The issue pitting owner vs. owner

Preds owners are probably one of the eight that would accept the initial proposal today!!! We want hockey, not stupid banter from either side........

QUOTE(#1):

Originally posted 08:35 AM ET  08.20 by Othello

Preds owners are probably one of the eight that would accept the initial proposal today!!! We want hockey, not stupid banter from either side........

there's no way that there can be any resolve between owners. The NHL owners are going to fold like cheap lawn chairs.

Strangely, I am at the point where I hope the NHL doesn't start their season until around Christmas. Let's do a 50 game season and get on with it. I don't care who "wins" as long the price of tickets doesn't go up.

Columbus Dispatch figuring out what has been obvious for a few months now.

Awesome- away 2 weeks , and the "Ole Nash Jackets photo" lets me know all is well in the world

If I were the Flyers, Canadians, Maple Leafs, Bruins, Red Wings, and a few other big market teams, I wouldn't be happy with sharing revenue with a team like the Florida Panthers and Columbus BlueJackets.

But Bettman/Owners only have themselves to blame as they expanded to all these cities in the 90's and took their 50 million dollar expansion fee, and now most of these teams are struggling and also creating a divide in the league of profitable vs non-profitable.

QUOTE(#6):

Originally posted 09:07 AM ET  08.20 by Flyers1986-87

If I were the Flyers, Canadians, Maple Leafs, Bruins, Red Wings, and a few other big market teams, I wouldn't be happy with sharing revenue with a team like the Florida Panthers and Columbus BlueJackets.But Bettman/Owners only have themselves to blame as they expanded to all these cities in the 90's and took their 50 million dollar expansion fee, and now most of these teams are struggling and also creating a divide in the league of profitable vs non-profitable.

I agree with this completely. Why should the Rangers/Flyers/Leafs/Habs/Bruins/Wings essentially have to prop up the rest of a foolishly expanded and poorly run lleague?

Revenue sharing has worked in the NFL, but its a different situation. All the teams have a fairly decent attendance and support from the home town. The problem for the NFL is that some cities just don't have the population and money to keep a team afloat. In the NHL teams are located in cities that have relatively little interest in hockey. Why should the profitable teams give money to the teams located in cities that just don't care?

QUOTE(#7):

Originally posted 09:30 AM ET  08.20 by Spiny Norman

I agree with this completely. Why should the Rangers/Flyers/Leafs/Habs/Bruins/Wings essentially have to prop up the rest of a foolishly expanded and poorly run lleague?

especially after they sign players to stupid contracts they cant afford... ;)

QUOTE(#8):

Originally posted 09:31 AM ET  08.20 by Burgh-Fan

Revenue sharing has worked in the NFL, but its a different situation.

I agree. The NFL revenue sharing works because they all rely on a national TV contract for revenue. NHL is sort of like MLB where they both have a National TV deal, but their local TV deals for big market teams are where the divide comes.

QUOTE(#6):

Originally posted 09:07 AM ET  08.20 by Flyers1986-87

If I were the Flyers, Canadians, Maple Leafs, Bruins, Red Wings, and a few other big market teams, I wouldn't be happy with sharing revenue with a team like the Florida Panthers and Columbus BlueJackets.But Bettman/Owners only have themselves to blame as they expanded to all these cities in the 90's and took their 50 million dollar expansion fee, and now most of these teams are struggling and also creating a divide in the league of profitable vs non-profitable.

Spot on.

Is this like Spy vs. Spy?

It's OK to have winners and losers - we don't always have to make everything equal. As long as the weaklings are propped up, they have little incentive to make smart fiscal decisions.

QUOTE(#10):

Originally posted 09:48 AM ET  08.20 by Flyers1986-87

I agree. The NFL revenue sharing works because they all rely on a national TV contract for revenue. NHL is sort of like MLB where they both have a National TV deal, but their local TV deals for big market teams are where the divide comes.

And it was the "Big" Market NFL team owners that saw the future and decided it would make the league stronger if they had revenue sharing.


Fat chance of any league following that model today.

QUOTE(#9):

Originally posted 09:39 AM ET  08.20 by FanOFlyers

especially after they sign players to stupid contracts they cant afford... ;)

exactly.
It's like having a friend that goes out and buys a new car, but asks you to spring for a round of drinks

QUOTE(#8):

Originally posted 09:31 AM ET  08.20 by Burgh-Fan

Revenue sharing has worked in the NFL, but its a different situation. All the teams have a fairly decent attendance and support from the home town.

Agreed. In the NHL, small markets are not the problem. Non-hockey markets are.

QUOTE(#13):

Originally posted 09:51 AM ET  08.20 by drysdale

It's OK to have winners and losers - we don't always have to make everything equal. As long as the weaklings are propped up, they have little incentive to make smart fiscal decisions.

exactly....

QUOTE(#16):

Originally posted 09:53 AM ET  08.20 by roamer

Agreed. In the NHL, small markets are not the problem. Non-hockey markets are.

bing bing bing....
I'm Spiny Norman, I want to be your NHL Commisoner and I heartily approve of this statement

QUOTE(#16):

Originally posted 09:53 AM ET  08.20 by roamer

Agreed. In the NHL, small markets are not the problem. Non-hockey markets are.

There arn't many more accurate statements than this one

QUOTE(#18):

Originally posted 09:55 AM ET  08.20 by Spiny Norman

bing bing bing....I'm Spiny Norman, I want to be your NHL Commisoner and I heartily approve of this statement

Thank you! You have my vote for NHL Commish. :-)