Quote:
Originally Posted by Demzy84
I agree. If someone paid $500M for an expansion team, whose not to say Fertitta (Texas born, has had a hand in all teams in Texas at some point) would offer to buy the Flames for ~$600M? Calgary ownership might see this (Make close to $200M based on team value in 2016) as a way to wash their hands of the team seeing as they aren't getting their new arena.
Then you have the Seattle SuperSonics drama all over again in Calgary. Houston owner wants new arena, him and city can't make it work, then he moves team to Houston and his home state (which is even easier since he owns the arena the team will play in)
Seattle I wasn't too concerned with, but with Fertitta's interest in getting an NHL team, the Flames playing in the oldest arena in the NHL and missing out on new revenue streams, could be a recipe for relocation in 5 years.
|
If you're an NHL owner of every non-Flames team - do you want
1) a $500 million expansion fee that you get 1/31st of
2) a team sold for more money, but you get 1/31st of the relocation fee which will be way less than $500 million (unless you think the Houston guy is going to pay $600m for the Flames and then $500m as a relocation fee - which he isn't)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Table 5
At the next CBA negotiations, the NHL really needs to link its infrastructure costs to the salary cap. A $70 million cap is not realistic if your revenues can't support the very building you do business out of.
I'm no business surgeon, but if you can't afford rent, you can't afford to pay your employees an exorbitant salary.
|
We have no idea if they can or cannot pay rent. Or if they can or cannot pay for new arenas. If the players percentage was 20% the owners would still be begging for money from governments for new buildings. The players aren't asking for a new building - why should they take a big hit to pay for it.