Quick Question: Who is Better Off?

Wayne, our ever perky Southern Correspondent, comes to me with a rather hard-to-answer question

---
In a typical Presidential election year, the candidate whose party is out of office always asks the voters, "Are you better off than you were four years ago?"

Four years ago, NHL fans were about to face a lockout. Three years ago, we finally got back to playing. But are things any better for fans of certain teams? Of these teams, who's better off (or worse off) today than they were three years ago when the playing field was supposed to be leveled financially?

L.A. Kings
Atlanta Thrashers
Florida Panthers
Columbus Blue Jackets
Phoenix Coyotes
Chicago Blackhawks
St. Louis Blues

Or everyone's favorite:

Toronto Maple Leafs
---

Without having access to the finances of these clubs, it is very hard to comment on if they are truly better off than they were before the lockout

Chicago? They are much better off, simply because "Dollar Bill" Wirtz bit the big one and his spawn 'get it'. The Hawks are on TV (GASP!), have some great young talent, and seem to be getting some buzz in the Windy City.

St. Louis? They were always well off...they have a good fan-base, good corporate sponsorship, and never were in any danger.

The Canadian teams are doing great, but I would opine that they got hurt a lot by the CBA. We know the Canadian teams make a huge chunk of the league's revenues, so we know that these same clubs have to contribute a huge chunk into the revenue sharing pool.

Who benefits? Atlanta, Florida, Nashville, etc.. Oh, the Leafs are in terrific shape, especially since the Canadian dollar is strong, but they likely would be stronger if we were under the old system and the Leafs could keep every dime they make.

Does anyone else have some theories?