts, drafting and developing well etc. That's a well run business, that's why it makes money. Giving money to another owner so they can piss it away on a poorly run team is throwing good money at bad. The same teams that struggled before this system are still struggling, giving them handouts so they can continue to run their business into the ground doesn't help anyone except the inept owner. Hire well, invest in your team, have success, make money.
It wasn't designed to make the struggling financial teams BETTER. It only off-sets the raise of the minimum payroll so they can keep operating.

Uncapped: last in revenue, low payroll of $20 million, last place.
Floor/Sharing: Last in revenue, low payroll of $38 million, last place.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Scurr View Post
I wouldn't be interested in my hard earned money going to a guy that thought opening a Tim Hortons in a town of 12 people with no through road and hiring his 12 year old nephew to run it was a good idea.
That's true. But that's TH's franchise policy. Of course, the difference here is that while you didn't get a say in that foolish franchise opening; the Toronto Maple Leafs DID get a say in the NHL expansion.

KevFu is offline   Reply With Quote