1997 expansion approval
View Single Post
12-21-2012, 03:09 PM
Join Date: Nov 2008
Originally Posted by
No actually it makes a lot of sense. Teams like the Rangers overpaying for players when there was no cap really hurt the league. Getting rid of 3 teams to keep 27 teams profitable makes sense as well. It is logical. there is no business doctrine that says you should do business with other companies to keep them highly profitable while hurting your own bottom line.
I think I could live without the Rangers, Canadians, and Maple Leafs in the league. And if it makes the league stronger everyone should be for it. It would probably lead to less labor strife in the future. But alas it is not possible as you said people paid a lot of money for those franchises they wouldn't go down without a fight.
Pretty much. It's like the difference between owning a large store in Manhattan and owning one down in the burbs. Even if the Manhattan location makes tons more revenue, rents there are absurd, and the price of doing business can quickly become not worth it if your business model isn't strong enough.
If the price of doing business in NY, MTL and TOR is that 16 or 17 franchises are going belly-up, that's a pretty good sign that the business model needs to adjust.
View Public Profile
Find More Posts by Dojji*