View Single Post
02-02-2013, 09:57 PM
Registered User
danishh's Avatar
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: YOW
Country: Canada
Posts: 33,896
vCash: 50
Originally Posted by kdb209 View Post
Actually there is. For most publicly financed arena, the terms of the Master Lease or arena bond agreements prevent an owner from selling a team and retaing control of and revenues from the arena. In addition, many cities have non-relocation agreements or other mandatory use covenants which prevent relocations short of a team declaring bankruptcy.

The Sharks/SSE master lease on the HP Pavilion (and AIUI the Panthers in Sunrise) is dependent on the existence of the pro-team. The Sharks go, the lease goes, and control of the arena and all revenues reverts back to the city of San Jose - plus damages for breaking the Lease.
short-term, in current cities, yes, but i'm talking about long-term, in every city. If NHL teams are losing money on the hockey side of things, what's preventing another Atlanta, where the owners of both teams kick the NHL out? What's preventing cities like winnipeg (who subsidize their team significantly) from saying this doesnt make sense, we want to run our arena like kansas city instead. At some point, if NHL teams dont make money, this whole thing comes crashing down, and 10+ markets wake up and say this doesnt work.

I do think that this new CBA, getting rid of atlanta, fixing the islanders with brooklyn, and fixing the coyotes either though subsidy or relocation will make the majority of teams profitable. That said, making the teams profitable has to be the goal. We can no longer say "yeah, but they make money on the backend off the arena" and expect that to be enough to keep the NHL sustainable.

danishh is offline   Reply With Quote