View Single Post
Old
08-18-2012, 12:12 PM
  #40
Roulin
Registered User
 
Roulin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Montreal
Posts: 4,041
vCash: 500
I don't really care about having more teams in Canada in a patriotic way, and I don't really care about "growing the league." But, when the season is being threatened, it seems to me that the benefits of relocation become obvious. Even moving two teams (say, Phoenix and whichever of Florida/NJ/NYI in in the most trouble) to the GTA and one of QC/Seattle seems like it would grow the middle class, make the owners' position less desperate, make revenue sharing less important, increase the revenue pot and therefore the players' share...

From the Maple Leafs' POV, is avoiding future competition from another GTA team really worth labor problems and the threat of being a "have" in a revenue sharing scheme? Even if there is a payoff to encourage them to waive their right to keep a team out of the region?

For the league, what will help their mission to "grow the game in the US" more - insistence on maintaining a presence in failing markets, or consistently putting out a quality product, without stoppages?

If I were involved in the NHLPA, I would also be making noise about supporting relocation. With "cost certainty," player salaries are being handicapped by the league's decision to maintain a team in Phoenix, even though not a single potential owner is willing to invest any financial risk into keeping the team in town. The union appears to be backing revenue sharing instead, probably because it is the less controversial option and they value public support, but ultimately relocation seems to me like a better solution for most concerned.

Roulin is offline   Reply With Quote