View Single Post
12-11-2012, 10:59 AM
dave babych returns
Registered User
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 4,677
vCash: 500
Originally Posted by billvanseattle View Post
Hmmmm - the system does that now ... any team that can spend to the cap limit has an edge over a team spending to the floor.
Well, what you're describing is an effort to combat the sort of advantage Proto is talking about.. a limited payroll range for teams ensuring the gap between the rich and poor franchises does not grow beyond $16m.

I would love to see some of the revenue sharing come from a soft cap, something like for every dollar you are over the cap, you put a dollar into revenue sharing, up to say $5M, and then after that it double, then triple ...
Yeah I would prefer that too but there is no way the league abandons a hard cap linked to revenue (and it seems like they want to make it harder by closing loopholes that allowed teams to circumvent the ceiling - and floor for that matter).

Originally Posted by billvanseattle View Post
Not seen this discussed much before. What sort of revenues, and what % we talking.
It's too messy for anyone to get into, put it this way even the league and PA seem to lack the appetite to get into it.

But the big ones I've heard of are 1/3 of luxury box revenue for buildings a team owns or operates, 2/3 of luxury box revenue for buildings a team owns or operates with another major professional sports franchise, 54% of concession revenue league wide, 30% of parking revenue, etc.

Elliotte Friedman gets further into it here:

My understanding is that in the NFL for example where the players went down to 48% of revenue (iirc), the league had been deducting about a billion dollars from revenue every year to cover similar costs and they gave that up in the same agreement - meaning the players got a smaller percentage of a considerably larger figure. There will be no such concession to the players in this agreement, at least not if it's arrived at any time soon.

dave babych returns is offline