View Single Post
Old
07-03-2007, 04:41 PM
  #12
braindead
Registered User
 
braindead's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: The cookie spoke
Country: Tibet
Posts: 2,818
vCash: 500
I'm actually torn on whether to root for them. I think this is very, very, very likely to emerge as an underfunded group (no Frist, no Ingram, no billionaire).

All of my reasoning below is based on that expectation.

If I'm right, we are in for another 5-7 years of low budget "run it like a business" hockey followed by these guys bailing out. It is a recipe for disaster. The question then is who do THEY sell to? Clearly this is better than the "Hamilton Predators" scenario but I'm not convinced it is better than the Boots scenario.

Keep in mind that Boots will agree with the NHL to keep the team here if the lease is in place-- no question in my mind on this. If we average 14k (and I'm absolutely convinced we will), then Boots can't move the team... at least not in the short run. At that point, why would he favor KC over Nashville? More market potential? I doubt it. Better lease? Not materially. Love of BBQ? Go to Jacks. Will he tank the team and market to make the move like RIM-job would have done? Highly doubtful.

He can build a winner here, be a hero to us and the NHL and KC can't be too mad at him because it isn't his fault and, hey, he tried (and will use his new seat at the table to push for an expansion team for them).

Bottom line to me: Local owner is safer in the short run but likely leaves us in the bargain basement shoppers category and exposed over the longer term to another sale process. Boots is riskier if we can't meet 14K but could spend to contend over the longer run.

I might take Boots to be honest.

braindead is offline   Reply With Quote