View Single Post
Old
11-29-2012, 11:02 AM
  #14
haseoke39
**** Cycle 4 Eichel
 
haseoke39's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 7,881
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gump Hasek View Post
I disagree. Moving some money losing teams to areas where they would finally contribute to the pie (versus drain it) means fewer welfare cases on the whole. Eventually it possibly could even lead to a league full of teams on actual solid financial ground. Removing the welfare cases from the roll means revenue sharing could eventually evolve into actual profit sharing amongst all parties versus the current scenario of certain teams essentially being financed by others and seemingly in perpetuity.
You're ignoring his point. What he's saying is that what you call "welfare teams" and "contributing" teams isn't necessarily accurate over the long haul. Teams fluctuate in value and fiscal success over the years even in the same market. Teams that are struggling where they are today may not be so in another 5 years, while markets that appear primed for an NHL team may not prove so lucrative in 5 years either. We've had enough teams leave Canadian cities to know they're not necessarily a panacea.

I think he's probably half-right, and that's why there's more hesitation from the NHL to move a team from the fifth largest metropolitan area int he country than there is from the fans. I think the league engages in more long-term thinking on this issue, and is wary of just assuming anyplace cold is going to fix their problems.

haseoke39 is offline