View Single Post
11-15-2012, 03:56 PM
Registered User
Join Date: May 2009
Location: New Orleans
Country: United States
Posts: 5,018
vCash: 500
Originally Posted by Scurr View Post
I don't care what it was designed for.
And that's why you're arguing against a conclusion unrelated to the premise.

Originally Posted by Scurr View Post
The only way struggling markets turn it around is with on ice success
True, and unrelated to revenue sharing.

Originally Posted by Scurr View Post
it just doesn't make sense to keep a team afloat that is going to keep losing for another 20 years.
Also true, and also unrelated to revenue sharing. Revenue sharing doesn't keep teams afloat. It offsets the increase in minimum payroll. That's why the teams at the bottom financially before RS are still the teams at the bottom after RS. Because all RS does is raise everything to towards the floor: The minimum payroll and their revenues.

It as a cost of living increase. It would be like an employer mandating you purchase something for work, but adding the cost of it to your salary.

Phoenix, Florida, Nashville and St. Louis made the playoffs, so their on-ice product improved, and that submarines your "keep losing for another 20 years" point. (It's also pretty tough for that to apply that to Tampa and Carolina, considering their names are on the Cup).

Atlanta has already relocated. And the Islanders, Stars, Devils and Ducks don't get revenue sharing.

So whom exactly is it that revenue sharing is "keeping afloat without the team improving it's on-ice product"?

You've got 1 out of 30 teams who could POSSIBLY meet this description. Then again if Phoenix can improve it's product with the lowest pre-RS revenue in the league, Columbus isn't necessarily going to be crappy for the next 20 years.

Last edited by KevFu: 11-15-2012 at 04:02 PM.
KevFu is offline   Reply With Quote