View Single Post
06-02-2013, 12:24 PM
Tommy Hawk
Registered User
Tommy Hawk's Avatar
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 4,064
vCash: 500
Originally Posted by madhi19 View Post
Semantic, you got the point anyway it like waiting for your "Girlfriend/Boyfriend" to dump you so you ain't the ******* who ended the relationship.
Not semantics, two different things completely. One is local officials the other is private.

Originally Posted by JimAnchower View Post
The NHL may have asked a sympathetic councilman in Atlanta what the chances were of them building them arena. If, as expected, he/she said there was 0% chance of it passing, they weren't going to officially ask. They weren't going to ask because it wouldn't have been successful, and they would have received negative press because of it.

I agree. Phoenix wouldn't need a second arena unless US Airways Center was over-flowing with events and tenants.
Even if the City of Atlanta said OK, it would take years to build and the team still had nowhere to play.

Originally Posted by MNNumbers View Post
170 is way out of line. I am thinking of 85M loan from the league with promises of revenue sharing as being a discount. But I will admit I don't understand how the loan and the revenue sharing will actually work. Someone fill me on if they want.
How does the NHL guarantee them revenue sharing? Isn't the revenue sharing based upon certain metrics? And doesn't it only go to a defined number of teams? This would be a great way to alienate the owners. Can you imagine that conversation? How do yo tell an owner they get nothing instead of several million? That owner would then need to decrease player spending in order not to lose money or would have to kick in out of his own pocket? And if it goes on for too long, you may have a team like Columbus or Nashville or Carolina or Florida or Tampa Bay in deep doody again.

Tommy Hawk is offline