Around the NHL (Part XXXIX): (1/9: Leafs fire Brian Burke as GM; Dave Nonis steps in)
View Single Post
10-26-2012, 03:02 PM
Join Date: Oct 2012
Originally Posted by
Depends upon your perspective.
Arguably, they were like the Flyers in that they were close to if not contained within the external regions of the 'tri-state' region, which could possibly be considered Rangers 'territory'.
Unarguably, if you view the NEW YORK rangers as a NYS team, they clearly were already within the territory.
But arguably, this is new ground.
The Long Island franchise, relocating to Brooklyn, is more deeply penetrating the core of the Rangers origin point, NYC.
I disagree that just because the relocation is to another borough that it is far enough to justify no compensation. In fact, since this is arguably closer than, and a greater penetration of territory, and a violation of the exclusive right of the franchise to within its territory, I would say a lot more than what was given up for the Devils to enjoy being as close as across the Hudson is in order.
In a similar vein, if Jets owner Woody Johnson and Mayor Bloomberg had succeeded some years ago with the relocation of a stadium to the west side where Javits is now, putting them only blocks away from MSG, had that gone through and the Isles relocated there, would the Rangers still not be entitled to any compensation?
As someone from Upstate, I always did, cause NY to me is the state, and the city is NYC.
View Public Profile
Find More Posts by AceintheSpace*