Could anyone Please confirm if the CFL has gate-sharing. I thought it did, but I may be wrong, Thanks.
There used to be a equalization type fund years ago, but none since.
I think the league should set up something and that has been one of the crucial issues for the current Argo owners and for them to stay on.
It can't just be gate driven because now days merchandise and TV money are a big part of team's revenues as well and some teams get free rent others pay... Don't count on the owners working together where that is concerned.
Hard to justify Regina subsidizing football in Toronto or Montreal (for instance). That is not to say they are in trouble, but Regina looked at it as a penalty for their gate success. The disconnect is that in this league, some of the smaller markets are the strongest in terms of revenue generation. If Toronto, Vancouver, BC, Edmonton and Montreal (in the Olympic Stadium) were drawing full houses every game (50-60+ k), there'd be revenue sharing, but that is not the case.
The Riders are enjoying " a period" of success at the gate. It does not mean that will always be the case. Also if one or both the southern ontario teams fold and the TSN contracts is worth 5 million a year the Riders will still take a hit.
The problem is with that perception you speak of where Team A "subsidises" team B. The point is that to grow the league the CFL offices has to have some discretion and clout to do things, for that it needs to be able to shift money around, could mean shifting money to a team like is talked about. They've done it before for Winnipeg with bogus claims of loss revenues by moving to the East. In fact moving to the East has benefited Winnipeg huge with home playoff games that they would have never seen the colour of had they been out West. It could be used to run a team so that we don't lose franchises because an owner goes broke or gets his panites in a bunch or full of mardis gras beeds. It could be to host games out East, could be to make a contribution to gret a stadium expansion going. For the league to grow the league office will have to be the engine, you can't leave it to 8 poker players around a table. All 8 teams could be share holders in to the company (league) this could be handy in many ways to NFP organisations. Another example is negotiating TV rights. Think the league could play hardball and get fair value if it had 40 million in the till ?
Pie in the sky thinking anyway. We'll just have to keep living with the ups and downs like the last 60 years...
Maybe I've got the wrong term, what I meant by gate-sharing is where the visiting team gets a share of the home teams take after each game. each team has equal opportunity, but if you're a big draw it helps you. ie. Tor. is probably a bigger draw in Ham. than say Edm. More Ham. fans go to game and more Tor. fans will go too! The Argos get a share of the gate receipts. Is this still in effect?
Only in the playoffs iirc.
Thanks, Pigseye, but what does iirc mean?
While I agree that there is the perception that one team (a have) may appear to be subsidizing another (a have not), the playoffs and Grey Cups don't count into the league Revenue system. Technically, the league controls and receives the gate for all playoff games (including the Grey Cup). In 1991, Cal Murphy was the first GM to buy out the league control of the Grey Cup, but he had to pay the league up-front to collect on the back-end. It was a great move, and now every team does it when they host a Grey Cup. So the notion that the Blue Bombers benefited from the gate (or other assoc. revenues) from the playoffs is wrong. The Bombers (in the case of Winnipeg) would receive only their cut of parking and concessions (after Winnipeg Enterprises Corp. as facility managers took their cut). Many other teams have similar constraints.
If I remember correctly...