In it's lengthy proposal to the NHL about a month ago, the NHLPA laid out a very detailed revenue sharing plan. As I recall, part of the NHLPA proposal was that Canadian teams on aggregate would end up contributing about $17 million more dollars than they would be taking out of the plan. In its response, the NHL agreed that revenue sharing would be implemented in the future, and declared that the league had more than 30 revenue sharing proposals of its own. However, the NHL did not provide any details in its public response to the union's proposal. Now, my personal opinion is that revenue sharing is a bit of a red herring in this CBA. I know many of my fellow Oiler fans have high hopes of revenues generated in the big markets coming back to Edmonton along with suddenly affordable but still very useful UFA players, but I'm pretty doubtful that a new CBA is going to lead to either of these developments. Now, I'm not sure why Larry Brooks' most recent column didn't grab everyone's attention in this section of the boards already, but his January 2 article in the NY Post makes some pretty shocking claims about the NHL's plans for revenue sharing. First of all, he claims the pool will be between $ 80-95 million. I'm not sure exactly where the money that goes into the pool is coming from, and Mr. Brooks does not elaborate on this. I don't even know if we can assume that this is in addition to the 9% of revenues already shared (national TV revenues in Canada and the USA, licensed products, etc.). At any rate, Mr. Brooks provides some details on the restrictions that will be placed on teams before they can access these shared revenues. Again, I have not seen any of these details anywhere else, so I don't know if Mr. Brooks is giving us solid information or just providing more grist for the overactive NHL rumour mill. However, if teams in television Designated Market Areas of 2.5 million households are permanently locked out of the plan, that would mean teams like Anaheim (as mentioned by Brooks) and several others would never be able to collect from revenue sharing. Kind of makes it useless in Chicago, where Bill Wirtz refuses to reach out to viewers in his local Designated Market Area. The stipulation that teams must play to at least 80% capacity to receive shared revenues makes sense, but that bumps a lot of the bottom 10 revenue teams out of the plan, leaving Atlanta and Florida as the only recipients had the formula been applied to last season. Once again, I'll emphasize that my personal opinion is that revenue sharing is a bogus issue in the ongoing CBA battle, but I know many people , including some Canadian NHL fans, expect revenue sharing to benefit Canadian teams. Frankly, I think there is no hope of that whatsoever. Already the money Canadian networks like the CBC and TSN pay for NHL rights is flowing 80.0% into US -based NHL teams, and the new American TV deals provide little revenue that flows back to Canadian teams. If what Brooks says is even partially true, any new shared revenue plans that the NHL has in store will take even more money and put it in the hands of teams like Florida and Atlanta.... Long term, Canada' NHL franchises are going to pump money into US teams to prop them up in a 30 team NHL. Frankly, I'd just as soon see NHL money that is generated in Canada stay in Canada instead of being put in the pockets of billionaires in Atlanta and Miami. If Edmonton has to give up money once it reaches the playoffs, I'd just as soon see an NHL team back in Winnipeg propped up by the "surplus" Canadian NHL dollars. Why should I want my CBC dollars and playoff ticket dollars go to Atlanta when I never even get to see Kovalchuk or Heatley play on HNIC anyways? http://nypost.com/sports/37600.htm "NHL PLAN FULL OF MYTH PRINTS"