You know something, I don't mind there being a cap in place. As for revenue sharing though, I have a huge problem with that. It means that teams with poor ownership, poor management and who do a poor job of marketing their team can dip into the revenue sharing pool. I don't have a problem if the money is going to a team that really needs it. And that's the problem with revenue sharing. Any team can claim hardship and the next thing you know, the New Yorks, the Philadelphias, the Detroits, the Torontos, and you can even put the Ottawas, the Calgarys, the Vancouvers, are all on the hooks the bail these teams out. Where does it end with revenue sharing?
If there is a model in place like the NFL, then it's alright because players alaries come specifically from the TV contract and owners can make their own money. However, I'm willing to bet some ******* like Jacobs or Wurtz would even use that part of the TV contract to line their coffers. And that's another problem with revenue sharing. Whose to say that an owner won't pocket the revenue sharing money instead of putting it back into the team?
I know I'm in the minority on here because my team is large market team. What people fail to forget though is that Ed Snider and the Philadelphia Flyers put a lot of hard work into cultivating the market for their team and they put a lot of work into marketing the team for the fans. I don't get why they should be penalized because some owner chooses not to market his team. What the NHL needs to do is to get a marketing firm in place in to market each team. Then, there's no need for revenue sharing and teams can become self sufficient. Until teams become self sufficient, revenue sharing is nothing more than welfare for owners.