Quote:
Originally Posted by Jay Random
You conveniently omitted option iv-d:
d) no improvement of city offer, NHL BOG approves move BECAUSE OF general business interests.
This has been the case with every franchise move so far. When the Whalers, Jets, Nordiques, North Stars, and Thrashers relocated, it was because there was no viable business case for leaving them where they were. You blithely assume that there will always be a viable business case for leaving the Flames in the Saddledome. That assumption needs to be questioned.
|
IMO this ascribes too much importance to the building, and not enough consideration to what the alternative cities mean for business. QC is the only place that comes close. Which would mean we're first in line to cheer for either Barkov of Hamilton.
Much more importantly, this ignores the reality of a relocation fee. The Flames would need to find a place that offers at least $150M better arena deal than Calgary, and comparable long term business sustainabilty. That sound you hear is crickets.
Look, YYCCC didn't offer $0. Bettman et al. may want a more generous offer (and they'll probably get it, eventually), but they're not letting this team move if the current offer is on the table is the last one. They would tell Murray to suck it up and build, stay where you are, or sell to Brett Wilson, the Shaws, or any other combo of local multi-millionaires that wants a piece. If the NHL wants to admit that the Flames aren't a viable business at the city's current offer, then they might as well contract back to 12 teams, because there are 20 other markets comparable or worse than Calgary.