Quote:
Originally Posted by FireFly
The problem is that it defeats the whole purpose of the CBA and redistribution of funds. If the lowest teams are also the lowest earning teams you are now punishing them again. What would be the point in the redistribution of funds if none of those funds go to the lowest earning teams who now get none of their money if they suck?
Just, no. It wouldn't work.
|
The teams that suck will still get a portion of their money back. It's just figuring out how much is enough to be a punishment but not too much to make it not feasable.
It has a built in safety that the lowest grossing teams will also be forefitting the least as their HRR will be lower per game. You could even make it progressive. Maybe the lowest revenue teams risk losing a smaller % of money then the higher grossing teams.
Quote:
Originally Posted by terminator
hahahahaha no that is not how a business functions.
That's like saying the lowest revenue earning McDonalds pool their money and potentially reduce their net earnings.
|
No. It would be like McDonalds putting out product quality surveys and then punishing each of the lowest scoring locations for selling a garbage product that cheapens their brand. Which does happen. hahahahaha.