View Single Post
04-18-2014, 04:57 PM
Registered User
GuelphStormer's Avatar
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Guelph, ON
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,885
vCash: 500
you present a very convincing argument, KevFu

this is the juicy bit:

Originally Posted by KevFu View Post
-- it balances slam-dunk revenue-generating franchises with "experimental" markets to keep the average revenue midpoint from rising.
a macro approach. i like it. but it implies these experimental markets would need to continue to lose money. not withstanding revenue sharing, its a pretty ballsy thing for the nhl to say to a potential experimental owner that not only does he need to cough up $220M, maybe $300M or more, but then he will need to finance a money pit ... unless he can come to some sort of agreement with an understanding local gov't.

do you think buyers in vegas, portland, seattle and houston want to pay to lose money?

GuelphStormer is offline