Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 1 2
Results 21 to 27 of 27

Thread: Revenue Sharing

  1. #21
    Raptors Republic Starter
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Posts
    937
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default

    I'm really leery of excessive revenue sharing, simply because it reduces the dependency a team has on their own fans for revenue. I would hate to see, for example, a revenue sharing arrangement like MLB, where it essentially encourages small-market owners not to spend, so they can keep cashing in revenue-sharing cheques. I do like the approach that the NHL has, where revenue-sharing is linked to a number of key-performance indicators, such as attendance: if you alienate your fans, you lose out on RS income (although there are too many loopholes with the NHL system, as teams have gotten around this by giving tickets away to artificially inflate attendance and meet the RS threshold).

  2. #22
    Raptors Republic Veteran
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Posts
    5,025
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default

    Quote octothorp wrote: View Post
    I'm really leery of excessive revenue sharing, simply because it reduces the dependency a team has on their own fans for revenue. I would hate to see, for example, a revenue sharing arrangement like MLB, where it essentially encourages small-market owners not to spend, so they can keep cashing in revenue-sharing cheques. I do like the approach that the NHL has, where revenue-sharing is linked to a number of key-performance indicators, such as attendance: if you alienate your fans, you lose out on RS income (although there are too many loopholes with the NHL system, as teams have gotten around this by giving tickets away to artificially inflate attendance and meet the RS threshold).
    There is also a cap floorin the NHL which forces teams to spend on salaries. I am not entirely sure whether forcing an overpayment or taking on bad contracts is ever a good thing though.

  3. #23
    Raptors Republic Hall of Famer mcHAPPY's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    19,272
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default

    Quote Bendit wrote: View Post
    There is also a cap floorin the NHL which forces teams to spend on salaries. I am not entirely sure whether forcing an overpayment or taking on bad contracts is ever a good thing though.
    You could overpay a one year contract to a) meet the floor and b) entice a player to pass on a long term deal for a large one year contract that is larger than any annual salary they would get in a longer term deal.

    I agree it would not be a great thing to do but for a team in the processing of tearing things down and rebuilding, it would be an idea.

  4. #24
    Administrator Apollo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Posts
    12,001
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default

    The floor no doubt provides a challenge to teams doing a rebuild but there is no guarantee it will be part of the NBA CBA. The NFL has done something similar to what the NHL has done but the NFL's is a plan set in stone and decreases through the life of the new agreement. The NFL's floor is at it's peak right now in year one.

  5. #25
    Raptors Republic Veteran
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Posts
    5,025
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default

    Quote Matt52 wrote: View Post
    I agree it would not be a great thing to do but for a team in the processing of tearing things down and rebuilding, it would be an idea.
    Oh I dont know. If a team is intending to reorganize/tear itself up then having a bad record is necessary in order to get a good draft position. Getting forced to employ players to pad the payroll may also unfortunately have the effect of generating wins which was unintended....unless you chain them to the bench.
    Last edited by Bendit; Thu Oct 27th, 2011 at 12:41 PM.

  6. #26
    Raptors Republic Hall of Famer mcHAPPY's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    19,272
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default

    Quote Bendit wrote: View Post
    Oh I dont know. If a team is intending to reorganize/tear itself up then having a bad record is necessary in order to get a good draft position. Getting forced to employ players to pad the payroll may also unfortunately have the effect of generating wins which was unintended....unless you chain them to the bench.
    That is where you get Patrick O'Bryant a one year $5M contract :P

  7. #27
    Raptors Republic All-Star ezz_bee's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Kigali, Rwanda
    Posts
    1,677
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default

    If the small market teams and teams w/ loses are the ones driving the negotiations as some articles posted here allude to, then there may be significant changes to revenue sharing.

    Personally, I wouldn't make too many changes. You do have to be careful not to incentivize poor management. I would only do two things other than whatever they agree to in regards to luxury tax.

    Share gate revenues: I wouldn't share gate at 50/50 but 55/45 or 60/40 home teams still get more but there's more parity.
    Share TV revenues: I would share these at a less equal rate, say 65/35 or even higher, maybe even 80/20. This is the first agreement that might add something like this so I wouldn't go overboard.

    To me it seems that the goal is to have fewer teams operating at a loss, not to have all franchises making the same amount of money. So I would make small changes.
    "We only have one rule on this team. What is that rule? E.L.E. That's right's, E.L.E, and what does E.L.E. stand for? EVERYBODY LOVE EVERYBODY. Right there up on the wall, because this isn't just a basketball team, this is a lifestyle. ~ Jackie Moon

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 1 2

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •