Looking at it from a players side I certainly see why they think revenue should be shared in a miuch bigger way that the NHL is proposing. If the owner want a "partnership" with the union, the players feel that they should also have a "partnership" with each other. That being said, lets disregard the above player vs. owner argument for right now, and lets look at owner vs. owner. Obviously the owners of teams that generate smaller revenues would be in favor of significant revenue sharing, but is there anyway to sell the Mike Illitch's, Ed Snider's of the world on significant revenue sharing ??? IMO if I'm Ed Snider I have no problem giving Edmonton and Calgary some money. If you're an owner of a team other than Edmonton and Calgary, state your case to me why I should be giving you money.