Quote:
Originally Posted by FlamesAddiction
Exactly why there are 179 players with NMCs/NTCs in the the NHL as opposed to very few in other leagues. If the NHL wants teams in those markets, they should give them the opportunities when it comes to player acquisition.
I imagine there are a few American teams that are also affected by this. Probably about 1/3rd of the league is disadvantaged by the current movement clause rules.
|
Because players don't want to up route their family? Take kids out of school, etc?
You sign for 5 years in a city and want to ensure that is where you are raising your family for 5 years.
The actual issue is players leave something ($) on the table to get a NTC as part of their contract negotiation, and then fans expect then to waive them because they don't want them on their team anymore.
Imagine you work gave you a 5 year contract with a no relocation clause and then tried to relocate you to a new city. Would you just say "Well thats cool - I negotiated this and gave up a higher salary for this clause"
Anyone who thinks Calgary sucks because of NTC's is dillusional. This is Edmonton esq excuses from the past.
However I have no doubts players may not want to come here. Why would they?