"Everybody's talking about a two month lockout," says Cherry.
View Single Post
08-20-2012, 09:07 AM
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Cambridge, MA
Originally Posted by
I think the battle is more owner vs owner than it is NHL vs NHLPA.
When the top revenue producing teams increase their revenue each year and don't spend the increase in cap because a) the bottom line is more important or b) they are already near the cap they are also forcing the smaller market teams with a stagnant growth in revenues or already losing money to spend more money because of the increase in cap floor.
So the teams making the big bucks are all for the players receiving a lower HRR and the NHL's proposal because they don't have to increase revenue sharing and it's even more money for their pockets. The teams at the bottom wouldn't be seeing any more profit, they'd just be seeing less of a loss. Which is why they would prefer the NHLPA's offer because with their proposed revenue sharing, there'd be a more level playing field and less teams operating in the red.
Agent Alan Walsh has already said he's talked to some higher up execs of those smaller market/money losing teams and they are all for the NHLPA proposal with the exception of the numbers.
A lot of the smaller issues have already been dealt with in sub-committee level and there is agreement on them. And once the big market teams start losing their huge profits, they'll either cave or force the hand of the smaller guys. And then a deal should come quickly with the smaller issues already being dealt with.
This is an excellent point.
I'm for the bigger dogs helping out the smaller teams for the greater good of the NHL. But there does need to be some cost cutting to justify it. And the league needs to be better about protecting those 'investments' from futile experiments. Who in their right mind can justify sending a check to Arizona?
View Public Profile
Find More Posts by hoss75