View Single Post
11-19-2012, 04:07 PM
Bruin fan since 1975
Alberta_OReilly_Fan's Avatar
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Edmonton Canada
Country: Canada
Posts: 5,700
vCash: 500
Originally Posted by Artemis View Post
Wyshynski has some interesting comments on the Bettman interview. Among them:
i guess that spots like football/baseball are ingrained into the americain culture and popular from coast to coast... without a true national presence, tv revenues would suffer alot. tv is SUPER IMPORTANT to these leagues.

If these leagues choose to revenue share... and the people running these leagues are smart... then we must assume theres a good reason for them to revenue share. Personally, I see it. Im not shocked that they revenue share. Having no teams at all in markets smaller then the top 20 would suck for these leagues.

Hockey is a different matter of course. Hockey is trying to grow a presence in markets that dont accept it yet. Hockey is hoping one day for a huge tv deal but how realistic is it?

I guess if the owners felt that revenue sharing was in their best interest... that protecting these small markets at the expense of their own profits was in their best interest... then theyd do it. They do it some now... so they must feel they get some benefit...

but for any of us to tell them they are FORCED to do it more then they feel is appropriate... isnt going to fly. Its like how difficult it is to get a championship in college sports... or why is all the fighting between the various divisions. Even though in theory, all colleges could agree to be partners and maybe get some benefits... its just not human nature for it to happen

and not in all of their best interests either

obviously... more revenue sharing would help the small markets some... but enough? and at what expense to teams in toronto and philly that are owned by stock holders? its not billionares that own all the rich teams... some are owned by corporations with stock holders to account to.

Alberta_OReilly_Fan is offline