View Single Post
Old
12-14-2012, 12:09 PM
  #438
indigobuffalo
Portage and Main
 
indigobuffalo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Winnipeg MB
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,875
vCash: 500
I think contraction is generally bad for a business of any kind, although special circumstances may sometimes make it the right option.

If a business expands too rapidly to control, and assets are depreciated via internal issues, then trimming the fat would be a good option to then regroup and plan the next expansion.

But that last point should be the forefront of thought on the matter.

A successful business model is one that is bent on expansion.



My thoughts on the article are, foremost, that it is subjectively written to draw support from popularist thought that the NHL doesn't need the "Sunbelt" teams and that Cherry-esque mentality that hockey is Canadian and belongs in Canada (and perhaps the northern-most States).

Saying that there is "...weak nationwide interest in hockey in the U.S." may be true, but the conclusion that the author tries to force on the reader is that this means that contraction would be a good idea.

While it would be esthetically pleasing to see percentile profitability among the NHL clubs increase, it would do nothing for the actual growth of the NHL. That's the only thing that contraction would achieve. Removing the least profitable franchises would make the NHL seem like each team is proportionately more successful, but the League itself would not actually be more successful.


The important point I want to make here is that Sunbelt teams are integral components to the long-term success of the NHL. While initial interest is low (and may remain low for some time), the mere presence of hockey, along with proper marketing and promotion of hockey among the youth leagues will eventually cause an upswing in interest and allow the NHL to make notable progress in the Sports Entertainment Industry.

It's not something that will happen overnight.

indigobuffalo is offline   Reply With Quote