Quote:
Originally Posted by Loyal and True
I don't blame the NHL for sticking it out in Arizona. It is too big of market with a huge upside for growth. They just have to get the formula right, which will take alot of time and money (at most $1 or $2M per year for each NHL owner for a several more years). The investment could still pay off in the long run. There has been some costly mistakes made in Arizona, but I don't think you should dismiss the market based on those mistakes.
The success and growth of hockey in California since 1989 Gretzky-era is remarkable and certainly profitable. LA Kings hung in for over 20 years prior without a major breakthrough, but now you have three teams and lots of revenue. Not to mention the grassroots growth of the game. I'm proud that my favorite game is finally relevant and growing in regions like LA/Orange County and San Francisco Bay Area.
Maybe Winnipeg could or should get an NHL team. Even still, Winnipeg is a small, and very mature market for the NHL. It could make a little money, but eventually could also lose money if market conditions change. Where is the huge upside for growth in Winnipeg?
I think the Winnipeg mayor is logical to consider that Winnipeg might have to wait for a different opportunity to have an NHL hockey team again.
|
Sometimes the present's downside outweighs the future's "upside". Especially in cases like this where the upside will never be realized.