Quote:
Originally Posted by PeteMoss
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)
|
An absolute no brainer.
Definitely 2, assuming it helps guarantee free government money when I need a new building. That 10M expansion fee (difference between relocation) is pocket change compared to a good chunk of 500M public funds for a new barn, because the threat of moving is real.
Unless the following hapoens
Quote:
Originally Posted by PeteMoss
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.
|
There is no simple can they or can they not pay answer. But as part of the significant rollback you now have a league mandate that no public funds are used in new arena construction, and you have public support on your side during the lockout (which is sure to follow that kind of rollback).