Quote:
|
Originally Posted by 70Chip
If the teams go to some sort of Draconian revenue sharing, what would be the motivation for any club to increase its revenues, or to field a winning team at all? If every team in the league ends up in the same place financially, why not just field a bunch of scrubs and wait for the money to roll in from elsewhere.
The stadium naming example is perfect. If Green Bay wants to continue with the name 'Lambeau' thats fine. How are they entitled to any of the money from teams who choose another way. Likewise why should a team that can sell 100,000 seats at a $100 each be penalized for the loyalty of its fans. It feels like the welfare teams are banding together to stick it to the more succesful franchises. They're already being subsidized as it is but they want even more.
Does anyone know exactly where the various owners stand? Is it part of the CBA negotiation or is it seperate? Does the NFLPA have a stand on this issue? Any help would be greatly appreciated.
|
about scrubs teams: if you're under the salary cap, at the end of the year whatever you're under by gets taken and distributed evenly to all the nfl teams i believe, so its not like there's much to gain there.
again, if you let people reap their own rewards, there's a much higher chance of less income and less interest further down the road. Right now the MLB only has 2-3 teams of any importance and that's really sad.