View Single Post
12-12-2012, 12:05 PM
Gump Hasek
Spleen Merchant
Gump Hasek's Avatar
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: 222 Tudor Terrace
Posts: 8,464
vCash: 1200
Originally Posted by Plan The Parade View Post
The NHL does not take an active part in relocation.

If an owner wants to move his team or sell it to an owner who will, he has to get it approved by the NHL Board of Governors.

The NHL would never force relocation on an owner. Doing so would set a very dangerous precedent that could easily come back to bite the owners as individuals.
I said the players should be arguing on behalf of relocation to more lucrative markets. You replied with a non sequitur.

It depends. If the teams receiving revenue sharing are given incentives to invest the money (as they are under the current system), then taxation, to a degree, can be very beneficial.

If you just blindly hand out money, the owners will just pocket it a la baseball.

The Carolina Hurricanes would be better served using 2 million of the Boston Bruins' profit than the Boston Bruins'. If they invest it in the team or in marketing, than that money would come back at a greater return rate because it is much lower compared to the Bruins' investment (diminishing returns).
The balance of the league would be better served if the Carolina Hurricanes used their own money, money generated at home, versus money taxed from other markets.

Gump Hasek is offline   Reply With Quote