Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr Awesomesauce
It's hard to imagine another scenario like the Thrashers moving Winnipeg ever taking place again. Never say never, but I think Bettman/ the League is better prepared to deal with those sorts of issues today than he was a few years back.
If memory serves, there were serious issues with Thrashers ownership, like, nobody actually wanted to own them or buy a ticket to watch them. At that time, I'm not sure the NHL was willing to operate failing teams as they are now. Throw in David Thomson and a relatively new arena, and there you go. And relocation is a really negative thing, to be honest. The NHL wants no part of such high profile examples of failure.
.
|
This is all quite true, but the loss in prestige that comes from relocating money-losing franchises is counter-balanced by the cheques all the owners have to write to keep them afloat if you leave them in place.
I'd say the BoG is willing to tolerate the latter for a period, but not that long. They'll take the theoretical "prestige hit" over bleeding cash as a longer-term proposition, trust me.
The "prestige" thing is likely more a Bettman thing (not admitting failure in the Sunbelt) than it is a BoG thing. And as we all know the owners call the shots, not Bettman.
Also, it's not as if it's a secret that certain teams are losing money and lame ducks. Everyone in the sports business knows who those teams are. The NHL has more lame duck clubs than any of the big 4 American (sic) sports leagues. That's clear to everyone whether you relocate them or not. The league's prestige is already affected by some clubs' early season games played before a handful of wives and girlfriends...