View Single Post
11-13-2012, 12:55 AM
Registered User
Join Date: May 2009
Location: New Orleans
Country: United States
Posts: 5,048
vCash: 500
Originally Posted by sandysan View Post
I dont see people sheeding tears for the spo's or the vancouver grizzlies. I dont recall people going to the lengths they are currently to save the nordiques or the jets v1.0.

You know what the difference is on the hockey side, the teams that left left from established ( but admittedly smaller) markets for the appeal of larger markets with " potential" ( whatever the hell that means).
This is an old, tired and re-hashed discussion.
#1 - The lengths the league has gone to to save franchises has a common denominator that has nothing to do with country (or geography). It has to do with TIME and ARENA BUILDING.

#2 - The appeal of the "larger markets with the potential" had nothing to do with the NHL or Gary Bettman. It had everything to do with the NEW OWNER who was looking to buy the team.

Who'd the league fight for to stay put? Teams that had arenas built for them by local municipalities: PIT, NASH, PHX, NYI.
Who'd the league allow to leave? Teams who's cities didn't get new arenas built: WIN, QUE, HART, MIN (2 CAN, 2 USA). And one who got evicted from their arena: ATL.

Who'd Bettman bring into the league?
Columbus - Was willing to build an arena for the Whalers, got an expansion team.
Nashville - Was willing to build an arena for the Devils, got an expansion team.
Atlanta - Had a team before, built an arena, got an expansion team.
Minnesota - Had a team before, built an arena, got an expansion team.
Winnipeg 2.0 - Had a team before, built an arena, got the Thrashers.
Quebec 2.0 - Had a team before, talking about an arena… ??????

The message the NHL is sending is "If you build it, they will come. If you don't they might leave. If you DID build it, they will STAY until it needs to be replaced."

That last part brings me to Nashville and Phoenix. The NHL didn't let either team move to Hamilton. Not because Hamilton is in Canada, but because Phoenix and Nashville built arenas. And the NHL has to show that building an arena for a team means YOU KEEP THE TEAM. Otherwise, Quebec doesn't build a new arena.

Also, the NHL violated its own ownership rules in order to approve the Oilers staying put in Edmonton, Canada and not moving to Houston, USA.

Originally Posted by sandysan View Post
The NHL should stop chasing this mirage
Once you stop "chasing a mirage," you're still in the desert. And you can't turn around and go back the other way. You need to keep going in the same direction or you're probably going to die.

Originally Posted by sandysan View Post
You know why the NHL doesnt have a deal like the NBA ( although the comcast deal is pretty good) ? Because a huge percentage of the states, the overwhelming majority based on population and geography dont give a rats ass about the game. The notion that the have markets in canada should continue to subsidize this failed experiment in perpetuity is nonsense.
#1 - They say the exact same thing about soccer, yet, all the European teams are trying like mad to tap into the US as a market.
#2 - You're looking at it completely backwards. Other sports share 7 times as much local revenue with each other. No one says it's unfair in those sports. It's a non-issue in those sports. The rich owners agreed to it because it put more money in their pockets, not less AND helped the league as a whole.

KevFu is offline   Reply With Quote