View Single Post
11-30-2012, 12:22 AM
Nalens Oga
Nalens Oga's Avatar
Join Date: Jan 2010
Country: Canada
Posts: 14,077
vCash: 500
This article is correct but then it makes this point and which basically says that the article is pointless because this will never happen due to the "poorer owners" not randomly deciding to give up their cash cows one day (and maybe they aren't making $ but I don't exactly see the poorer owners trying to get out even if they are losing $ on the NHL side of business. They want those teams).

Contraction, to the minds of some, would be great, sharpening up the game with better players concentrated on fewer teams. But most people can see that it seems improbable, given that owners and players would both stand against it, the owners because it would cost money, and the players because it would cost jobs.
We all know that there are a few bad markets, if the NHL was serious about being more efficient then it would relocate them, fix their economic model so that more revenue does not equal teams losing more $ due to a screwed-up cap mid-point/floor, and limit the number of handouts to a few other after a periodof time ones which show no historic evidence of turning a profit if they also fail to do so in the future and the possibility of a sale rises. However based on what happened with Phx, we know that it's against the current NHL regime's policy to shrink anything outside of goals per game.

Nalens Oga is offline   Reply With Quote