If Revenue Sharing Is Important, Why Isn't There Linkage?
View Single Post
12-10-2012, 03:37 PM
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Pac NW
Originally Posted by
It was set as a "target" of 4.5%. Depending on how the numbers crunched it was possible for the actual figure to end up being higher or lower than 4.5%.
If a team was disqualified that only meant the money they would have received was shifted to the other eligible recipients.
Based on some past estimate models I did, I suspect the actual revenue sharing amount paid out was rarely if ever below 4.5% HRR, and there may have been a couple years where revenue sharing could have hit 6.0% or higher like 2008-2009.
It still sounds like there's plenty of fudge factor there. In other words, a team can only get money to get it from the floor to the midpoint. That portion is guaranteed by the CBA. If that isn't what was happening-- then it's not linked if the amount needed to have that happen was capped at 4.5%. If indeed, it was exceeding that figure to 6% or higher, then the league did have to come up with enough money to bridge that gap.
As such, there isn't direct linkage regardless, because not only did they have a formula to bridge the gap, but then had to consider if teams met the growth metrics. Hence the portion of the CBA that had the 100%, or 75% but never below 50% of the full share absent the growth targets.
View Public Profile
Find More Posts by Fugu