Quote:
Originally Posted by HansH
Chris, I'll try to explain this to you again, as has been explained to you many times.
The AHL team's existence is a non-factor when it comes to the location of an NHL team in ANY arena. Even if the arena managers were to own the AHL team in question, an NHL team would unquestionably bring in more lease revenue for the facility owners/managers than an AHL lease ever could. Either the AHL team's lease with the existing arena already has a clause sweeping the AHL team aside if an NHL team comes, or the arena management would fall over themselves in the rush to pay off the remaining years on the lease... or they would simply give the priority dates to the NHL team, leaving the AHL team with a substandard schedule and no real choice in the matter but to find a place themselves to move.
Kindly stop trying to say that ANY market can't have an NHL team move into it just because of the existence of an AHL team. AHL teams are gnats to brush aside, as far as all parties are concerned, if an NHL team tenancy is a possibility.
|
True, except the people of Wisconsin do not support pro sports unless it is the Packers. They support he heck out of University of Wisconsin sports but they would never support a NHL hockey team. They didn't support the Madison Monsters, they do not support the Admirals, the Bucks, nor do they really even support the Brewers.
NHL in Milwaukee is not going to happen, not for the reason the first time - Wirtz being the bitter old man and would not let former Hawks announcer Bob Petit get a franchise - but because they would draw less fans than the Bucks. The Bucks are drawing 15,013 (
http://espn.go.com/nba/attendance) in an 18,717 seat arena (80% of capacity) and they are a playoff team!!
I think that wherever the NHL does end up going with some of these franchises, it is clear their current location selection process and researching cities that would sustain a franchise has been flawed.
