Quote:
Originally Posted by BigTuna
It's already been proven a second Toronto team would be #3 in the entire NHL in terms of franchise value, so how the heck could compare it to Phoenix?
|
That has not been proven; it is a matter of conjecture, based on one particular set of financial projections which might or might not come true.
If the league chose to award a second franchise to Toronto, and
if it were able to gain equal access to the local media (despite their existing contracts with the Leafs), and
if hockey fans in Southern Ontario were willing to desert a lifetime of allegiance to the Leafs and support the upstart instead, and
if it had the use of a suitable arena (which does not yet exist) in a good location on favourable financial terms, and
if the Leafs did not hugely increase the cost of establishing the new franchise by taking an exorbitant territorial fee, and
if the value of an NHL franchise were determined solely by its operating profit,
if, if, if . . . why,
then the new franchise would be #3 in the NHL in value.
But none of those ifs are certain, and some of them (like the arena) are positively contrary to the facts at this time. Change any of those assumptions, and you change the value of the franchise. And since all those assumptions reflect a best-case scenario, the prospective value can only go down.
The downside is that a second Toronto franchise could turn into a perennial loser and league-wide joke like the L.A. Clippers in their early years. Yes, the Clippers (after many years of losing money) eventually became profitable — in a market several times larger than Toronto, and in a league with a huge national TV contract. A Clippers-style team in Toronto might not survive long enough to start turning a profit.