1997 expansion approval
View Single Post
12-21-2012, 02:25 PM
Join Date: Jul 2006
Originally Posted by
What is this? A joke?
If the difference between making and money and losing money was $5M or $15M -- that's a big difference, right?
Nobody has a problem that someone team is going to generate the least amount of revenue.
What we have a problem with is that some of these expansion teams have become Chevy Chase's dog leashed to the station wagon bumper.
It's ugly and gruesome. And, as a result... here were are.
MOD Say you removed these expansion teams...so you replace them with two higher revenue teams. so the cap floor and cap limit go up. Teams that were struggling fail. teams that were breaking even start to lose money. Ok so the teams that fail get remove so the salary floor and salary cap go up again. So new teams start to fail and so on and so on.
Having franchises that bring in little revenue is good for the teams that bring in a lot of revenue. It keeps the caps limits lower so they make more money.
The only argument is for more revenue sharing. The markets will no matter where they are located will never result in 30 teams generating the same amount of revenue. Columbus is a nice city so is Nashville. Both can support hockey and they do support hockey.
Nashville has 1700 more fans per game than Winnipeg. Almost as much as the hockey hotbed of Edmonton. SO there goes that lame theory. And not far behind Boston.
Hockey is doing great filling their arenas. the median attendance percentage is 100 percent. It is simple where the hockey financial problems lie. Too much money going to the players.
Last edited by Fugu: 12-21-2012 at
. Reason: flaming
View Public Profile
Find More Posts by atomic