If Revenue Sharing Is Important, Why Isn't There Linkage?
View Single Post
12-11-2012, 02:06 PM
Join Date: Oct 2005
Originally Posted by
I thought the league agreed to waive many, if not all, of the requirement triggers in their new proposals.
I think a better discussion would be this:
If the players are so supportive of revenue sharing, but feel that the 5 year contract term limits the middle and lower end salaried players, why not take the guys making $10-12 million per season ($ amounts I've seen used in pro NHLPA arguments) and share their revenue?
Perhaps because Toronto, NYR and Montreal et al. don't share their revenues over say $100 MM.
The real answer is that everyone is in it to make as much money as possible and to keep it for themselves. The teams aren't sharing money because of altruism or to make the game better, but as a giveback on the savings they reap from a cap system. I also see nothing wrong with trying to hang on to the money you earn fairly. The current quibble though is the acceptance that some teams simply don't get to keep enough of their own revenues, so who gets to give back some of it to them when there are two choices: the other teams or the players (or both).
View Public Profile
Find More Posts by Fugu