... I know you've edited, but in any case... for the bolded, to what end? Just getting them to break even doesn't do much for me as an owner. It isn't like a barely profitable team is more exciting to watch than one that is losing $40M a year. The roster would presumably be the same unless we start sharing enough that they can do what Minnesota did... and then what does *that* do for me as an individual owner... not good!
Further... it isn't like the NBC says... oh, well we were going to pay you $X for our next TV contract, but now we'll pay you Y because CBJ are breaking even.
If the point is just to have the teams stick around long enough to dilute the talent pool in exchange for a few more fans that don't come to my building and buy my jerseys, why should I care?
To what end? To prevent franchises from constantly folding or relocating. Moving franchises back to Canada doesn't help the NHL's ability to get better TV contracts. That alone can make it worthwhile. It would also eliminate the need to lose half a year of income because of lockouts; if the teams are breaking even at minimum, there's no need to take the players behind the shed every ten years or so. Networks will be more interested in a league with good and safe US exposure...and which won't lose huge chunks of seasons with regularity.
My question to you is this: Why are you, as a fan, opposed to revenue sharing (assuming you are)? If it can help eliminate the lockouts, I'd be allllll for it. Screw the owners and their needs, I care about my needs as a fan, and I "need" to watch hockey. That's my stake, and I'm down for anything that allows that to happen. As I see it, a good revenue sharing program accomplishes that, when paired with the player pay reduction. Player pay reduction without good revenue sharing just leaves us in the same boat.
Down in the basement, I've got a Craftsman lathe. Show it to the children when they misbehave.
Last edited by Beef Invictus: 01-03-2013 at 05:06 PM.
GET PLAYERS WHO AREN'T ABOUT TO RETIRE AND WILL GET ANOTHER CONTRACT IN THERE. Keep Doan, Darche, Campoli, DiPietro etc etc away from it they are too desperate. Pensions are important, but some of those guys are clinging to their last chance at money too hard.
The NFL makes a ton more money than the NHL. Economies of scale factor in here. Punishing profitability and rewarding ineptitude is never a good business model. When the majority of teams are making money and the load is distributed among a larger group of profitable teams covering a smaller group of unprofitable teams then it can work. Also, it works when the unprofitable teams are only unprofitable because of things outside their control (new teams, old arena's, local economy, etc) and only for a limited amount of time. If a team remains in the unprofitable bucket for too long (Phoenix...) they need to be removed.
The NHL has a lot of unprofitable teams because they have extremely inept management. That is not something you want to be rewarding.
These teams are unprofitable due to total mismanagement. Can't blame a fan base for never rallying behind a teams that has consistently been terrible since entering the league.
You're too quick to label markets unprofitable. Look at Pittsburgh, going to bankruptcy a decade ago and now it's one of the most popular franchises in the league. Likewise the Sharks have thrived in a non-traditional market due to a quality product.