NO T in theory also in the real hockey world, if an owner can't or wont offer such a contract too bad but it is on his own terms. I am freaking sick and tired of hearing Mr. ANTI hockey and his hardline ******* trying to support franchises that shouldn't even have an NHL team, while teams who are providing more revenue are left out (I.E QUEBEC, Hamilton).
I now want the players to go nuclear and into decertification, they know some franchises won't survive an open market too bad the stubborn hardliners couldn't see that.
The PA provided a fair proposal the NHL didn't even bother reading it so to hell with this league.
I'm sick and tired of this false argument. The players favor supporting struggling teams too. Your assertion that revenue sharing is only favored by the league and Bettman is demonstrably false. Here's a quote from the NHLPA's website. I've gone ahead and bolded the parts that prove, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that what you said is either intentionally misleading or unintentionally misguided. Either way, you're dead f'ing wrong.
"Meaningful revenue sharing is an essential component of any successful league. It is not a distraction; it is the heart of the issue.
After seven straight seasons of record revenue, it’s clear that if the NHL has a problem, it is not a revenue issue, but rather a revenue disparity issue. The owners’ revenue sharing proposal does increase to revenue sharing somewhat, but every dollar of revenue sharing is paid for by player salary reductions; the higher income clubs contribute nothing on their own.
The Players’ propose that they partner with the high-income teams to provide targeted funding for the distressed teams and owners. But the players won’t and shouldn’t have to do this alone. The higher income teams need to share far more with the lower revenue teams. The Players will do their part; will the owners?"