Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

Revenue Sharing


  • Please log in to reply
9 replies to this topic

#1 vladdy16

vladdy16

    The rest are neophytes.

  • HoF Booster Mod
  • 6,222 posts

Posted 27 January 2006 - 10:54 AM

Hot button issue here for me. If you vote in the poll, please take a minute to explain why you think the way you do and let us know what team you're a fan of if it's not apparent.

I obviously started out with no - I think it's welfare and teams need to support themselves. When management consciously decides to spend under the cap and actively goes after revenue sharing, that really censored.gif my censored.gif censored.gif .


Vote away!
Can't wait to read the "Phoenix: I still think it's a hockey market" chapter of Gary Bettman's autobiography. I'm guessing it's going to be chapter 11.

- mjlegend 3/9/2011

#2 bringback91

bringback91

    Hall-of-Famer

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,318 posts

Posted 27 January 2006 - 10:57 AM

I voted no for the same reasons as you. Gotta pay to play I always thought. Pay your own way that is. Expanding a game to new markets before you get your "real" markets healthy was a bad desicion on Bettmans part, but all you can do is add it to the list. Wings fan btw. thumbup.gif

#3 StaticWithABeat

StaticWithABeat

    1st Line All-Star

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,385 posts
  • Location:Troy, MI

Posted 27 January 2006 - 12:09 PM

Definite nay on this one. I agree, it is like welfare. Isn't efficient in a business like the NHL. If teams can't make enough money to support themselves, then they shouldn't have an NHL franchise. Period. Kinda sucks but hey, that's business.

#4 aflac9262

aflac9262

    Hall-of-Famer

  • Gold Booster
  • 4,351 posts
  • Location:Warren, MI

Posted 27 January 2006 - 06:55 PM

Nay, but when Welfare has to become an option that's just pathetic. Just shut their team down lol laugh.gif Seriously, if they "can't pay their bills" then their service is cut!

#5 ufcredwingfan

ufcredwingfan

    FreeBird

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 392 posts
  • Location:Cincinnati

Posted 27 January 2006 - 10:48 PM

I voted no. Teams Like Det shouldn't have to shell out millions just because they have made there teams successful. Teams that cannot support them selves without aid from other teams should be gone. Dismantle the team or move it to a better market.

#6 eva unit zero

eva unit zero

    Save the Princess...Save the World

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 12,734 posts

Posted 27 January 2006 - 11:02 PM

I took the unpopular road and picked yes.

I think it's necessary because most teams around the league have attendance that fluctuates wildly depending on their success. Look at places like Edmonton, Calgary, and Vancouver. These teams have had solid attendance the past couple years, but through the 90s all three had major attendance and revenue problems.

Only the rare teams (Montreal, Detroit, Toronto, NYR to name a couple) get strong attendance even when the team is not doing well. Most teams get mediocre attendance when not doing well, and sometimes even when they are doing well.

There are teams like the Devils that don't get attendance because there are two more established, longstanding teams in their market. Or teams like Nashville, Tampa Bay, Florida, etc. that are fairly recent expansions into previously untapped markets, and are only just now after several years building rivalries and getting consistent attendance.

I think Wings fans in general are spoiled by the view of the team having sold out every game for a decade, having been among the top two in attendance every year but once in the past 20 years, and having had a team that has been highly successful for 15 years. Most teams have not enjoyed that kind of success nor that kind of consistent attendance.

Just cutting a team out if it can't afford to play is not realistic. If you were to take all the markets that didn't profit, in that case we'd only have ten teams in the NHL right now.
"I've never seen a warlock do that without his magic."
"I once devoured a monk's soul. It tasted like chocolate."

#7 DaKineMaui

DaKineMaui

    Alii Nui

  • Gold Booster
  • 2,620 posts
  • Location:not maui

Posted 29 January 2006 - 01:09 PM

There should've been a 3rd option >> [_] Both - Revenue sharing will help maintain a 30 team NHL.

Ilitch writes checks to this guy:

user posted image

aloha

#8 redwings1914

redwings1914

    Wingin' It since '90

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,427 posts
  • Location:Kalamazoo, Michigan

Posted 07 February 2006 - 05:55 PM

Nay
It is not a sprint, yet a marathon.

#9 T-Ruff

T-Ruff

    BAMF

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,727 posts
  • Location:Ontario

Posted 07 February 2006 - 10:18 PM

I said no, look at the Kansas City Royals....they apparantly put forth a losing team every year and their owner simply pockets the money from revenue sharing, not reinvesting in the team.... thumbdown.gif

#10 eva unit zero

eva unit zero

    Save the Princess...Save the World

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 12,734 posts

Posted 08 February 2006 - 01:27 AM

QUOTE (T-Ruff @ February 7, 2006 - 11:18PM)
I said no, look at the Kansas City Royals....they apparantly put forth a losing team every year and their owner simply pockets the money from revenue sharing, not reinvesting in the team.... thumbdown.gif

Baseball's system is a joke.

When certain teams can spend more than DOUBLE the cap and not feel it while others struggled to spend barely HALF the cap, there is a serious problem with how the cost control is implemented.

The NHL's system is far more sound. Having a salary minimum at a reasonable level will prevent teams from dumping the season for revenue sharing because if they have to spend anyway, why not at least try to win?

Also, under the NHL's system, only a few teams are even eligible for revenue sharing; the ten largest markets are not, nor is anyone who spends over a certain amount. There are maybe three or four teams that actually qualify for revenue sharing.
"I've never seen a warlock do that without his magic."
"I once devoured a monk's soul. It tasted like chocolate."





Similar Topics Collapse

0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users