View Single Post
Old
02-12-2013, 05:28 PM
  #25
XX
SOS
 
XX's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: 48th State
Country: United States
Posts: 27,842
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by QcBlizzard View Post
Glendale's problem is not the NHL,
On the contrary, the NHL is nearly the sole cause of this. Glendale built the arena under the guise that an NHL team would be the main tenant, and signed the club to a 30 year lease accordingly. The NHL, for whatever reason, allowed Moyes to place the team into bankruptcy which voided the lease that the city was counting on. The league then held the team hostage, with all parties aware that TNSE was ready and willing to take a team at any point. During this fiasco, Atlanta boiled over and the NHL's hand was forced. Do we send Phoenix or Atlanta? For the sake of keeping up appearances, and with the benefit of the money from Glendale, the league sent Atlanta packing. Now they've been forced to wait until a new market is ready and willing, which QC seems to be.

At no point was the NHL, throughout this entire process, forced to legitimately look for a local buyer. If you consider their moral imperative as a corporation (profits for stakeholders) then their actions to this point are actually rather predictable. Why sell the team for a discount when you can extract full price and then some from a new market? Optics be damned. If Winnipeg or QC had built an arena specifically for a team, only to watch that team snake off, you guys would be screaming bloody murder. I think the league crosses over into dangerous territory, legally speaking, when they front buyers as legitimate (and deals as solid) when they have no intention of realistically selling the team to a local buyer. They managed to coax $50 million out of a city under duress, and this is somehow okay because the council deserved it?

Why should a city watch a major investment crumple before their very eyes because the NHL didn't handle Moyes correctly? Why should the city be coerced into giving up hefty subsidies because the NHL didn't do its job? Normally, a corporation would just write off that $70 million as the cost of defending their legal franchising rights. Why do you think the NBA, NFL and MLB were all hovering around, curious about the outcome? I believe at one point they even sent letters in support of the NHL. The right to dictate where you do business is worth everything. But when you have the opportunity to externalize that cost and pass it off to the public, why not? It's absolutely predictable, if you consider the amoral and pathological nature of a corporation.

I am thoroughly disgusted by this. The illusion that the league cares about the markets in which it operates has been totally shattered for me. It will be nearly impossible for me to support a business that conducts itself in such a way.

Quote:
Originally Posted by aqib View Post
So who should fill the gap between the $140 million (now $170 million) and whatever the franchise is actually worth. Either the league eats that cost or it gets passed to the city in some way. You want to know why the city should eat it, I conversely want to know why the league (and consequently the other 29 teams) eat it?
I'm curious to see your argument supporting the NHL (or any other business) in offloading costs onto taxpayers.

XX is offline