Quote:
Originally Posted by Ronin
Why on earth would you think of it in terms of expansion/relocation fee? It's ideal in that shitty franchises in shitty fan bases can move to cities that would have a better chance at embracing hockey. The NHL thinks like you so instead of having a good product with profitable teams, they have some profitable teams and some incredibly awful teams that lose money like crazy.
But hey, who cares as long as Bettman gets his money, right?
That being said, with the way the league is structured right now, it's more likely we'll see two Western expansion teams than moving any existing franchises...which is moronic. If anything, the league should scrap a couple teams entirely and have 28 instead.
|
Yeah, so bringing $1B+ in expansion fees for 2 new teams is WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY worse than having 2 teams losing a whopping $50M/year combined ... Those expansion teams, even if they don't contribute a dime to revenue-sharing, would bring in enough in relocation fees alone to operate Phoenix and Florida at their current losses for 20 years.
And I'm sure the NHLPA and PHPA would love to scrap 92 existing jobs instead of creating 92 new jobs, too. Just to get teams out of what you deem are "shitty" franchises.
Florida's franchise is fine. They found new buyers in absolutely no time who ponied up more than the asking price.
Phoenix is the only one that is in trouble and the new agreement has an out clause to get out of there in 4 years, anyways.
Some of the big things with the new CBA from the NHLPA's standpoint were to improve revenue sharing, increase league-wide revenues, and increase the number of jobs available for players in the NHL.