:>>How many large markets are left, and if the league is in such a state that
:>>teams keep folding and moving, why would more want to come in?
:>Of course, that's the question that the players are asking...Not only aren't
:>there any teams that "keep folding" and only one that has recently moved,
:>but there are cities just dying to get a team. I find it interesting that
:>both Baseball and Hockey are crying poor and just dying to expand after
:>having recently expanded. The reason, of course, is that they can charge
:>an even higher expansion fee if they can guarantee a smaller salary scale
:>to the expansion owners!
:So what? People who own businesses want to make money, that isn't much of a
:revelation. However, I don't think you can argue that this is the only reason
:they don't want the smaller market teams to die.
It may not be the only reason...but it is a big reason. Another reason
is rivalries. For example, the Blackhawks didn't want the Blues to move
to Saskatoon because the St. Louis/Chicago rivalry would not survive the
move. However, I don't think that LA gave a rat's behind about that
:Look at this in another way: If large US markets are dying to get in to the
:NHL, do you think the fans in those new NHL cities would gave a rat's behind
:about these small Canadian teams? Don't you think it would be better for those
:teams to play larger/better known teams so they can rake in more money?
I don't think that the loss of the Vancouver Canucks or the Quebec Nordiques
would have any effect on the amount of money an expansion teams makes. I'd
be willing to bet major dollars that the loss of the Senators wouldn't make
much difference to anyone as far as how much money they can make (my point
being that the Senators are not much of a draw when they come to town.)
Also, don't interpret these comments as saying that *I* don't care if those
teams move or fold.
:Ultimately, without any sort of cap on salaries, Canadian teams will fold.
I don't believe this. I believe that if revenues were shared so that they
could be competitive with the other teams, that they would be able to afford
the same salaries as everyone else. If this were the case, the cap would
come about naturally as no team would want to operate at a sustained loss.
This all presumes that each of the teams has the same amount of income to
put towards their teams.
:Having researched back to the 1880's on the history of hockey in Canada,
:this would seem like a slap in the face to the pioneers and players who
:started and innovated the product US markets are dying to get a taste of.
I don't wish for Canada to lose any of its teams. I believe that Canadiens
deserve to have teams because of the contributions that you mentioned above.
:Don't get me wrong, I welcome expansion to the US, but Canadian teams shouldn't
:be left behind.
Actually, the point is that by saving the Canadien teams, the US markets that
could support hockey have to get it through expansion rather than teams
being sold and/or moving. Expansion into some carefully chosen markets
could make the NHL more of a national sport to the US rather than a regional
one. That is what is needed to gain large TV contracts so that teams can
get even more money (to spend on players ;-)). However, saving those small
market teams is in the best interests of everybody and shouldn't be shouldered
by the players alone through a salary cap.