Let's talk about revenue sharing.... (TSN News)

Status
Not open for further replies.

Drury_Sakic

Registered User
Jul 25, 2003
4,917
795
www.avalanchedb.com
Le Golie said:
Fans of rich teams will be against this. Fans of poor teams will be for this. And both can argue until they are blue in the face, but the fact is - revenue sharing is good for the health of the league as a whole.


I don't think fans of the rich teams will really care, as the revenue sharing will not effect how much their team spends on their roster under a cap system. I mean, even with big revenue sharing, the Avs will still be able to afford a 37-42 million payroll.. same for the Leafs, Rangers..ext... I personally could care less if the Avs have to share 10-30 million(an estimate) in revenue.......Only the ownership of those big market clubs will care about having to share...
 

Colorado Avalanche

No Babe pictures
Sponsor
Apr 24, 2004
28,635
8,745
Lieto
I think revenue sharing is d@mn unfair! Example, That's pretty unfair to colorado because Quebec didn't got any money help from top teams that time(they survived themself, like everyone else should do in NHL). Those little teams are already having change to have better players in draft and now they want money from other big market teams, that's insane. They should survive themself! :shakehead
 

hockeytown9321

Registered User
Jun 18, 2004
2,358
0
Flyguy_1ca said:
I'm a fan of a rich team (philly), and I'm not opposed to revenue sharing. I think it is completely unfair, however as you said it IS good for the overall health of the league. It also makes for more competitive games that are a lot more fun to watch.


I'm a greedy fan of a big market team that ruins the league for everybody else and my solution since day 1 has included a lot of revenue sharing.
 

Colorado Avalanche

No Babe pictures
Sponsor
Apr 24, 2004
28,635
8,745
Lieto
i think they should put some kind thing that detroit,avs could buy more salary room, then some of that money would go to smaller market teams..

that could work, at least to me it's fine.

Of course big market teams are VS this revenue sharing because their change to win stanley cup could be smaller!
 

norrisnick

The best...
Apr 14, 2005
28,809
13,309
I'd love for the big market owners to hold revenue sharing ranson in exchange for a draft lottery for this year weighted in their favor. I'm sure the Wings, Leafs, Avs, Flyers, etc... would be willing to cough up a couple million for top 5 picks this year.
 

wazee

Registered User
Feb 27, 2002
1,140
0
Visit site
This Avs fan is fine with revenue sharing as long as it is accompanied by a low salary cap. Revenue sharing without a salary cap (or with a high salary cap) merely perpetuates salary inflation. Levelling the financial playing field is good for the league as a whole...and that is more important that allowing the Avs to have a financial advantage.
 

Injektilo

Registered User
Feb 3, 2005
2,516
0
Taiwan
As long as money and wealth are the determining factors in how a team attracts players, the only way the league will ever be truly fair is if every team is allowed to spend the same amount of resource on on stocking their rosters.

Allowing certain teams the ability to spend more than others (and thus attract the higher quality workers) means that the league is inherently unfair.

And maybe I missed something, but I thought fair competition was what Sport was all about. Everyone starts from the same place and then competes to determine who is better. As it stands, not all teams are starting from the same place, and thats simply unfair.


There's a reason I don't take the MLB seriously.
 

Johnnybegood13

Registered User
Jul 11, 2003
8,711
968
Pretty cut&dry i say, PA will accept a salarie cap if theres a decent salarie floor,name one other way you can get the bottom feeders to spend 30m or so without losing millions.

I can only think of one way....revenue sharing.

Large market teams may not like it but tough,it's not like their going to lose money by sharing some wealth,the league as a whole should come first....just as the NFL has looked after its own the NHL needs to do the same.
 

MacDaddy TLC*

Guest
Le Golie said:
Fans of rich teams will be against this. Fans of poor teams will be for this. And both can argue until they are blue in the face, but the fact is - revenue sharing is good for the health of the league as a whole.
how is it good for the teams that make money to have to support those that can't? Imagine you are making a million dollars a year and your parents tell you you have to support your lazy ass, dope smoking sibling?

Point is there are 6-10 teams that are uneccessary and the strong teams would be better off without.
 

MacDaddy TLC*

Guest
What the fans of the small market teams that don't draw anyone to their building, that don't sell merchandise, that don't make any revenue to share aren't asking for revenue sharing: they are asking for handouts from their rich uncles. Screw that!
 

Jag68Sid87

Sullivan gots to go!
Oct 1, 2003
35,575
1,249
Montreal, QC
You make it sound like half the NHL is hopeless. The new CBA will go along way towards helping several teams out. Just cuz a team didn't draw well pre-lockout, doesn't necessarily mean they are going to remain poorly attended post-lockout.

I just don't understand why you feel that the league needs to absolutely cut some franchises BEFORE seeing if a 30-team league is viable under the new CBA. It doesn't make a lot of sense.
 

MacDaddy TLC*

Guest
Jag68Vlady27 said:
You make it sound like half the NHL is hopeless. The new CBA will go along way towards helping several teams out. Just cuz a team didn't draw well pre-lockout, doesn't necessarily mean they are going to remain poorly attended post-lockout.

I just don't understand why you feel that the league needs to absolutely cut some franchises BEFORE seeing if a 30-team league is viable under the new CBA. It doesn't make a lot of sense.
If it were only half, then it wouldn't be so bad. 19 teams lost money, and a number of them lost money by the 10s of millions of dollars. Get rid of the teams that couldn't draw flies if they were dog **** and then maybe we can revisit the revenue sharing discussion. There is no benefit to the teams that are successful. Why in the hell should htey foot the bill for the mistakes of Peter Karmanos and the others who had dumb ideas?
 

Jaded-Fan

Registered User
Mar 18, 2004
52,446
14,304
Pittsburgh
If you think that the NHL has a dog of a contract now, let us see the television contract your six team league gets Mr. Mayor. But you don't need anyone do you? The league that you propose would not draw flies to watch it on television at a garbage dump IN Toronto. Big markets need a league of adequate size and breadth across North America to have any chance of ever being of interest to nationally broadcast television, radio, internet, the things that are generating money hand over fist for the other sports. But you will never get that you can not go it alone in a league, will you? The good thing is that obviously the ownership of the teams, all of the teams, are not as small minded as you. If they were you could kiss my favorite sport goodbye forever.
 

bleedgreen

Registered User
Dec 8, 2003
23,736
38,184
colorado
Visit site
Mayor of MacAppolis said:
If it were only half, then it wouldn't be so bad. 19 teams lost money, and a number of them lost money by the 10s of millions of dollars. Get rid of the teams that couldn't draw flies if they were dog **** and then maybe we can revisit the revenue sharing discussion. There is no benefit to the teams that are successful. Why in the hell should htey foot the bill for the mistakes of Peter Karmanos and the others who had dumb ideas?
your arrogance is insulting beyond response. you just said 19 teams lost money, but the solution is to drop the bottom ones? what dont you get? the whole system is screwed - it needs to start over. if you dropped the teams you treat like insects - you would still have the other 14 teams not making money. toronto is going to have to share with the other kids - get over it. i think its funny that after beating you guys in the playoffs - your going to write karmanos a check to keep him around. classic.
 

Crazy_Ike

Cookin' with fire.
Mar 29, 2005
9,081
0
Mayor of MacAppolis said:
If it were only half, then it wouldn't be so bad. 19 teams lost money, and a number of them lost money by the 10s of millions of dollars. Get rid of the teams that couldn't draw flies if they were dog **** and then maybe we can revisit the revenue sharing discussion. There is no benefit to the teams that are successful. Why in the hell should htey foot the bill for the mistakes of Peter Karmanos and the others who had dumb ideas?

Does this attitude of yours include Calgary, Edmonton, and Ottawa?

The days when the NHL can survive with Canadian teams in only Toronto and Montreal are long over.
 

grego

Registered User
Jan 12, 2005
2,390
97
Saskatchewan
Yeah many Canadians do not want to go back to the days of only 2 teams in Canada.

I would quit watching the NHL and look to another hockey league before I would start watching some little NHL league that only had 10 teams in it.
 

BLONG7

Registered User
Oct 30, 2002
35,617
21,950
Nova Scotia
Visit site
Mayor of MacAppolis said:
If it were only half, then it wouldn't be so bad. 19 teams lost money, and a number of them lost money by the 10s of millions of dollars. Get rid of the teams that couldn't draw flies if they were dog **** and then maybe we can revisit the revenue sharing discussion. There is no benefit to the teams that are successful. Why in the hell should htey foot the bill for the mistakes of Peter Karmanos and the others who had dumb ideas?
Typical response of a fan of a big money team...Still doesn't fix the problems that face the NHL!
 

GirardIsStupid

Registered User
Dec 15, 2002
4,518
377
Visit site
RLC said:
Hockey has to have revenue sharing in order to grow. You MUST give hope to the small market teams and Fans or you will kill the sport In the long term.
small market teams should be in the hunt for the last play-off spots
Badly managed small market teams should be in the bottom.
Good small market teams can be at the top if they draft well manage well and play well.

I give this quote a big thumbs down.

I don't like the notion of revenue sharing since I cheer for the avalanche. to be quite honest, I'd rather see contraction of the small market clubs than have teams like colorado lose their financial advantage. but, this issue could be a deal breaker and if the large market owners cave on this issue, I'll have oodles of more respect for them. If it gets a deal done, I am for it. In fact, I these large market owners owe it to other teams to share their revenues since they helped create this lock out with their lavish spending.

I also don't think hockey needs significant revenue sharing to grow. What it requires is a better product which = more TV revenues for every team in the league. The game needs to be changed in order for it to grow. having small market clubs as competitive as the big market ones, on the other hand, would be a luxury.

In the end, I don't think bettman's meeting with MLSE (who are owned by the teacher's pension fund???) will go over well. I think they'll accept revenue sharing to some extent...but not in the manner that it allows other teams like nashville to mooch off of their earnings. I also don't want to see it happen.
 

Injektilo

Registered User
Feb 3, 2005
2,516
0
Taiwan
jericholic19 said:
I don't like the notion of revenue sharing since I cheer for the avalanche. to be quite honest, I'd rather see contraction of the small market clubs than have teams like colorado lose their financial advantage.


Why should finances mean an advantage on the ice?

Basically, you're admitting that you're worried your team won't be able to compete on a level playing field, no?

what's fair in the real world is not always what's fair in the sporting world. learn to separate the two.
 

wazee

Registered User
Feb 27, 2002
1,140
0
Visit site
jericholic19 said:
I'd rather see contraction of the small market clubs than have teams like colorado lose their financial advantage.
Maybe the small market teams should just spot the Avs a goal every game to compensate for the loss of their 'financial advantage'. Fair is fair, after all. [/sarcasm]
 

GirardIsStupid

Registered User
Dec 15, 2002
4,518
377
Visit site
wazee said:
Maybe the small market teams should just spot the Avs a goal every game to compensate for the loss of their 'financial advantage'. Fair is fair, after all. [/sarcasm]

As if fans of small market teams wouldn't want a financial advantage themselves! Selfishness prevails throughout sports (re: performance enhancing drugs). At least I have the guts to admit my own desire for my team to win above all others. And FYI, I don't recall many fans of other teams being outraged with the Jets leaving my city. Why should I care about the health of other small market clubs???

Further, if this world was fair, corruption of all kinds would end. If life was fair, everyone would get an equal share of the world's wealth. Wazee, if you are so hell-bent on fairness, I suggest you and others that are happy about significant revenue sharing go to a few third world countries to help those in need. There are bigger fish to fry than worrying about the health of small market clubs and getting all cynical on me.
 

GirardIsStupid

Registered User
Dec 15, 2002
4,518
377
Visit site
Injektilo said:
Why should finances mean an advantage on the ice?

Basically, you're admitting that you're worried your team won't be able to compete on a level playing field, no?

what's fair in the real world is not always what's fair in the sporting world. learn to separate the two.

No, I think my team would still be competitive. But, what I am fearful of is seeing my team's best players leaving town...just as fans of small market clubs have seen this happen to their teams. I can empathize with those fans but I certainly don't want to see it happen to my team if it has accumulated a great roster via trades/drafting as the avs have done! I want to see my team win...sue me!

As well, If I'm in a large market and paying more money to see my team than fans in a smaller market, why the heck should some of money go to help other teams beat mine??? If I'm paying more, it should go only to my team (i.e. asking for a good return on my investment).

If, however, there's a system that allows all teams to keep their best players...I'm in favour of it. I also wouldn't be opposed to some revenue sharing, though I believe the large markets owe it to share more money b/c of this mess they helped create.

I still believe the owners should form a partnership amongst themselves with significant revenue sharing before asking the players to become partners. If this means significant revenue sharing is what's required to get a deal done...I'll live with it because at least NHL hockey will return. Will I be happy with such a CBA? Nope!

As well, IMO, the real world is much less fair than the sporting world.
 
Last edited:

MacDaddy TLC*

Guest
bleedgreen said:
your arrogance is insulting beyond response. .
apparently not seeing as how you did respond. :biglaugh:

I have a good feeling the Ontario Teacher's Pension fund won't stand for this revenue sharing.

And to all those other comments: I don't Care!


The League would do just fine with 24 teams (it had 24 heading into '94 when it was booming!) The League would be better if they would just pull the damn life support on teams like Florida Panthers, New York Islanders, Carolina Hurricanes, The California Ducks of Mighty Anaheim, Washington Capitals, and the Pittsburgh Penguins. They are what is ruining the NHL.

The League would be stronger in their absence!
 

Gary

Registered User
Drury_Sakic said:
its about finding a fair revenue sharing level...


I am sure the Avs, Leafs, Rangers, and Stars would not mind sharing revenue, as long as they are allowed benifts(i.e. being able to spend more) than the other teams...

In theory, that is the incentive given to teams that share revenue, that they gain something out of it....and a slightly higher cap for the teams that share revenue(be it even 2-3 million) would be a carrot for them and the players...

You may be on to something here...As a bargaining chip to the Leafs and teams that like to spend...make the cap a floor of $30 mill-$45 mill instead of $32 mill-$38 mill. They still have a SLIGHT edge, but they're going to be paying huge for it...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad

-->