View Single Post
11-30-2012, 10:50 AM
Registered User
Bongo's Avatar
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Atlanta
Posts: 1,355
vCash: 500
Originally Posted by QuietCompany View Post
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).

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.
Good point. Seeing as how less than a third of the owners actually show a profit off their franchise, the other use their hobbies as a tax write off. That was our biggest hurdle in Atlanta. Our owners never wanted a hockey team. The Thrash had a seven year life expectancy once the League approved the sale to ASG.

I say contract to only the Canadian, NE, and MW teams. That'll end up screwing a whole bunch of fans but nobody cares anyway.

Bongo is offline   Reply With Quote