Quote:
Originally Posted by J.OT13
Atlanta had two shots at it, and failed both times. Though I wouldn't want to shut the door to a City that has had a team and lost it (worked out in Winnipeg, I'm sure it would in Quebec City), I don't think Atlanta should have a third try, at least not yet.
|
Honestly your line of thinking is so off. Although True north has seen some years of profit, Winnipeg has not been a success in any faction business wise in the NHL's eyes. If anything the jets have been the nail in the coffin for Quebec. Even in the good days of 2011-2018 the Jets may not have been drawing from the revenue share but weren't adding to it in any significant way either, I remember hearing an interview with Chipman where he said they run in the middle of the pack and had a neutral position in the revenue share program, That was peak ticket/concession prices in a full building and a strong economy. Best case scenario for the club and They were somewhere in the middle of the league.
Compare that to Vegas and Seattle, These are top 5-10 revenue earners out of the gate with endless potential to grow. I think the jets were a moral win for the NHL. But one they aren't willing to make again. Nobody outside of Canada wants another team in Quebec. Not the Players and certainly not owners/BOG. Its got all the knocks of Winnipeg, Buffalo and Edmonton but a French speaking community plaguing it further
. Add that to the low population, sponsorship potential And TV contract leverage in comparison to Houston and Atlanta.... hell, Arizona will have 2 teams in mullet before Quebec city gets one in Videotron.
Truth hurts but its the truth. It works in Winnipeg because the revenue share program is there to pick up the slack on the bad years, Exactly what the league is trying to avoid, If it was about fan support every city in Canada with a 400K+ Metro would have a team.