I don't see what the problem is -- if you're winning a lot, and he isn't, you're receiving way more money from gate receipts.Well, No again. We have both had one game in the new season. His gate got him 440602$ I got 4000 less. That amazes me as I (sorry for repeating myself) won the double last season and he won nothing.I don't know about the new season. But let me reinforce: if you eliminate this guy in the semifinals and you beat him in the Cup final, this should be $1,000,000 extra income for you -- $300,000 from the Cup final, and ~$700,000 from the 2 home games in the league final.Do you find this insufficient?
I don't see what the problem is -- if you're winning a lot, and he isn't, you're receiving way more money from gate receipts.Well, No again. We have both had one game in the new season. His gate got him 440602$ I got 4000 less. That amazes me as I (sorry for repeating myself) won the double last season and he won nothing.
I don't see what the problem is -- if you're winning a lot, and he isn't, you're receiving way more money from gate receipts.
My position on the situation is that top teams shouldn't be allowed to become exponentially better by brute force (which means by gaining heaps of new income), so that the runners-up have a chance to catch up with them. It's a critical playability component.