Owners cannot legally 'control' themselves with contracts
View Single Post
10-29-2012, 11:46 AM
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: La Vieille Capitale
Originally Posted by
How the hell would that work?
Commish: "Sorry Nashville, you can't sign Weber, you don't have enough money"
Nashville Owner: "Yeah we do"
Commish: "No we don't"
Nashville Owner: "WTF, I think I know how much money I have"
Commish: "But I'm the commish"
Sorry, but that's just not gonny fly.
Have you seen all the time Nashville took to reach their decision? It was an important decision and they probably didn't make it "because they had the money" but more like they were afraid what it could do their franchise. We are in a CBA negotiation with owners who have just signed incredible deals saying they really could not afford it.
In a better system, with important decisions like these, the commish would approach both teams and act as mediator, maybe even going to Nashville and offering them an out. But not force the issue.
And like Pensfansince1989 said, there's no way of telling if losing Weber actually hurts Nashville less.
It hurts so much by keeping him. They are a greatly small market for the NHL, they are not rolling in money, no big owners. Weber is not a show-stopper like freakin Sid here. They kept him just so they could keep their team structure, if you will.
View Public Profile
Find More Posts by Kimota