a new twist ?: "revenue certainty"

Status
Not open for further replies.

thinkwild

Veni Vidi Toga
Jul 29, 2003
10,815
1,468
Ottawa
I dont think we are seriously suggesting it. Although, I still think it could make for healthy competition. And nothing ensures a strong market better than healthy competition with proper incentives
 

thinkwild

Veni Vidi Toga
Jul 29, 2003
10,815
1,468
Ottawa
If Disney sold the Ducks for $30mil to a group that moved to a new city, with a dazzling new arena, and 16000 fans plopping down money in advance for personal seat licences, is the game worse off?

Sad to see a team go. But preventing it makes the league weaker.
 

Orange

Registered User
Jul 12, 2003
1,158
0
Visit site
thinkwild said:
I dont think we are seriously suggesting it.

I know :)
I'm bored and got nothing else to do !

thinkwild said:
If Disney sold the Ducks for $30mil to a group that moved to a new city, with a dazzling new arena, and 16000 fans plopping down money in advance for personal seat licences, is the game worse off?

Sad to see a team go. But preventing it makes the league weaker.

Again, this would be the exception rather than the rule. Competitiveness would dictate that we're already near optimality, new changes wouldn't bring us much closer to the optimal scenario. But let's imagine for a second that you are right in a pure mathematical way (without respect to culture and other factors, such as time). At most, it would take 30 changes to attain the optimal solution (even if it's not possible to implement it in the real world). There after, your system forces you to make changes while you've already attained optimum. So it forces you to make bad changes. This contradicts the hypothesis that such a competitive change would be good.
 

Scheme

Registered User
Feb 14, 2003
284
0
Vancouver
Visit site
BlackRedGold said:
Did I say fold the teams?

No, I said SELL the teams.

If the team cannot be sold, the franchise is revoked and an expansion franchise granted to the best bidder.

Yeah? Sell them to who? A forced sale of a team every year is ludicrous, and really demonstrates the pro-PA members' common sense. This is almost as bad as that cap based on season performance idea. :joker: Why would anybody want to buy the worst franchise in the league, when there are some pretty good teams (Dallas, Anaheim) which are openly for sale with no buyers? The worst team in the league will usually be at or near the bottom the next year too. Who wants to buy a crappy team they will probably have to sell next year because of losses or a forced sale? Fans won't shell out for season tickets because of poor team quality, unstable ownership and the team might move after being sold. No season ticket sales, falling franchise values (which would hurt the rest of the league) and stubborn players demanding 75% of the revenues? This franchise would not be sustainable, and would be worthless because nobody would be willing to spend money just to lose money. Actually, that's the way it is right now for some teams in this "perfect" CBA world. And it needs to be fixed.

Eventually the values of each "worst of the year" franchise would get devalued to the point where it will get real silly real fast. The teams will have to be scrapped. Eventually we'll be left with just a handful of teams, then a couple. The players on the other teams? Bye bye. TV deal? Bye bye. Fan support? Bye bye. Whoever's left on these two teams will have to play for less money. Not the ideal for the union. Unless they want to see a union of just two teams. :lol:
 

Potatoe1

Registered User
Oct 5, 2004
764
0
Revenue Certainty?

Good Grief this gets stranger by the day.....

Please explain how this system is any different than a luxury tax or cap that is simply tied to some arbitrary number i.e. 50 million.

Seems like a lot of complicated accounting for a system that really doesn't tie provide any more cost certainty then a luxury tax system like the one the players proposed.
 

eye

Registered User
Feb 17, 2003
1,607
0
around the 49th para
Visit site
The owners already provide revenue certainty. It's called guaranteed contracts, entry level contracts and salary arbitration that only spirals salaries in an upward direction. If the players and the NHLPA fail to offer any kind of cost certainty system this Thursday look for a new NHL next year. The NHLPA have gotten to big for their own good and it's time to let the league and it's owners have it's rightful say in running the show. The only negotiation that will take place is on just what type of cap or how its key points are agreed to. The sooner the players realize that the sooner we will see NHL hockey again.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad

-->