^^^^^^
A couple of points Kev,
We can argue for a long time, but the reality is that the kind of revenue redistribution you are discussing here, enough to make the Coyotes of the league solvent in the face of the massive disparity of revenue between them and the Leafs, is much larger than has been used in MLB or NBA.
Again, I say that the idea you propose comes down to this, essentially:
You want to convince the TOR, MTL, NYRs of the world that 'giving money' to the ARI, CAR, FLOs of the world will eventually result in more profits for the big guys.
You say that idea has been tested. I say it hasn't, not on the scale you want it done.
You say the rich owners are fools. I say, "I'm not sure."
There is no way to find out without doing it for 10 years. And, if I own the NYR, I am not interested in that experiment. It's going to take some BIG convincing to convince me.
Ok, that last part is extremely valid. But I think we're in the same ballpark of agreement:
X amount of increased revenue sharing for the betterment of the league to promote = good thing.
But Z amount of revenue sharing is too much for the rich owners to get enough return for it to be worth it to them.
Our disagreement is probably over the amount of money X and Z are, but not the principle.
How about this?
Does it make sense for the NHL to without a sliver of league revenues, distributing less to each team, and use that sliver to GROW THE FAN BASE OF HOCKEY to create new customers and increase TV demand?
That takes the"subsidizing / Robin Hood evilness" out of the mix, and put it where it belongs: The NHL needs to create more hockey fans in the footprint, period. I think everyone agrees on that.
The places with the lowest percentage of customers spending money on the NHL is clearly the places where NHL teams exist, but have low attendance/TV ratings. Now, if the NHL succeeds in growing fan bases there through initiatives... the current system really doesn't mean the rest of the league gets to share the increase. So you fix THAT next.
Counting on corporate support is a foolish roll of the dice. First time things get lean, those folks disappear.
Disagree completely. The percentages of revenues from high end tickets, suites, etc is far greater than the percentage of revenue from upper bowl seats.
Ever watch a game on TV, think it's a light crowd, and then see the announced attendance and think "LIARS!" Well guess what, if the suite is sold, those tickets are counted.
Rich companies will renew their premium suites when the team is terrible so that they still have them if the team is in the playoffs. Giving them up means someone else could take your suite and when the team's good again, you're in a less prestigious suite location and not impressing people during the playoffs.
That is not appealing in any way. "Hey, we have no chance of ever winning the title, but we might get to play on the same ice as a team that does have a chance, but only if we beat these other ****** teams with no chance of winning the title!" That's an awful system.
Sure, if you're one of the top 20 markets/teams. I'm pretty sure Hamilton would love to be able to PLAY their way into the NHL rather than be stuck waiting on expansion.
But forget PRO/REL, because THAT idealogical discussion could go one for eternity and we have a separate thread for it.
Every NA Big Four league has 30 to 32 teams right now. But they are not the same 30 markets in each.
The NHL could easily work and success in pretty much any of the Top 50 markets of the US/CAN. UNDER THE RIGHT CONDITIONS.
To me, the concept of "how many teams could the NHL support?" is a bit of a fool's errand. The NHL isn't carrying the franchises. The NHL has a collectively agreed to system/structure. But each team has to generate its own revenue from a fan base they have to cultivate.
If conditions were created in which more teams = more money (like Starbucks locations) then the NHL could "support" a freaking ton more teams. That would be incredibly hard to achieve for the NHL.
The real issue is more "How can you manage the configuration of the league that's grown really big that you're holding the interest of the majority of the fans?" This is a problem that plagued MLB for a while.
In the golden age of baseball, they had two 8-team leagues. Well, now they're two 15-team leagues. That's a lot of distance between first and 15th.
So they've added divisions and wild cards. The fifth playoff spot was the most recent addition because now you have 11 of 15 AL teams are within six games of the playoffs right now.
With future expansion and bigger and bigger leagues, you're going to need to behave more like two SEPARATE LEAGUES that have only occasional interleague play, and champions meeting in the playoffs.