Quote:
Originally Posted by acottawa
In most of those cases the threat of relocation was dropped once local taxpayers agreed to pony up for a new arena, so I wouldn't say that the NHL was going above and beyond. The only case where the league has gone above and beyond is Arizona, where it even bought the team (a strategy that has been mysterious to most observers).
|
In this scenario the NHL absolutely wins. The team stays, the team doesn't pay (a lot) for a new arena, and franchise valuations are stable due to teams staying put (or increasing based on arena ownership setup). The NHL is willing to go above and beyond and has for more than just Arizona - particularly when Ottawa went bankrupt and when the Sabres owners were removed and the team remained ownerless for two seasons.
The NHL could have moved Buffalo, and to a lesser extent Ottawa, quite easily but went above and beyond to ensure they stayed in their markets.
Quote:
Originally Posted by roger1818
I can think of one more:
The Arena Location Sucks Having an arena in the far west end and not near any of the bridges to Quebec seriously limits their access to fans. I would argue that only 1/4 of the region's population are within a reasonable distance of the Arena for attending games regularly. Even if they loose all of their Kanata fans, the upside potential of a much larger potential market will mean short term pain for long term gain. Any owner would benefit from this.
|
This is THE #1 reason for attendance issues. You put a new arena in Lebreton and the team's visibility increases tenfold and going to the arena for games doesn't become this massive hassle. There are three teams in the NHL that have non-urban arenas and they are Ottawa, Arizona, and Florida - what do we all think those three franchises have in common?
Threaded Mode