Clipping:The relative merits of splitting the gate versus the guarantee; parity
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
 |
| Add a Clipping |
| Date | Wednesday, September 8, 1886 |
|---|---|
| Text | [from the Baltimore correspondent] Undoubtedly it strikes many that the League's percentage system is a much better plan than the guarantee of the Association in the way of fostering a balancing of the playing strength of clubs in the long run. To be sure, the clubs of the League are now no more equal than the Associations—comparatively they are about the same—but a long service in the League with the same clubs retaining membership ought, theoretically at least, to enable them to even up very nicely. The Association club must make all its money at home, and the sum that can be invested in strengthening its team is limited by the size of the city it represents and the consequent patronage there, while Detroit has demonstrated that a small League city can invest profitably as large a sum as the greatest city. This is so, because the progressive manager receives the benefit of his enterprise in all the games played away from home, and reaps the ducats in proportion to the attraction he presents. If the city with a small population can present a good card in New York or Philadelphia it gets a proper proportion of the patronage it helps to draw, and it therefore puts them on a financial equality with the big city to expend the money for players. Now that Detroit has shown the theory is practicable, no doubt it will in time have a tendency—other things being equal—to have all the teams having a nip and tuck fight, as is now the case with Chicago, Detroit, New York and perhaps Philadelphia. |
| Source | Sporting Life |
| Tags | |
| Warning | |
| Comment | Edit with form to add a comment |
| Query | Edit with form to add a query |
| Submitted by | Richard Hershberger |
| Origin | Initial Hershberger Clippings |
Comments
<comments voting="Plus" />