Vanflyer Posted July 27, 2012 Share Posted July 27, 2012 I always wanted to use this phrase in a sentence, but never had the opportunity.It must be BITTER-SWEET for Weber. Got is money, but stuck in Nashville. I think the money has him feeling a bit sweet rather than bitter. Nashville is not a toilet and for once they have some cash. The problem with guys like Weber / Suter wanting to move is that they want a shot this / next year, not 2-3 years down the line- which always seems to be Nashvilles predicament. Keep in mind, Weber can still be moved. He does not have a NTC / NMC. Just now that other teams know what it will cost them money wise. \I like and respect the Nashville organization. I don't think losing Suter will hurt as much as people think. For whatever reason, they are a d-man factory and have no less than 5 prospects that have 3-4 defensemen potential (three at the pro level and two still at the amateur level). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
radoran Posted July 27, 2012 Share Posted July 27, 2012 Never said it did.OK, but here's where "the NFL' came into the thread in response to this pst:FLYERS67, on Jul 26, 2012 - 10:45 AM, said:And the worst thing about this (except for not getting Weber) is that the large market teams (Flyers, Red Wings,Rags etc) will be helping to pay for thisguy through revenue sharing, because Nashville never makes money.. I think that SUCKS!!To which I saidRevenue sharing across the league has made the NFL into the most valuable and arguably most popular single sports league in the world.The owners of the big market teams were the league that decided to expand the game into the new, smaller, unconventional markets.If they weren't willing to pay the price to grow the game - nothing is free - then they should have made a different decision.I would have been fine with that.By every study, by every analysis, by every measure revenue sharing *has been* an essential pillar of developing the NFL and exploiting the popularity of football in the US."I never said"NFL as the model for success in the NHLIn fact, I pointed out that the NHL is having to expand into unfamiliar markets - as you note, unlike the NFL - and requires investment to do so.So you started off agreeing with my premise that revenue sharing is good for the NHL - doesn't "suck" - and then argued with me about points I never made... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JackStraw Posted July 27, 2012 Share Posted July 27, 2012 And the point I was making is simply that the NFL is a bad example, for reasons that have been mentioned (ad nauseum). The NBA has revenue sharing and is not the most successful league in the country. Ditto MLB. Ditto the NHL for that matter.So at this point I would be fine agreeing to disagree, if I knew what we actually disagreed on. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Polaris922 Posted July 27, 2012 Share Posted July 27, 2012 and in yet another thread I state... Weber's signing wont hurt Nashville's signing of other players one bit. In fact, it might help. If he wasn't a bad cap hit for the Flyers then why is he a bad cap hit for the Preds? They'll spend what they want to spent, regardless of what they are spending on him. So he's not a Flyer... stop making stuff up about Nashville to make it seem like they made a mistake. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dynamo 47 Posted July 30, 2012 Share Posted July 30, 2012 Revenue sharing across the league has made the NFL into the most valuable and arguably most popular single sports league in the world.The owners of the big market teams were the league that decided to expand the game into the new, smaller, unconventional markets.If they weren't willing to pay the price to grow the game - nothing is free - then they should have made a different decision.I would have been fine with that.You can't compare the NFL to the NHL. They are in two totally different worlds as far as revenue are concerned. The NFL has billion dollar TV contracts which is distributed amongst the teams. The NHL plays for peanuts. The NFL sells itself where the NHL sells itself in die hard hockey marketsThis whole revenue sharing thing (along with the cap) is one of biggest gripes with Bettman. There is even a provision in which teams have to spend a certain amount of money to be eligible for revenue sharing. Nashville in the past was always one of the teams that spent just enough to be eligible for revenue sharing.NHL owners for the most part could care less about growing the sport. They want to make money and win championships for the most part. Remember during the lockout there was even some grumbling of the big market clubs doing their own thing.In football it works because the pie is so huge that there is plenty to go around for everyone. In hockey, the bigger market teams are penalized for their sucess by having to share the wealth with teams who do not have the same economic goals or invest in the team as they should. I know they have a vote but it has to kill Ed Snider and the owners of the Leafs, Rangers, Wings, etc, that part of the revenue they generate is going to support teams in Florida, Columbus, etc. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JackStraw Posted July 30, 2012 Share Posted July 30, 2012 You can't compare the NFL to the NHL. They are in two totally different worlds as far as revenue are concerned. The NFL has billion dollar TV contracts which is distributed amongst the teams. The NHL plays for peanuts.The NFL sells itself where the NHL sells itself in die hard hockey marketsThis whole revenue sharing thing (along with the cap) is one of biggest gripes with Bettman. There is even a provision in which teams have to spend a certain amount of money to be eligible for revenue sharing. Nashville in the past was always one of the teams that spent just enough to be eligible for revenue sharing.NHL owners for the most part could care less about growing the sport. They want to make money and win championships for the most part. Remember during the lockout there was even some grumbling of the big market clubs doing their own thing.In football it works because the pie is so huge that there is plenty to go around for everyone. In hockey, the bigger market teams are penalized for their sucess by having to share the wealth with teams who do not have the same economic goals or invest in the team as they should. I know they have a vote but it has to kill Ed Snider and the owners of the Leafs, Rangers, Wings, etc, that part of the revenue they generate is going to support teams in Florida, Columbus, etc.Uh oh... 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.