I've read quite a few posts (and that is an understatement) that at least implicitly argue that the proposed hard cap concept will be the magical elixir that solves all of the league's problems. But I have to ask how the hard cap will increase team's revenues. Perhaps it will increase the revenues of teams like the Rangers, Toronto, Detroit, etc. who are virtually guaranteed to bring in certain levels of revenues. But what about team's like Edmonton, Pittsburgh, Nashville, Florida, Carolina, etc. The truth is many of the league's struggling franchises have operated for years under a self-imposed cap. It certainly won't increase the team's revenues (except for the large market teams). I think many of the fans on this board have bought into the hard cap notion because they think it will serve to make their favorite "downtrodden" team an immediate contender due to parity. But the reality of the league's survival depends on other concepts (at least if want to see a 30 team league continue). What is going on behind the scenes is a power struggle between the large market teams and the smaller markets over some form of revenue sharing. I challenge anyone to present a logical argument as to how a small market team like say Nashville will be able to generate more revenues under a hard cap system. It caps expenses, but how does it increase revenue? In the end this whole battle won't be so much a war between the owners and the NHLPA but rather one between the large market owners and the small market owners.