I have said it before and I will say it again. If we run on the assumption that the Flames ownership group believes that their current deal with the ageing Saddledome is leaving millions of dollars of revenue and franchise value on the table plus the loss of a variety of Saddledome events due to the roof, should the NHL allow them to move in order to maximize value? The Flames ownership group and others would say yes, they should be allowed to move.
Does the same argument not hold water for franchises that are currently losing money, have much less revenue, have a lower franchise value and a worse overall business case than the Calgary market?? If the ownership group in Phx said that we need to move the Coyotes to Calgary where the Saddledome is the only major rink in town, where hockey is #1, where our TV deal with Sportsnet would be much larger and where we would sell more merchandise all while increasing our franchise value by the tune of maybe a few hundred million and not sucking on annual losses that were reported to be as high as the 30 million, would that not be fair for THOSE owners?
At the end of the day it needs to be balanced! The scary threats don't hold economic sense when you have how many franchises who lose money and who don't have the same benefits economically as Calgary has had in the past and will have again in the future!
|