: League News:
Around the NHL Thread
View Single Post
07-25-2012, 09:10 AM
Coo coo ca cha!
Join Date: Jun 2008
Originally Posted by
i was referring to snider.
He's swimming in Comcast money, though. Nobody would ever expect him to cry poor, so his actions don't do much to undermine the crying at the bottom of the spectrum.
The way I see the owners' positions is like this:
Small/very small markets: We can't afford to spend even to the floor much less stay competitive with the big dogs. Give us more revenue sharing.
Medium/large markets: We can't afford to push ourselves into the upper echelon because we can't keeping spending to the cap every year if it keeps rising. Do something to slow it down.
Largest markets: We're doing great, but we don't want to subsidize the smaller markets just so they can compete with us more easily. Don't give them more of our money via revenue sharing, just cut the players' share of revenue.
If you put MIN in the medium market category their spending sort of makes sense as a way to try and grow themselves back into the kind of team that sells out every game. Philly is obviously among the largest markets and should have no problem paying Weber what they offered, but they're not going to want to make it easier for a team like NSH to fight back if they can help it.
What you get is a bunch of positions that aren't necessarily undermined by their own actions as individuals, but who's only common ground is "give the players less." How likely we are to see a long, painful lockout probably depends on which group can dominate the ownership's side of the negotiations.
View Public Profile
Find More Posts by brs03