View Single Post
11-30-2012, 01:49 PM
Clearly deranged
Freudian's Avatar
Join Date: Jul 2003
Country: Sweden
Posts: 40,812
vCash: 50
Originally Posted by Habtchum View Post
So the good adimistrations and successful markets ALWAYS have to pay for the weak and badly managed teams. Does it make sense ?
In a system where there is some sort of revenue sharing, the answer is yes. The rich will help the poor. It's that way in all the big sports leagues in North America.

But in the long run the goal is that all markets should strive to stand on their own feet. It's sometimes lost in these discussions that most teams have increased their revenues greatly in the last seven years, including a lot of the problem franchises. But costs have skyrocketed at the same time.

I wouldn't equate successful markets with being good administrators. The teams making the most money have also made the most bad decisions when it comes to player contracts. They just can afford to absorb them.

Freudian is offline