View Single Post
Old
10-07-2012, 12:42 PM
  #50
Crease
Registered User
 
Crease's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 9,833
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Canadian Airlines View Post
I bet, if you polled the owners today, the majority of them would be in favor of the relocation of at least Phoenix, Nashville, Florida and Columbus to better markets
I suspect you're right. It raises the question, why haven't more teams been moved? Is it because the the US national footprint would shrink if you move teams to areas with existing interest in the game (e.g., Markham, QC)? Is it because there haven't been viable owners/arenas for those potential cities? It's most likely a combination of both, plus a host of other reasons. That being said, the players are all for relocation and its a key premise in their argument for more significant revenue sharing:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Donald Fehr
From the players’ standpoint, we want a healthy league with as many teams as we can have and that raises two questions: If a team in city A could be doing much better in city B, and the fact that it’s still in city A is causing us labour problems, why don’t we move it? Atlanta moving to Winnipeg and getting rid of those problems is an example of that. The second question in bargaining is: If a team is kept in a city in which it is not doing very well, and there is another place it could be relocated and do better and make labour relations and everything else easier, and the decision is to leave it in the first city, whose responsibility is that and who ought to bear the cost for it? Those questions from our standpoint have self-evident answers.
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/sport...3338/?page=all

Crease is offline   Reply With Quote