Back In The Game?

[IceCap]

So rather then have another successful team the NHL is better of with a team struggling to stay alive on league life support in a dead market? The Coyotes WILL go under within a decade if they stay in Phoenix.

If Jim Balsillie/another Canadian team in Canada is so objectionable to the NHL as a whole then move them to KC. Just get them out of Arizona.

[HedleyLamarr]

So rather then have another successful team the NHL is better of with a team struggling to stay alive on league life support in a dead market?

There's no guarentee that a Hamilton/Winnipeg/7th Canadian market team will be a financial success. Ottawa's gone through bankruptcy, and numerous Canadian markets have had terrible attendance figures and financial woes. Much like there's struggling MLB, NBA, and NFL markets in the US....just because a sport is beloved in the country doesn't mean it's going to be a 100% successful market. It's happened before, and most likely will happen again.

Your argument is based on your utopian wants instead of logic. I think every NHL fan wouldn't mind seeing Canada get another team or two. But only if it becomes a financially-advantageous situation for the NHL....and none of us knows what that exactly is. You're assuming an NHL team in Hamilton/Canada won't/can't fail. The love of hockey is definitely there, but love doesn't pay the rent. Will the place still turn a profit when the team fails to make the playoffs in 10 consecutive seasons and the cheapest ticket being $80-$100? What happens if the owner's business tanks or the Canadian dollar bottoms out?

For what it's worth, I think that the team should stay in Phoenix, but only if the financial situation is in a position where it can improve. But if that's not a plausible outcome, then move the team to wherever the owner and/or league thinks is the best financial situation, no matter if it's Houston or Kansas City or Hamilton or Quesnel.

The problem for Phoenix, much like it was for Nashville, wasn't fan support....but rather, financial problems stemming from corporate money or leases with the city/area. If the Coyotes are losing $100 million in three seasons.....fan support isn't the reason.

[STL FANATIC]

I'll say it again, because it's really this simple.

Put a winner in Phoenix and the league will be rewarded with revenues from an extremely large market.

[DEAD!]

I'll say it again, because it's really this simple.

Put a winner in Phoenix and the league will be rewarded with revenues from an extremely large market.

Fix the draft!

[Gordie]

I don't think the NHL is that averse to moving the Coyotes. Fact is, unless the factors contributing to the team's continuing financial troubles change, the team simply won't be viable in Phoenix - that isn't in dispute. I haven't paid enough attention to the situation to say with any authority what those factors are, but perhaps some or all of them can be addressed, and the Coyotes can be kept in Phoenix.

What I can say, is 'yes', I think the NHL would rather keep Phoenix on life support for a while, then perhaps move the team to a market of their choosing if it meant buying time to safeguard and solidify other struggling franchises by preventing a move to southern Ontario. Not Canada - southern Ontario. I don't think a return to Quebec or Winnipeg would be seen as a potential revenue giant, or a threat to other franchises through forcing substantially higher player payrolls.

That doesn't mean that, right now, there aren't any teams that wouldn't support a franchise in southern Ontario, or a second franchise in Toronto, or that the league, as a whole, wouldn't endorse either of those proposals at another time. It's just saying that there is a feeling among some that, at this point, Balsillie moving the Coyotes to Hamilton could be detrimental to the success of existing franchises.

[The_Admiral]

I'll say it again, because it's really this simple.

Put a winner in Phoenix and the league will be rewarded with revenues from an extremely large market.

It's not an extremely large market.

[Mac the Knife]

If Balsille doesn't get Phoenix, he ought to say "Screw the NHL" and take them head-on. With the money he has, he could easily put $500M into a new, eight-team circuit based in markets that would be attractive in terms of either gate or television: New York, Hartford, Chicago and Minneapolis in the U.S., Winnipeg, Hamilton, Quebec City and the GTA in Canada.

Take $20M to set up each franchise properly, then spend the rest over the course of 5 years signing every up-and-coming player that likely would be taken in the NHL Draft for the next 3-4 years. Provided he'd be willing to ride out the financial losses for a decade or so (and apparently, he's capable of doing it), he'd have something far better than an NHL team in Hamilton.

[rams80]

But can the league afford to run the team while looking for a suitable owner? Considering there are already more than enough teams receiving scads of equalization money, how many other owners are going to want to pump money into a losing cause for as long as it takes to find new ownership that isn't Balsillie?

I'm not saying to give him the franchise outright, but MLB could afford to run the Expos in a league without a salary cap or floor, in a dead market. I don't think the NHL has anywhere near that luxury.

what else are they gonna do if it hits auction hes already overbid 70 million on a struggling franchise with a small fan base... what Billionaire is going to look at the coyotes and say oh ya thats what i want... the league is his only competition and if they have to they probably will try to make a go of it based on the Expos/Nationals results... hell MLB made a 200 million dollar profit on that exchange... bought it for 125 sold for 400 and guesstimating possible losses in the Montreal/san juan experiment im sure they came out ahead

Jim Balsillie?

The team is struggling to even stay alive in Arizona. They need to move somewhere, anywhere, else. Here's a guy with the passion for the game and the more money than is necessary to set the team up on a path for financial stability. It's simply moronic for the NHL to try and shut him out based purely on a "we don't like your kind" mentality. He has the desire to own a NHL team, a passion for the game, and tons of cash. So what's the problem?

If the only problem is "oh no, he'll be hockey's Mark Cuban," well I have news for you. The NHL could use a Mark Cuban.

Except Mark Cuban was willing to at least work within the NBA's rules regarding franchise ownership, and didn't attempt to drag it into anti-trust court. Plenty other owners are loaded and passionate, yet they don't violate all of the league's ownership rules to get their way.

Did the NBA fight tooth and nail to shut Cuban out? Not that I'm aware of. So really, the two situations aren't comparible. As for the anti-trust lawsuite? Well whatever it takes to get MLSE to realize that a team in Hamilton would not affect them in the slightest I'm all for.

Here's my opinion on the matter. Owner of Team X wants to sell. He should be able to sell the team to whoever he can sell the team, free from league meddling. If new owner wants to move the team into a location that infringes on the territory of Team Y then he can as long as he pays off the territorial fee.

Really, the owner of the team who wants to sell should have a right to sell his properity to whoever is able to provide the best price. The NHL already has a legal monopoly on major league pro hockey (if not technically then in practice). Anything else like the league telling owners who they can and can't sell to? That's not really something I can look at and agree with.

As for other passionate and loaded owners who are willing to buy into the NHL, where are they?

The NHL didn't fight tooth and nail to keep Balsillie out at first either. This situation only developed after his motives and objectives became more apparent to all involved.

FWIW if Cuban's MO became more apparent prior to the sale, methinks that Stern might have urged the NBA to reject him as an owner as well. Although Cuban does seem to operate within the rules, so maybe that's why they tolerate him.

If any money that would have gone to the Leafs is redirected to the Fighting Balsillies, then the Leafs have been affected by the team. Can you guarantee me that no money will be redirected? No, because you have repeatedly pointed out that they would draw from Toronto to support themselves. It may not kill the Leafs, but it takes money from them; therefore they are affected and are well within their rights to demand indemnification from Jimbo.

As for the sales, leagues should get to have a say in who owns a team. It is needed to protect the league in general from owners who would be detrimental to the league.

/Of course, the Jerry Joneses, Dan Snyders, and Mark Cubans of the world haven't been successfully in winning titles for all of their passion as of late either.

And when did championships enter into the discussion? The Leafs haven't won a Stanley Cup since 1967, and the Sabres have never won one. Did I miss something here, or are you simply trying to divert the discussion along a path that really has nothing to do with the topic(s) at hand?

Aren't championships a good way of determining what makes a good ownership group? Just pointing out that fully passionate or renegade owners might be less successful at winning than others.

//He only really has a passion for something close to take potential RIM clients to.

Oh come now rams Is this just a case of the "I'll just choose the morally absolute position opposite of the other side" argument like you took with traditional vs non-traditional markets in general?

Really, anyone who's seen the effort he's put behind this, when the NHL clearly doesn't want him, says to me "this is a guy who loves the sport." If he didn't, why would he bother? He loves the game, and he would love to see a seventh team in the country that invented the sport*. Regardless of what you think of him, you can't deny the passion the man has for NHL hockey.

*A country, mind you, who's meger six teams in a 30 team NHL make up 60% of the league's revenue.

Where's the 60 coming from. I've typically seen 40% as the number thrown out.

As for why he pursues it? Ego. Rich people want toys. Toys they can show to investors so they will give them money. If there was any chance in hell he could get a MLB, NBA, or NFL toy into Southern Ontario, he'd probably pursue it.

He also presumably enjoys being feted as a national hero by you Canadians. That type of flattery does wonders for an ego. And think about it...the guy who took a team back from teh EVOL Rednecks in the South-and not just any team, but one lost by Canada in the 90s. Dude could be Prime Minister within a decade if that happened.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

In case you're curious, they did approve his bid to own Pittsburgh in 2006 before his motives became more known.

[DEAD!]

He also presumably enjoys being feted as a national hero by you Canadians. That type of flattery does wonders for an ego. And think about it...the guy who took a team back from teh EVOL Rednecks in the South-and not just any team, but one lost by Canada in the 90s. Dude could be Prime Minister within a decade if that happened.

eh... why not? It's not as if any of the options for Prime Minister are any good...

[IceCap]

So rather then have another successful team the NHL is better of with a team struggling to stay alive on league life support in a dead market?

There's no guarentee that a Hamilton/Winnipeg/7th Canadian market team will be a financial success. Ottawa's gone through bankruptcy, and numerous Canadian markets have had terrible attendance figures and financial woes. Much like there's struggling MLB, NBA, and NFL markets in the US....just because a sport is beloved in the country doesn't mean it's going to be a 100% successful market. It's happened before, and most likely will happen again.

Is Ottawa still here and selling out? Yes. Are Edmonton and Calgary still selling out and turning a profit? Yes. happens, teams hit rough patches. That's going to happen anywhere. The test comes from whether they have the fanbase to make a real turnaround.

As for the "numerous Canadian markets" that have had "terrible attendance figures and financial woes," that number would be two. Calgary and Edmonton, and only because the Western economy was hit especially hard during the mid 90's. That crisis is over, and those two teams are now selling out regularly and turning a profit.

Your argument is based on your utopian wants instead of logic. I think every NHL fan wouldn't mind seeing Canada get another team or two. But only if it becomes a financially-advantageous situation for the NHL....and none of us knows what that exactly is. You're assuming an NHL team in Hamilton/Canada won't/can't fail. The love of hockey is definitely there, but love doesn't pay the rent. Will the place still turn a profit when the team fails to make the playoffs in 10 consecutive seasons and the cheapest ticket being $80-$100? What happens if the owner's business tanks or the Canadian dollar bottoms out?

Utopian wants rather then logic? Please. Southern Ontario has a large, disproportionate number of hockey fans. Save for the Windsor and Niagara areas, the region is by and large the territory of one team. The Toronto Maple Leafs. The region contains more hockey fans then the Maple Leafs are willing/able to service. There's even a very vocal "anti-Leafs" fanbase. The market is such that a second team in the area can draw from that large pool of fans that cannot or will not attend Leafs games. Furthermore this won't cut into Toronto's bottom line, as the fans a Hamilton team would draw wouldn't have gone to Leafs games anyway.

Why put a second baseball team in New York? The market can support that second team. Well the market in southern Ontario has the potential to support a second NHL team. Much more potential then the team has in Phoenix.

Look no further then the Maple Leafs for your second set of questions. No Cup in over forty years. The place is still packed though. Why? The fanbase cares about the game. There's nothing to suggest that things would be any different in Hamilton.

For what it's worth, I think that the team should stay in Phoenix, but only if the financial situation is in a position where it can improve. But if that's not a plausible outcome, then move the team to wherever the owner and/or league thinks is the best financial situation, no matter if it's Houston or Kansas City or Hamilton or Quesnel.

I think it's pretty clear, the financial situation in Phoenix is a problem. If they continue to bleed money like this the team will go under within the decade.

The problem for Phoenix, much like it was for Nashville, wasn't fan support....but rather, financial problems stemming from corporate money or leases with the city/area. If the Coyotes are losing $100 million in three seasons.....fan support isn't the reason.

Lets not kid ourselves. The Coyotes attendance numbers came in below Nashville's. The problem for the Coyotes is multi-fronted. No fan support, and problems on both the municipal and corporate side of things. And if you really don't think fan support is an issue, consider the fact that a Save the Coyotes rally drew 200 people.

In the end though, it doesn't matter. Fact is the team has bleed money for 13 seasons in Phoenix. Putting the team on league life support, ala MLB/Expos, isn't going to improve the situation (we all know how that ended up anyway).

I'll say it again, because it's really this simple.

Put a winner in Phoenix and the league will be rewarded with revenues from an extremely large market.

Again, you might be right. Maybe the NHL did fail Phoenix. Maybe the Coyotes wouldn't be in this mess if the ownership had put forth real effort to build a team seven years ago.

Here's the thing though, that didn't happen. We're thirteen years into the NHL in Phoenix experiment, and not one season has produced a profit. Whatever the reason, the market is no longer viable. The team will die if forced to stay in that market.

Again, I'll run the numbers by you. Lets assume an ownership group purchases the Coyotes that's both committed to the Phoenix market (as the admiral pointed out, it's not an extremely large market) and committed to putting a winning team on the ice. You think the Coyotes will magically turn around in a season? Nope. It'll take time to build a team up, essentially from scratch. So that's five years building the team. Then three years, at minimum, before that base works itself out. So eight years before they become competitive and start to even register on the radar of the causal Phoenix sports fan.

Eight years, at least. All the while they're still losing $100 million every three years. The team simply can't afford that. Phoenix is a lost cause. Play the blame game all you want, but that doesn't change the fact that the cold, hard numbers make it a dud of a pro hockey market.

[IceCap]

Did the NBA fight tooth and nail to shut Cuban out? Not that I'm aware of. So really, the two situations aren't comparible. As for the anti-trust lawsuite? Well whatever it takes to get MLSE to realize that a team in Hamilton would not affect them in the slightest I'm all for.

Here's my opinion on the matter. Owner of Team X wants to sell. He should be able to sell the team to whoever he can sell the team, free from league meddling. If new owner wants to move the team into a location that infringes on the territory of Team Y then he can as long as he pays off the territorial fee.

Really, the owner of the team who wants to sell should have a right to sell his properity to whoever is able to provide the best price. The NHL already has a legal monopoly on major league pro hockey (if not technically then in practice). Anything else like the league telling owners who they can and can't sell to? That's not really something I can look at and agree with.

As for other passionate and loaded owners who are willing to buy into the NHL, where are they?

The NHL didn't fight tooth and nail to keep Balsillie out at first either. This situation only developed after his motives and objectives became more apparent to all involved.

His motives/objectives? Take a struggling hockey team out of a questionable market and place them in a market where fans love the game and would kill for a chance to see NHL hockey live. The nerve of the guy.

FWIW if Cuban's MO became more apparent prior to the sale, methinks that Stern might have urged the NBA to reject him as an owner as well. Although Cuban does seem to operate within the rules, so maybe that's why they tolerate him.

If any money that would have gone to the Leafs is redirected to the Fighting Balsillies, then the Leafs have been affected by the team. Can you guarantee me that no money will be redirected? No, because you have repeatedly pointed out that they would draw from Toronto to support themselves. It may not kill the Leafs, but it takes money from them; therefore they are affected and are well within their rights to demand indemnification from Jimbo.

Again, what's so bad about having a Mark Cuban? He's eccentric, out there, and brash. So what? He's passionate about his team, and he's a cause for publicity for the league. Me thinks the NHL could use some of that.

It's not as if a team in Hamilton will not kill the Leafs. It would barley affect them. The fans a Hamilton team would draw would be fans who wouldn't be at Leafs games anyway. So no major revenue loss for MLSE there.

As for indemnification, where have you been? I've said over and over that Balsillie, if he were to land a team in Hamilton, should have to pay a territorial fee to the Leafs, much like the Ducks did to the Kings when they started up.

As for the sales, leagues should get to have a say in who owns a team. It is needed to protect the league in general from owners who would be detrimental to the league.

Sorry, I disagree with you there. When someone owns a pro sports team they risked their own money and the money of anyone else within their ownership group to purchase the team. Not the NHL's money. If someone puts up the kind of cash needed to purchase a pro sports team he should have every right to do whatever he wants to do to that team.

Now of course anyone who puts down the cash needed to but a NHL team is going to operate in the best interests of the league. That's just smart business. If Jim Balsillie lands a NHL team then suddenly what's good for the NHL is what's good for Jim Balsillie. If you honestly think he'll be a detrimental owner then you've really allowed your Balsillie rage to cloud common sense.

And when did championships enter into the discussion? The Leafs haven't won a Stanley Cup since 1967, and the Sabres have never won one. Did I miss something here, or are you simply trying to divert the discussion along a path that really has nothing to do with the topic(s) at hand?

Aren't championships a good way of determining what makes a good ownership group? Just pointing out that fully passionate or renegade owners might be less successful at winning than others.

I though the point at hand was whether or not a team in Hamilton could draw? The Leafs, losers for over forty years, pack the place regularly. The Dallas Cowboys, now the NFL's own league-approved soap opera that probably won't win a Super Bowl within five seasons at the least, still sells out. If the passion for the game is there, the fans will show up, title or no title.

Again though, kudos on trying to deflect the conversation in an unrelated direction.

*A country, mind you, who's meger six teams in a 30 team NHL make up 60% of the league's revenue.

Where's the 60 coming from. I've typically seen 40% as the number thrown out.

60% is always the number I've seen thrown out. This is the first I've heard of 40%.

Either way the six Canadian teams in the NHL provide for a disproportionate amount of the league's revenue.

As for why he pursues it? Ego. Rich people want toys. Toys they can show to investors so they will give them money. If there was any chance in hell he could get a MLB, NBA, or NFL toy into Southern Ontario, he'd probably pursue it.

He also presumably enjoys being feted as a national hero by you Canadians. That type of flattery does wonders for an ego. And think about it...the guy who took a team back from teh EVOL Rednecks in the South-and not just any team, but one lost by Canada in the 90s. Dude could be Prime Minister within a decade if that happened.

See, here's why I can't take this seriously (aside from the internet attempt at discrediting the opposing side's argument by using intentionally misspelled words).

I know you're train of thought on this. I really do. Back when the whole "traditional vs non-traditional" market debate started up some idiots, some of which were, unfortunately, my fellow countrymen, pegged St. Louis as a non-traditional hockey market. Now it very much is. I know that, you know that, and anyone with three brain cells and a passing internet in the NHL knows that. Yet despite that, those morons got to you and you responded by coping with moral absolutism by adopting moral absolutism and you went on the "screw all traditional markets" tare. You even admitted as such.

This is really just an extension of that. The Coyotes represent the virtues, hardworking owners of the struggling non-traditional markets, and Jim Balsillie represents the very worst of the big bad evil businessmen from up north who want to stomp out southern hockey at all costs.

In case you're curious, they did approve his bid to own Pittsburgh in 2006 before his motives became more known.

Again, his motives? As if wanting to bring a seventh team to Canada is one of the seven deadly sins.

And really, if Bettman didn't know he wanted to put the team in Hamilton when the owners originally approved the sale then he (and the NHL's collective ownership) is/are more idiotic then originally thought.

[rams80]

1. The struggling team in questionable market argument would hold more weight if two of his past targets weren't Pittsburgh and Ottawa. He'd probably move the Canadiens to Hamilton if he could.

2a. Brash owners don't always reflect well on a league. And again...Cuban hasn't flouted league rules, except vis a vis criticizing the refs. He can be a team player.

2b. What constitutes a significant revenue loss? People buying different jerseys? Television money being diverted? The loss of some ticket sales? I'm not sure a Hamilton team would barely affect the Leafs. Balsillie disagrees with you on the territorial fee issue, though, given last week's hearing.

3. They aren't buying a team though, they are buying a membership in a larger organization, and by extension willingly subjecting themselves to that organization's rules. Once you show an intent to own a franchise, you should show an intent to obey the larger organization's rules. Balsillie hasn't. If they have shown no prior interest in following the organization's rules, why should the organization expect them to behave differently if they are a member. (Of course, it's also in the organization's interests not to go the anti-trust route, which Balsillie failed to get the memo on.) Balsillie only does what's good for Balsillie-and if he were to somehow win a legal challenge he gets a lot of latitude on how much he can ignore the rules. Salary cap? Oh....that's an anti-trust issue.

As for why the NHL more fully disagrees with your stance at present, two words: John Spano

4. Your use of passionate implies you expect him to ice a winning team at all costs. Just pointing out that isn't the case.

5. This (admittedly two year old report) credits them with "only" a third of the league revenues. Now, the league may have recovered slightly better in Canada than the US, but I doubt it's to the tune of Canada now representing 60% of league revenues.

I maintain that a team in another Canadian market wouldn't shift the number more than a percentage point or two though.

6. "Make it Seven" is as nationalistic a campaign as anything else I've seen in a Democracy of late. He's playing to Canadian base emotions by making it a Canada vs. US issue and clouding the other issues about a potential move. I'm sorry if I'm arguing in that way. Tell you what, if he had really wants to make it seven with a reasonable chance of success, he should have offered the NHL $300 to $400 as an expansion fee around say...2005 or 6, come to a separate arrangement with Toronto and Buffalo vis a vis indemnification, and demonstrate a modicum of patience during the process (The NHL would at the least like to postpone expansion until the economy gets better.) I'd bet Hamilton would have a team within 5 years if he had done this in the first place.

(Now that he's taken the league to court and tried to go around league rules with Moyes, I doubt it would work, though.)

7. I think they were aware he would like to possibly have a team in Hamilton. They were not aware he ONLY wanted a team in Hamilton.

[jkrdevil]

That's a nice sum-up Rams80.

Now for some news:

Basillie has basically made an ultimatum to the court that the sell has to be complete the end of June or he is pulling out his bid.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/sports/bals...article1153973/

If true and he would withdraw the bid at the end of the month it basically spells the end of his bid. The relocation hearing is n the 22nd and then afterward my understanding is that an open bidding process then would have to happen. If all goes well for Moyes and JB it still would be assuredly still go into July. This is basically trying to strong arm the judge into speeding up the process and considering the judge stated they were moving to fat probably isn't the best idea.

[Sodboy13]

That's a nice sum-up Rams80.

Now for some news:

Basillie has basically made an ultimatum to the court that the sell has to be complete the end of June or he is pulling out his bid.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/sports/bals...article1153973/

If true and he would withdraw the bid at the end of the month it basically spells the end of his bid. The relocation hearing is n the 22nd and then afterward my understanding is that an open bidding process then would have to happen. If all goes well for Moyes and JB it still would be assuredly still go into July. This is basically trying to strong arm the judge into speeding up the process and considering the judge stated they were moving to fat probably isn't the best idea.

That's the sound of Mr. Balsillie slowly walking backward toward the exit. For someone so allegedly passionate about buying an NHL team, he sure is quick on the draw when it comes to bailing, and displays very little interest in following the procedure anyone else is required to go through to become an owner.

In the end, though, not getting the team works out great for him. Balsillie gets to spend nowhere near nine figures, and will still be lionized as "the spurned would-be saviour of Canadian pro hockey" or some such rubbish by those unwilling or unable to see the situation for what it truly is. It's the kind of PR an actual owner of a 13th-place team could only dream of.

This is quickly developing into a situation only a couple of notches above that CFL "Ottawa Steelback" nonsense of a couple years ago.

[SenatorJake]

So rather then have another successful team the NHL is better of with a team struggling to stay alive on league life support in a dead market? The Coyotes WILL go under within a decade if they stay in Phoenix.

If Jim Balsillie/another Canadian team in Canada is so objectionable to the NHL as a whole then move them to KC. Just get them out of Arizona.

I think this is the most likely/best outcome possible for the Coyotes at this point.

[tp49]

Never, ever a good idea to make an ultimatum to the court like that. Balsillie can now forget about ever owning the Coyotes. The court will work on its timetable on on Balsillie's. Between this and the Anti-trust suit he is good as done.

[The_Admiral]

Great news for the best 12,000 hockey fans in North America. I am a Coyote.

[HedleyLamarr]

Is Ottawa still here and selling out? Yes. Are Edmonton and Calgary still selling out and turning a profit? Yes. happens, teams hit rough patches. That's going to happen anywhere. The test comes from whether they have the fanbase to make a real turnaround.

As for the "numerous Canadian markets" that have had "terrible attendance figures and financial woes," that number would be two. Calgary and Edmonton, and only because the Western economy was hit especially hard during the mid 90's. That crisis is over, and those two teams are now selling out regularly and turning a profit.

Hey, guess what? Phoenix is in a "rough patch"! Phoenix is "anywhere"! " happened" in Phoenix!

You're only 40% right about the Canadian teams that have had financial woes and terrible attendance figures. You got Calgary and Edmonton. You forgot to mention Ottawa (you know, that whole bankruptcy thing falls under "financial woes"), and you also forgot about Winnipeg and Quebec City. Canadian cities don't lose hockey teams because of things going right on and off the ice. Hockey may be the king sport in Canada, but that doesn't mean that every team based in Canada will be 100% successful. History has shown us that.

Utopian wants rather then logic? Please. Southern Ontario has a large, disproportionate number of hockey fans. Save for the Windsor and Niagara areas, the region is by and large the territory of one team. The Toronto Maple Leafs. The region contains more hockey fans then the Maple Leafs are willing/able to service. There's even a very vocal "anti-Leafs" fanbase. The market is such that a second team in the area can draw from that large pool of fans that cannot or will not attend Leafs games. Furthermore this won't cut into Toronto's bottom line, as the fans a Hamilton team would draw wouldn't have gone to Leafs games anyway.

Why put a second baseball team in New York? The market can support that second team. Well the market in southern Ontario has the potential to support a second NHL team. Much more potential then the team has in Phoenix.

Look no further then the Maple Leafs for your second set of questions. No Cup in over forty years. The place is still packed though. Why? The fanbase cares about the game. There's nothing to suggest that things would be any different in Hamilton.

What percentage of those "anti-Leafs" fans are pro-fans of another team in the NHL? If it's anything short of 100%, you're lying. These anti-Leafs fans are also pro-Canadiens, pro-Senators, pro-Sabres, pro-Red Wings, or pro-[insert team here] fans. It makes no sense for any person to say: "I'm a hockey fan, I don't like any team in particular, but I sure hate the Maple Leafs!" Even the most vocal anti-team members on here are pro-another team.

The Air Canada Centre sells out each game because the team has been around for what....90 years? Maple Leaf fandom has been passed through generations. The Leafs have a long-ass waiting list for season tickets. The team's performance on the ice won't affect a team that's been around for close to a century. Put a team with no history in Hamilton, they aren't guarenteed to sellout or turn a profit if the team continually loses. Washington DC is a big baseball city....if the team with no history there starts losing, fans won't come out. That very same thing is possible for Hamilton.

I think it's pretty clear, the financial situation in Phoenix is a problem. If they continue to bleed money like this the team will go under within the decade.

Yes, their financial situation sucks right now, hence the bankruptcy goings-on. But can the situation improve at all? If it can, keep them in Phoenix. If it can't, move them out. I only said keep them in Phoenix "if their financial situation can improve". It's plainly obvious that they're having financial troubles right now....no one doubted that.

I'll say it again, because it's really this simple.

Put a winner in Phoenix and the league will be rewarded with revenues from an extremely large market.

Again, you might be right. Maybe the NHL did fail Phoenix. Maybe the Coyotes wouldn't be in this mess if the ownership had put forth real effort to build a team seven years ago.

Here's the thing though, that didn't happen. We're thirteen years into the NHL in Phoenix experiment, and not one season has produced a profit. Whatever the reason, the market is no longer viable. The team will die if forced to stay in that market.

Again, I'll run the numbers by you. Lets assume an ownership group purchases the Coyotes that's both committed to the Phoenix market (as the admiral pointed out, it's not an extremely large market) and committed to putting a winning team on the ice. You think the Coyotes will magically turn around in a season? Nope. It'll take time to build a team up, essentially from scratch. So that's five years building the team. Then three years, at minimum, before that base works itself out. So eight years before they become competitive and start to even register on the radar of the causal Phoenix sports fan.

Eight years, at least. All the while they're still losing $100 million every three years. The team simply can't afford that. Phoenix is a lost cause. Play the blame game all you want, but that doesn't change the fact that the cold, hard numbers make it a dud of a pro hockey market.

How do you figure eight years? The Flyers went from dead last in the NHL to the Eastern Conference Finals in one season. In the era of the salary cap, teams get better quicker. Each season, you have your 2-3 dominant teams, 2-3 lousy teams, and 24-26 teams that are relatively mediocre. Phoenix already has a ton of young talent. Weren't the Coyotes hovering around 5th-6th in the West at the halfway point of the season this past year?

[Sodboy13]

Weren't the Coyotes hovering around 5th-6th in the West at the halfway point of the season this past year?

Yep. Then around the All-Star break, a tailspin ensued, and then came the trade deadline fire sale. It would only be until after the season that we would learn these events pretty much coincided with the league secretly taking over operations of the franchise. Hmmmmm.

[DEAD!]

Great news for the best 12,000 hockey fans in North America. I am a Coyote.

*looks at avatar* I can't argue with that....