View Single Post
Old
04-19-2007, 09:15 AM
  #49
Jarnberg
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Nashville
Country: United States
Posts: 5,547
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by FissionFire View Post
Something else to possibly consider: I was reading the CBA last night (no honestly, I was) and apparently starting next season there certain requirements that must be met to be eligible for full revenue sharing. There's a minimum attendance figure (which goes up in 2008-09 to the final level) and something along the lines of having to grow revenues each year by a certain percentage. Each year a team doesn't meet both terms they lose something like 10-20% of the revenue sharing cut, cumulative up to 3 or 4 years. I'll have to dig it out tomorrow and find it. I'm not saying this is a good or bad thing, but something certainly notable moving ahead. I think the 2008-09 average paid attendance had to be 14,000 but can't remember the 2007-08 figure. It's possible that the attendance clause the Preds wrote into the lease with Nashville is specifically because of this part of the CBA because the timing of it seems awfully coincidental. If that's the case, it means that Leipold has been positioning the franchise to be able to move since the beginning if the revenue sharing values were going to be jeapordized. That doesn't mean it WILL move, just that he's made that option available to him since Day 1, meaning he was at one time at least willing to pursue it under certain circumstances.

EDIT: For anyone interested if seeing it first-hand all this revenue-sharing crap is under Article 49 of the CBA. I think. I learned alot about it, like 50% of every teams PO gates go directly to the revenue sharing fund. Ironic since some teams actually are paying money into the check they'll be getting at the end of the season.
Believe me, we know about the CBA revenue sharing attendance requirement.

Jarnberg is offline   Reply With Quote