NHL 2010-11 Thread

[Francis]

Hey Allen I had already posted that link..

And no retro, contrary to your belief I am not just being and ass, you are because this affects your team and your emotions are involved and not facts..

In that article they mention another team.. Atlanta.. Which is another prime example of a good team with financial issues that should shut down..

Atlanta had already had the Flames ( now in Calgary ) and 17 years later were handed another franchise that is again in very hard financial times..

Does anyone in the NHL do a business plan and hold an owner to it ?

This hurts the good cities that support their teams and pulls away good players while making other teams weaker by diluting the whole league. With too many cities that cannot afford teams due to the lack of interest as well as becomes a financial burden on the league..

The NHL must get the league in order before it adds or moves another team..

Bettman has no clue what Hockey is all about and if he has his choice he would be putting a team in Mexico City..

 

[Panacea]

^It's true, it took me about 30 seconds to remember what the Thrashers were...mind you, I'm an original six snob but still lol.

 

[anathelia]

no need to get pissed Retro

There is a legitimate point about Glendale doing this. They basically are fronting money for the future owner as I see it. Because without that money the future owner could not afford it. And I heard Glendale was gonna have to fork out over 100 million. Not just 25 million. If they can even reach a deal.

So all this did was buy the city time.

Of all people Retro I would think you would find this is a piss poor allocation of tax money.

Got nothing to do with fans losing a team but tax money and how it is spent. Subsidizing a sports league and a future owner like this is not good. but if Glendale can afford it and the people don't care that is their choice.

I think Hulsizer *can* afford to pay the entire cost of the team, up front, right now. But that is QUITE the investment for people to expect him to make..the same people who don't think hockey is viable here. If you don't think the sport is so viable, then why would you expect him to pay hundreds of millions of dollars to lock in a contract guaranteeing the team stays here for 30 years?

Personally, I believe that they can and will find a way to structure the deal so that the responsibility doesn't fall solely on the tax payers, but so that the owner also doesn't have to make THAT huge of a risk in a franchise that hasn't shown much promise. Even if they've always been up against pretty insurmountable odds.