View Single Post
11-18-2013, 08:52 AM
Registered User
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Maryland
Country: United States
Posts: 1,644
vCash: 500
Originally Posted by Fugu View Post
We know the arguments as we've had them here, and there often some assumption that the league actually has to pay someone to shut a team down. What if an owner doesn't want to lose money any longer, and cannot find a buyer? So he hands the keys over to the NHL. They choose to relocate (if they have that option) or shut things down.
We have recent examples, Fugu...

Supposedly that's exactly what happened to the Coyotes, as Moyes couldn't afford to run the Coyotes and threw the keys to the team on Gary Bettman's desk. However, even during bankruptcy proceedings, someone had to purchase the team and give Moyes money.

Let's consider the alternative: if Moyes were to shut down the Coyotes. I think the League has a say in that, and I'm pretty sure Moyes would rather sell the team to recoup some of his investment than to simply "go to zero".
Originally Posted by Fugu View Post
What actually is missing is how Peddie came to that conclusion, and what he considered. May need to read the book, but who knows if he really addresses it?
Good point. And there likely wouldn't be empircal data to back up the assertion. The analysis would end up with "a lack of transparency".

Grudy0 is offline   Reply With Quote