I guess going back to Atlanta and failing AGAIN taught the league nothing. They are so greedy for expansion fees.
http://www.tsn.ca/kansas-city-on-nhl...radar-1.831403
Printable View
I guess going back to Atlanta and failing AGAIN taught the league nothing. They are so greedy for expansion fees.
http://www.tsn.ca/kansas-city-on-nhl...radar-1.831403
It may have more to do with finding a western conference team location.
Remember that the league is still unbalanced with one more eastern team than western teams after the addition of the Golden Knights.
I don't know why Seattle is not given a franchise. Seems like a viable location to me.
(Yah, I know, the Canucks wouldn't allow it. But money can be a big persuader.)
But then what happens when they finally come to the realization that Arizona doesn't work?Quote:
Originally Posted by GreyDragon
All the more reason to have another potential western location.Quote:
Originally Posted by AngeloV
Seattle and Kansas City as target cities - one for expansion, one for relocation.
Result: balanced conferences.
I guess my dream of contraction is not a viable one. 24-26 teams would be awesome.Quote:
Originally Posted by GreyDragon
Avenge the Scouts!!!!!
The league is really saying that they're not closing the door on going to Kansas City.
However the fact that a) No one applied for expansion and prospective owner Hunt Jr. balked at the expansion fee and b) the city says the arena is profitable or at least will bring in more income to the city than having have major tennant. Both of these will make going there an uphill climb.
Now that the bar has been set at 500 million, I can't see them being a serious candidate.
Purely out of curiosity, which teams would you fold to get to 24-26?Quote:
Originally Posted by AngeloV
Arizona, Carolina, Florida...
Islanders? New Jersey? Tampa Bay? Buffalo?
Las Vegas? :D
Buffalo is not going anywhere.
I don't think contraction happens unless league revenues drop substantially.
There should be no more than 24 but that ship sailed years ago, unfortunately.Quote:
Originally Posted by AngeloV
No, contraction is not going to happen, but if one wanted only 24 teams in the NHL, which teams would you fold?Quote:
Originally Posted by ArgoRavi
Yes, Las Vegas would be another candidate IMO.
But a reduction of seven teams would include...?
Get out the watering can and water down the product a little bit more.Quote:
Originally Posted by ArgoRavi
Vegas, Arizona, Florida, Carolina, Devils, and Dallas would be a good start. They should have just let Atlanta fold rather than move to Winnipeg but too late for that one.Quote:
Originally Posted by GreyDragon
Islanders, especially in Brooklyn are a disaster too. Probably would have them ahead of Dallas.Quote:
Originally Posted by ArgoRavi
Not going to happen unless Hunt wants it to and also wants to lose a ton of money.
Bottom line is KC is not an NHL town. We are good with the AA hockey team we have in the Mavs because you only need to average around 3K for them to turn a profit, but there's no way this city puts 14K in Sprint Center 41 nights a year for the NHL. Yeah, we can sell out (or come close) a preseason game, but it's not something we'd consistently support.
Plus, as mentioned, the Sprint Center is also very profitable despite not having a permanent tenant.
The reality is this city doesn't have enough hockey fans, and even if it did I don't know if we could support Chiefs/Royals/Sporting/K-State/KU/Mizzou and an NHL team.