I don’t believe in revenue sharing at all.  I am good with a smaller NHL.  I realize it means a smaller TV payoff, but it is fair.  If the small market billionaires can’t keep the team afloat then the team shouldn’t be there.  Th league is NEVER going to be healthy in some of the smaller southern markets & it shouldn’t need to be.  The idea that a team being subsidized and paying out high end contracts is ludicrous.  I would much prefer a smaller league with better players on the teams that do survive providing better experiences for fans & players.  Atlanta, Nashville, Az???????????  If it weren’t for the snow birds I would include FL too.

Posted by gPondrickit from Howell on 07/21/12 at 03:57 PM ET

I’d have to agree with gPondrickit.
A smaller NHL would be a higher quality NHL ... and its not just about which players make it ... its also about the ice itself.

A warm climate begats soft mushy ice and the puck bounces like a superball. Completing more than 1 or 2 passes on an offencive rush is a challenge.

Players don’t kick a soccer ball around before a game because they like soccer ... they do it because it improves their puck retention skills on pathetic ice surface.

You and I both know revenue sharing between owners will never be balanced.

The only real answer is contraction.

End Bettman’s ugly experiment and get out of the warm climate markets that just don’t work.

Posted by Hockeytown Wax from West Bloomfield, Mi. on 07/21/12 at 04:19 PM ET

I am good with a smaller NHL.

Yeah, but neither the NHL nor the players are, so it’s a moot point.

Posted by Garth on 07/21/12 at 04:24 PM ET

I would be pro contraction, but that just isn’t going to happen. 

I would be pro luxury tax, however, because as a Wings fan, I know Mr. Illich would return us to New York Yankees status.  The only aspect of me that is anti is the realization that most owners are idiots that’ll spend out of control, ultimately making players harder to get for everyone.

Whatever they do this year, I hope they find a way to protect owners from themselves.  Maybe a 6 year limit on contracts.

Posted by Hippy Dave from Portland by way of Detroit on 07/21/12 at 04:41 PM ET

Contraction advocates really don’t love hockey, they just love their own team. There is more talent in the NHL than in its history and it has been proven that where the NHL goes, youth hockey grow.  Those that believe hockey should stay in the traditional markets want to keep hockey a niche sport, controlled by Canadian/northern interests and really aren’t fans of the game.

Posted by timbits on 07/21/12 at 04:51 PM ET

Sorry Timbits, Diluted hockey does not inspire a youth movement.  Good hockey inspires an expanding base of enthusiasts.  That is how it has grown thus far.

To say people are not hockey fans is a very narrow scoped view.  I believe the opposite.  Quality ans situational value attracts interest.  I agree that potentially more people are exposed to the sport by expanded markets, but Bettman has pushed too much.  They wouldn’t be managing the franchise in AZ it it weren’t true.  How logical is it that the league is propping this team up for YEARS.  It’s not fair.

Posted by Pondrockit from Howell, MI on 07/21/12 at 05:16 PM ET

Some tweets on the topic…

Ryan Sandry
‏@RaineBlade
@kuklaskorner In addition to luxury tax, would like to see teams forfeit 1st round pick if go over soft cap. Helps both large and small mkts

Kevin Abrams
‏@centraljunior
@kuklaskorner @walsha Makes too much sense. #neverhappen

NoHockeyLockout.com
‏@NoHockeyLockout
@kuklaskorner i agree with revenue sharing. It takes decades to build up fan bases. Kids need to grow up following a team + then buy tkts

Posted by Paul from Motown Area on 07/21/12 at 05:19 PM ET

Ok then, let’s have some fun.

Let’s get together the list of teams that need to be contracted for the good of the game.

Posted by J.J. from Kansas on 07/21/12 at 05:24 PM ET

Diluted hockey does not inspire a youth movement.

Yeah, give it up, Long Beach!

Posted by J.J. from Kansas on 07/21/12 at 05:44 PM ET

How logical is it that the league is propping this team up for YEARS.  It’s not fair.

Posted by Pondrockit from Howell, MI on 07/21/12 at 03:16 PM ET

Who is it not fair to?

Posted by timbits on 07/21/12 at 07:04 PM ET

NHL big market owners are ok paying players big money contracts as long as they don’t have to share their revenue with small market clubs.

They’re already doing that. If Nashville matches the Flyers offer to Weber, they’ll do it with money they got from the Flyers…and the Rangers, and the Wings, and the Pens, etc., etc.

Right now, I’m not sure any plan can save the owners from themselves. The same guys who want the players to give up more of their share are the ones who are giving a few players huge contracts.

So here’s what I’d like to see happen. Ask the most fair-minded owner in the league, Mr. I, what he thinks is fair. Then both the owners and the players vote yea or nay on his approach. If it’s yea, the 2012-2013 season starts on time. If it’s nay, then everyone goes back to the negotiating table knowing that the odds are there won’t be hockey in 2012-2013.

And the extra “bonus” in the first scenario is that, if the proposal passes, Butthead’s contract is reduced by 22% – both in money and term. Seems only fair.

Posted by OlderThanChelios from Grand Rapids, MI on 07/21/12 at 08:43 PM ET

Mr. I, what he thinks is fair

Considering the Wings are one of the “have” teams in the league, which are the minority, this doesn’t make any sense.

Posted by timbits on 07/21/12 at 08:47 PM ET

Walsh is always flying of the handle and having little anxiety attacks about one thing or another.  I can’t see how he can be a very good agent for his clients because I am sure he tick’s any GM he is working with off big time with his negotiating style . If his only negotiating tecknique is to fly off the handle with out thinking I am sure he is costing his clients money and opportunity . He is obviously in need of attention all the time if his constant tweets to the world are any indication.

Posted by bcoil from Btritish columbia on 07/21/12 at 09:33 PM ET

Posted by timbits on 07/21/12 at 06:47 PM ET

Why does the league have to be ‘fair’?

We went from a world of “there are some winners and some losers” to “everyone has to win”. It’s frankly a bunch of bullpuckey.

Posted by mrfluffy from Long Beach on 07/21/12 at 09:36 PM ET

I have always said the NHL needs a luxury tax and revenue sharing system.  Teams shouldn’t be punished for good drafting, good managing, and good coaching.  But under the salary cap, they are punished.  Teams have to part with good young players because they don’t fit under the cap.  They have to turn players down who want to play for them because they can’t fit under the cap.  Its not a good system, and it isn’t stopping teams from folding or going broke. 

A luxury tax and revenue sharing system would create a safety net for teams like the Thrashers and the Coyotes, but allow teams like the Red Wings, Flyers, Ranger, etc., to do their thing.

Posted by John from Pittsburgh, PA (Wings fan for life!) on 07/21/12 at 09:48 PM ET

  Mr. I, what he thinks is fair

Considering the Wings are one of the “have” teams in the league, which are the minority, this doesn’t make any sense.

Geez, timbits, you must be a politician since you only quoted the portion of what I said that fit your own point of view. Here’s the relevant portion of what I said: “Ask the most fair-minded owner in the league, Mr. I, what he thinks is fair.”

Just because Mr. I is one of the “haves,” it doesn’t mean he isn’t an extremely fair-minded person. In fact, he’s probably the most fair-minded owner in the league.

Posted by OlderThanChelios from Grand Rapids, MI on 07/21/12 at 09:58 PM ET

extremely fair-minded person

I don’t doubt that one bit. That being said, there can be no doubt the Wings were opposed to the cap during the last bargaining session and are likely to be marginally sympathetic to the franchises with less resources.  I am sure Mr. Illitch would be fair with the players, but that isn’t the same thing as representing the interests of the entire league.

Posted by timbits on 07/21/12 at 11:21 PM ET

A warm climate begats soft mushy ice

And so does having rock concerts the night before a game.  None of the rinks, not even Edmonton in January, seem to be able avoid this practice.

Posted by tuxedoTshirt from the Home of the 1937 World Champions on 07/21/12 at 11:52 PM ET

...the Wings were opposed to the cap during the last bargaining session and are likely to be marginally sympathetic to the franchises with less resources.

Well, maybe that’s because teams like the Wings (and the Rangers, Pens and Blackhawks) are forced to hand over a portion of their profits every year to “businesses” operating in markets where hockey is a “fringe” sport.

I don’t want to speak for Mr. I, but I’m guessing he’s not one of the owners who are in favor of Lil’ Gary’s concept of expanding the league into areas where snow never falls and ice never forms naturally.

Posted by OlderThanChelios from Grand Rapids, MI on 07/22/12 at 01:29 AM ET

It makes sense.  Then in the future when Canadian dollar falls in value franchises won’t be moving down to the US the way they were in the 90’s or vice versa. 

But the teams would have to spend the revenue on the team, not hoard it.

Posted by 13 user names on 07/22/12 at 05:24 PM ET