Quote:
Originally Posted by getbak
This is a good thing and I hate that King and Bettman are trying to spin it as a negative.
We're one of the smallest markets in the league, playing in one of the oldest buildings in the league. We shouldn't be sending money out of Calgary to prop up struggling teams in other larger markets that play in newer arenas.
I don't know what the numbers look like, but if the Flames were previously paying $3 million a year into revenue sharing, and are now receiving $3 million a year from revenue sharing, that's a $6 million swing, and pretty much covers the difference between where the City and CSEC is on the financing agreement.
If the implication is that any team that receives revenue sharing is a struggling market, that means half the teams in the league are struggling because the revenue sharing system is set up for half the teams to receive revenue sharing every season.
|
If there is so much more revenue available in a new building, then I guess it should be worth it for the owner's to build one themselves. I'd imagine the flip from revenue sharer to receiver has more to do with the exchange rate than anything.
It really distasteful to hear how Calgary taxpayers should put a bunch of money into a new building so the owners can make more revenue. More revenue means they are getting those same taxpayers to spend more money to enjoy watching the Flames in that new building they paid for.
Let's see how those revenue sharing teams do once the gravy train of cable carriage fees runs dry in the next few years and they have to rely on tv rights based on actual viewers and now how many millions in their DMA pay for a sports channel they no longer watch.
Bettman can't see it, because he's always been incredibly short sighted, but the future of the NHL and other sports are in cities where people actually care about spending time supporting and watching the team.