View Single Post
Old
12-13-2012, 04:37 PM
  #244
DAChampion
Registered User
 
DAChampion's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Canberra, Australia
Country: Australia
Posts: 13,521
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Drydenwasthebest View Post
Terrific post! People on the players side think of how horrible that players will "LOSE" 14% of their salaries, but think nothing of taking 33% of the money successful franchises earn to give it to weaker franchises. How would Ovechkin feel if he were asked to give 33% of his salary to help support his team mate Tomas Kundratek? I doubt the union would be happy if such revenue sharing were to be suggested by the owners as a way to ensure all union members get a fair salary that can balance out all players' living conditions.

To be fair, though, I do believe that revenue sharing should increase. The fact that the owners are going to do it is good for the league.
They're not taking 33% of the more successful franchise's money, you completely misunderstood the post.

Revenue sharing is increasing by 33% in the owners' proposal. It will rise from 140 million to 180 million leaguewide (33%), over 5 years. As we can expect league revenues to rise at the same rate or faster, total revenue sharing will remain at ~4% of league revenue.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Drydenwasthebest View Post
Did you miss the part where it was pointed out that revenue sharing IS being increased by a larger margin than the rollback players were asked to take?
Incorrect.

Revenue sharing is being increased by 33 million, and player salaries are decreasing by 230 million. The latter also scales with league revenues, i.e. if league revenues double, the latter counts as 460 million, whereas the former is still 33 million.


Last edited by DAChampion: 12-13-2012 at 04:46 PM.
DAChampion is online now