View Single Post
Old
09-16-2012, 10:46 PM
  #119
Kloparren
Hth
 
Kloparren's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Country: Canada
Posts: 10,449
vCash: 500
This is all very logical and obvious but these things WILL not happen in the near term. At most we'll see the cap floor being changed.

If Bettman is replaced by owners due to a full yr lockout (which I'm sure certain parts of the PA wouldn't mind just as the owners got rid of Goodenow) then we might see the NHL's relocation stance. If Fehr wants to really test waters, he starts talking relocation and seeing if the NHL is willing to put in a relocation clause for franchises constantly relying on revenue sharing. He basically just needs to state in the proposal that the NHL will "consider" the "possibility" of relocation if a franchise is losing X amounts of $ leading to revenue sharing reliance in X yrs in a row or something and just see how or if the NHL responds to that. He can use it to help with the PR war if nothing else.

Also we have the folks who think that making the cap ceiling more lenient will mean that we have no parity because they think that Columbus or Florida are actually gonna win the cup even if the cap is 60 M lol. They also mistake parity with every team being good enough to win a cup, no parity just means the gap isn't that big and that you have at least 5 contenders, more than most major sports leagues imo which we'd still have if teams were allowed to spend a bit above the cap with a tax.

Kloparren is offline   Reply With Quote