View Single Post
Old
04-18-2014, 02:44 PM
  #208
gstommylee
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 5,207
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Acesolid View Post
If that were the case, I wouldn't even be mad. A risky Southbelt expansion being coupled with a sure thing in Québec makes sense. (if it comes to the worst, we'll be able to pay revenue sharing to prop it up)

But it'd just be a slap to the face to ignore the new, giant temple of hockey in Québec and give a team to two risky markets. With one of them over-saturated with sports and no arena.
I wouldn't be calling Seattle's a risky market as if it wasn't the issue of the arena we would have a team right now. Seattle isn't over-saturated.

What's risky is NHL giving a team to play in key arena on the hopes of a new one being built.

gstommylee is offline