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.
in the first stages of the lockout, revenue sharing was actually a sticking point, with the players wanting more revenue sharing and the owners being against substantial revenue sharing. the reason for that is the players do not want to see any teams fold. less teams = less jobs for the union. players are just as guilty of wanting these small market teams to succeed as the owners.
it seems like these owners are in a no win situation. people get mad when owners don't spend money to make their teams better and only care about the bottom line, but then people turn around and get mad that owners are spending money that they can't afford to make their teams better.
- hillbillywingsfan likes this