View Single Post
Old
01-22-2013, 03:31 PM
  #129
Kaoz
Ima Krejciist.
 
Kaoz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Nova Scotia
Country: Canada
Posts: 28,577
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by bigbadjohn View Post
i don't want a short term, one injection of cash type of fix. that's my problem with their "solution." i want true revenue sharing, long term, fix the problem, no more lockouts.

the link to the NBA story shows a league that was determined to address the same problems the NHL seems incapable or unwilling to fully address. this, necessarily, has to come from the owners. they need to step up and take care of this issue. this is the leadership that is needed and that Jacobs does not supply. this would be the selfless response to a league problem that he claimed his support of the lockout was.

would that this issue were a dead horse. but it's not. the long term problems remain. and the Bruins owner is the one who brought up the subject and tried to spin his role as some selfless act for the benefit of the league.
Until last year the NBA's revenue sharing pool equated to roughly 60 million. They increased the pool to 200 million this year. Did the NHL not do the exact same thing? Sorry, you keep bringing up the NBA but I'm not sure why. Both leagues share the exact same amount, and the NHL brings in less revenue. The NHL is already doing more then the NBA in regards to revenue sharing. And while on the subject of comparing the NHL to other leagues why, when every other professional sports league on the continent has at best a 50/50 player owner split of revenues, do you think NHL players deserve more?

Good article on why revenue sharing is not the answer, is nothing more then a band aid:
http://thehockeywriters.com/nhl-lock...ng-the-answer/

Once you move on from revenue sharing as an option to fix it all you're in a predicament. You now have two obvious choices, contract (neither players nor owners want this) or move teams to more viable markets. Pull them out of the markets that don't support them in the states and place them in places like Quebec, Hamilton, Seattle, etc... To do that however you'd have to abandon the good growth you've already fostered in the southern states (and there are plenty of numbers available that prove hockey is succeeding in these non-traditional markets even if the NHL team isn't yet), and abandon the rich untapped markets that those cities hold also abandoning the more lucrative broadcast deals, commercial revenues, and merchandising. You'd essentially have to accept that the NHL is what it is and that it will never be more. I doubt players or owners want that.

Canada is for lack of a better word, tapped. You aren't growing the sport much more here then it has already grown. You'll see short term gains if you moved say Phoenix to Hamilton in things like ticket sales, but that would be it. Eventually it would stagnate, it would decline in popularity in the US and truly become the ugly duckling of professional sports in NA far more so then it already is. Not to mention your pinning your hopes and dreams on the Canadian economy.

Of course there's also a third option, cut down on expenses so that teams that make less money can afford to keep up with the higher revenue teams like Toronto. Players are obviously deadset against this method as they are easily the largest expense every NHL team pays out, but it's rather interesting so many fans also are. I assume because they don't want to see those rich owners continue to get richer. I just don't understand why? I could care less if Jacobs or Bell/Rogers rake in additional monies off the sport if it means you'll get competitive hockey in places like Phoenix and Tampa. Do people think these guys aren't getting richer regardless from their other ventures? The NHL is hardly a drop in the bucket for any of them comparatively.

Kaoz is offline   Reply With Quote