Quote:
Originally Posted by Strange Brew
Sorry I can't follow what we are debating. I agree with you on every front. Guess I would say that the league being "over a barrel" is an overstatement but as I stated multiple times, expansion is infinitely preferable to relocation for the owners.
|
What I am saying is that for a market/owner that had sticker shock at an expansion franchise, relocation might end up being a more affordable option IF the League finds itself in the position where it becomes the only option for a troubled franchise (other than folding). The relo fee would likely not be as high because the prospective owner would be helping the NHL out of a predicament, much as Chipman was doing with the Thrashers situation. If the NHL finds itself considering relocation for say, Phx or Fla, it would mean that they are not bargaining from the same position of power that they are with expansion.