Back In The Game?

[BB61]

And I can claim that Shay Laren and Lucy Pinder are stopping by my place for an absolutely riotous, week-long three-way, with a similar chance of such claims coming to fruition.

If that happens, I want directions to your house.

[Sodboy13]

At this point, I feel compelled to note that Mark Cuban, as far as I know, made sure to play by the rules and follow the proper order of operations when he set about acquiring the Dallas Mavericks. It wasn't until all the t's were crossed and i's dotted on the Mavericks sale that Cuban publicly became the "maverick" he's so widely regarded as. And Cuban's controversies seem to swirl more around remarks of unusual candor and inappropriate displays of emotion at games, where Balsillie's stem from actively circumventing and diobeying the rules of the league he allegedly wants so desperately to be a part of.

I would argue that a comparison of Balsillie to Cuban is far from apt. Perhaps it would be more on-target to compare him to Al Davis. But not the Al Davis who got under Rozelle's skin while building a championship-caliber franchise - more like the Davis who keeps drafting sprinters, and tried suing the Carolina Panthers because they stole his color scheme.

I agree with you that a sh**-stirrer owner in the NHL could prove highly beneficial for the league as a whole. But I would contend that said owner has to be smart enough to only start stirring the sh** after he is actually in the position of ownership.

[Gothamite]

You'd rather he be dishonest before the deal is done?

[DEAD!]

And I can claim that Shay Laren and Lucy Pinder are stopping by my place for an absolutely riotous, week-long three-way, with a similar chance of such claims coming to fruition.

If that happens, I want directions to your house.

uhhhhh.... for what? Sloppy seconds?

[Sodboy13]

And I can claim that Shay Laren and Lucy Pinder are stopping by my place for an absolutely riotous, week-long three-way, with a similar chance of such claims coming to fruition.

If that happens, I want directions to your house.

uhhhhh.... for what? Sloppy seconds?

And with that, DEAD! is hereby suspended from the board for six posts, and is ordered to undergo sensitivity training.

Goth, it's not a question of honesty - it's a question of sense. If you sought admission into a high-profile group, would you feel the best way to do so would be to say, "Screw you guys! I'll do what I want!" while kicking the door in, pitch a hissy fit when you were denied admission, and then try to break in via the back door, demanding and expecting full acceptance upon your entry? No - you'd go about obtaining membership the way everyone else did, and if you wanted to lobby for changes in the organization's structure once you were in, so be it.

My argument is not about the viability of hockey in Phoenix, nor the abilities of Gary Bettman. My argument is that Jim Balsillie started this whole process incorrectly and followed the wrong path the rest of the way. And at least in my mind, logic would follow that someone who can't even properly go about buying a team would likely not be very good at operating one, were he to actually get it.

Oh, and Brian, I'll let you know. I could definitely use a Gatorade fetcher/videographer.

[Gothamite]

Again, I don't know.

From what I've read, Balsillie started the process correctly when he bought the Penguins. The NHL then stepped in after the deal was done and effectively changed the rules on him.

Since then, I can't argue that he's behaved foolishly at times. Almost as foolishly as Bettman has in trying to keep him out of the club.

But I'd still rather he enter the group honestly as the china-shop bull, shaking up from day one a group in dire need of shaking, than bow and scrape and lie in order to gain entry. He clearly terrifies Bettman, which to my mind is a point in his favor.

[Brian in Boston]

Almost as foolishly as Bettman and a majority of the NHL's owners have in trying to keep him out of the club.

He clearly terrifies Bettman and a majority of the NHL's owners , which to my mind is a point in his favor.

Fixed your post.

By the way, I'm willing to bet that not a day goes by when Gary Bettman doesn't wish that he had the kind of unfettered, all-encompassing, unilateral power that some of you guys seem to think that he wields.

[twi]

How can anyone take this tripe seriously? I can't believe people are so blinded by misplaced, petty, nationalistic fever to overlook such a blatant disregard for the established rules of the league.

With a league this poorly run, sometimes disregard for the rules is the only proper response to them.

The NHL needs a Mark Cuban. Maybe this is the guy.

A league so poorly runs that each year its setting a new record high for revenues.

Brian in Boston is absolutely correct; Bettman does not have the absolute power all his detractors think he has. He works for the owners and their interests. I can't blame them for not wanting Balsille in their group, as he obviously falsely places himself above the laws and regulations of the league.

Why does everyone hate Bettman so? Everytime someone answers this it's with accusations that are entirely unfounded or at least equally the fault of other parties.

[rams80]

Again, I don't know.

From what I've read, Balsillie started the process correctly when he bought the Penguins. The NHL then stepped in after the deal was done and effectively changed the rules on him.

Since then, I can't argue that he's behaved foolishly at times. Almost as foolishly as Bettman has in trying to keep him out of the club.

But I'd still rather he enter the group honestly as the china-shop bull, shaking up from day one a group in dire need of shaking, than bow and scrape and lie in order to gain entry. He clearly terrifies Bettman, which to my mind is a point in his favor.

I believe the NHL has shown in court documents under threat of prosecution for perjury that the "surprise" requirement to stay in Pittsburgh for seven years was always present in the requirements to own the franchise.

/After the last 6 weeks of court proceedings which seems more likely? The NHL changed the rules at the last minute or Balsillie's legal team forgot to read something?

[SenatorJake]

Almost as foolishly as Bettman and a majority of the NHL's owners have in trying to keep him out of the club.

He clearly terrifies Bettman and a majority of the NHL's owners , which to my mind is a point in his favor.

Fixed your post.

By the way, I'm willing to bet that not a day goes by when Gary Bettman doesn't wish that he had the kind of unfettered, all-encompassing, unilateral power that some of you guys seem to think that he wields.

A very slim majority of NHL owners from what I hear. The other 29 teams having to spend what many estimate to be 3 million dollars a year to keep this Phoenix team afloat may erase that already slim majority.

I don't believe Hamilton is the right candidate for an NHL team right now, but neither is Phoenix and the latter is actually proven.

[Mac the Knife]

FWIW, I've always believed that each of Balsille's attempts should be looked at as a different, unique and specific case.

Despite their similarities, ultimately it comes down to one thing: a guy with impeccable overall business credentials and enough money to operate a franchise indefinitely wants to buy one and relocate it to a new market, removing one from a location (Phoenix) that, at least at the moment and for whatever specific reasons, is in a situation where the NHL isn't viable. He's made what by all reports is the largest offer for the club, he's willing to pay a reasonable relocation fee to the league, and if asked he probably would be willing to make certain other concessions (i.e., staying out of the Toronto/Buffalo local TV markets) as well.

Regardless of his tactics, ultimately the business considerations should outweigh the methodologies being used. Balsille's tactics haven't been deplorable, but cunning; and that's the kind of guy I'd want in my organization, rather than be one I'd try to exclude.

[IceCap]

No Mac, you're clearly missing the point. Jim Balsille has upset the exclusive club that the NHL ownership have for themselves, and that's far more important then any of that "business" and "money" talk you keep rambling on about.

Off with Balsillie's head, I say.

The debate on Bettman's actual power within the NHL aside, one thing is clear. He will fight tooth and nail to save a franchise. Or will he? Again, I bring this up because no one, not even Mr. Bettman's strongest supporters, have answered it in any kind of satisfactory way.

Now something that has been bugging me for a while now....

In that HNiC interview with Gary Bettman he said he didn't want to see Winnipeg and Quebec City move. Now all other reasons to call BS! aside, I'll just bring this up. When the Penguins were seriously ready to walk away from Pittsburgh and start talks with KC Bettman personally travelled to Pittsburgh, sat the Pens reps and the city reps down, and forced a compromise. Where was this zeal for saving teams when the Jets and Nords had arena troubles with their cities Mr. Bettman?

[STL FANATIC]

I haven't said anything on it, Ice, because I'd be speaking with complete ignorance. I was like 8 (don't recall the exact year) when it happened, and I'm sure I'd have to dive awfully in-depth to find articles from way back when to see how it went down. I don't know if he tried at all to save them or encouraged their move (or as with most situations, likely something in the middle). I just don't know.

There's other factors for why he may have done it as well, but I'm not sure I feel like getting into that discussion.

[twi]

No Mac, you're clearly missing the point. Jim Balsille has upset the exclusive club that the NHL ownership have for themselves, and that's far more important then any of that "business" and "money" talk you keep rambling on about.

Off with Balsillie's head, I say.

The debate on Bettman's actual power within the NHL aside, one thing is clear. He will fight tooth and nail to save a franchise. Or will he? Again, I bring this up because no one, not even Mr. Bettman's strongest supporters, have answered it in any kind of satisfactory way.

Now something that has been bugging me for a while now....

In that HNiC interview with Gary Bettman he said he didn't want to see Winnipeg and Quebec City move. Now all other reasons to call BS! aside, I'll just bring this up. When the Penguins were seriously ready to walk away from Pittsburgh and start talks with KC Bettman personally travelled to Pittsburgh, sat the Pens reps and the city reps down, and forced a compromise. Where was this zeal for saving teams when the Jets and Nords had arena troubles with their cities Mr. Bettman?

Have you not received answers, or were they just ones you didn't like?

Either way, the story boils down to this: Nobody wanted to step up and own a team where the money made was worth less than the money spent and played in an absolute dump. That covers Winnipeg and Quebec right there. These two teams (plus Hartford) were in the first round of relocations. I ask you; have you ever done something for the first time, regretted how it turned out and fixed all future similiar situations to get a more desired outcome?

Bettman also personally traveled to Edmonton when they were on a fast track to Houston. To keep the team in Edmonton he even approved of a large group ownership, something that had been a sticking point. But it was chosen as a better alternative then moving the team. I feel I should also remind you of the Canadian Assistance Program, designed to keep the 6 franchises afloat and north of the border. To only point out what you perceive as errors is only telling a fraction of the whole tale.

I'll restate the most important point for you, in a "satisfactory way": No one wanted to buy a team in Winnipeg or Quebec. Pittsburgh, Nashville, and Phoenix have all had potential owners step up who want to keep the team there, that's why they stayed.

[CC97]

Just doing some searching for old articles

Nords to Colorado:

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?.../26/SP26102.DTL

http://www.nytimes.com/1995/05/26/sports/1...llion-deal.html

I've also learnt that if the sale didn't end up getting approved the league was planning on expanding to Denver and Atlanta in July '95 (according to various articles)

Jets to Phoenix:

http://www.nytimes.com/1995/12/05/sports/h...to-phoenix.html

"The relocation must be approved by the N.H.L.'s board of governors, which meets Dec. 14-16 in West Palm Beach, Fla. It may be a formality since Colangelo and N.H.L. Commissioner Gary Bettman are friends, and Bettman wants to see a franchise in Phoenix."

An article about Bettman concerned about losing teams in Canada:

http://www.nytimes.com/1995/12/15/sports/h...xt-to-move.html

Whalers to Carolina:

http://www.nytimes.com/1997/03/27/nyregion...rena-offer.html

[IceCap]

No Mac, you're clearly missing the point. Jim Balsille has upset the exclusive club that the NHL ownership have for themselves, and that's far more important then any of that "business" and "money" talk you keep rambling on about.

Off with Balsillie's head, I say.

The debate on Bettman's actual power within the NHL aside, one thing is clear. He will fight tooth and nail to save a franchise. Or will he? Again, I bring this up because no one, not even Mr. Bettman's strongest supporters, have answered it in any kind of satisfactory way.

Now something that has been bugging me for a while now....

In that HNiC interview with Gary Bettman he said he didn't want to see Winnipeg and Quebec City move. Now all other reasons to call BS! aside, I'll just bring this up. When the Penguins were seriously ready to walk away from Pittsburgh and start talks with KC Bettman personally travelled to Pittsburgh, sat the Pens reps and the city reps down, and forced a compromise. Where was this zeal for saving teams when the Jets and Nords had arena troubles with their cities Mr. Bettman?

Have you not received answers, or were they just ones you didn't like?

You're in no position to call "biased!" on me

Either way, the story boils down to this: Nobody wanted to step up and own a team where the money made was worth less than the money spent and played in an absolute dump. That covers Winnipeg and Quebec right there. These two teams (plus Hartford) were in the first round of relocations. I ask you; have you ever done something for the first time, regretted how it turned out and fixed all future similiar situations to get a more desired outcome?

I'm not talking about ownership, I'm talking about arena troubles. The Nords and Jets were only sold after it became clear that QC and Winnipeg weren't going to help in the construction of new arenas. The teams didn't move because of a lack of owenership. The teams moved because there were no alternatives for new arenas. The sales were just extensions of that.

So with that said, I repeat the question. Where was Mr. Bettman's zeal for saving franchises with arena problems? He fought, admirably, to keep the Pens in Pittsburgh when they were ready to head for Kansas City.

Why didn't he do the same when the Nords and Jets were looking for new arenas in their cities, if he was sad to see Winnipeg and QC move, as he claimed he did.

Oh that's right, because when he claimed he didn't want to see QC and Winnipeg move he flat out lied.

Just doing some searching for old articles

Nords to Colorado:

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?.../26/SP26102.DTL

http://www.nytimes.com/1995/05/26/sports/1...llion-deal.html

I've also learnt that if the sale didn't end up getting approved the league was planning on expanding to Denver and Atlanta in July '95 (according to various articles)

Jets to Phoenix:

http://www.nytimes.com/1995/12/05/sports/h...to-phoenix.html

"The relocation must be approved by the N.H.L.'s board of governors, which meets Dec. 14-16 in West Palm Beach, Fla. It may be a formality since Colangelo and N.H.L. Commissioner Gary Bettman are friends, and Bettman wants to see a franchise in Phoenix."

Fact is, he did not show the same zeal in seeing that the Nords and Jets stayed in QC and Winnipeg, in fact he downright wanted to see the Jets move. When he said he didn't want to see these teams move he flat out lied.

Not only that, but that last Jets to Phoenix quote seems to suggest that Mr. Bettman has more influence in the NHL then his supporters seem to insist he does.

Bettman also personally traveled to Edmonton when they were on a fast track to Houston. To keep the team in Edmonton he even approved of a large group ownership, something that had been a sticking point. But it was chosen as a better alternative then moving the team. I feel I should also remind you of the Canadian Assistance Program, designed to keep the 6 franchises afloat and north of the border. To only point out what you perceive as errors is only telling a fraction of the whole tale.

Ah Edmonton. The shinning example of how Mr. Bettman indeed is the friend of every Canadian NHL fan.

Fact is that the Oilers situation is simply on example in a group of decisions either made by Bettman or heavily supported by him that have been aimed at keeping the NHL's footprint in Canada to a minimum.

And the Canadian Assistance Program? It hasn't mattered since the Canadian dollar rebounded and the American dollar dipped. Now that the two are more or less on par it's pretty much non-existent.

Also, I never said that Gary Bettman as an idiot. He realizes that a disproportionate amount of the NHL's revenue comes from Canada. One of the six current teams moving south would cut into that, which is potentially bad for business if the team doesn't draw the same kind of cash in the States. At the same time Mr. Bettman has exhibited behaviour that he does not desire to see Canada's number of teams grow from more then is statistically needed for the country to continually produce the kind of cash flow he desires.

I'll restate the most important point for you, in a "satisfactory way": No one wanted to buy a team in Winnipeg or Quebec. Pittsburgh, Nashville, and Phoenix have all had potential owners step up who want to keep the team there, that's why they stayed.

Reading is fun and informative. Ownership wasn't an issue in Winnipeg and QC, the lack of arenas were. The sales of these teams was simply an extension of that. These teams had arena problems, had petitioned their communities for new venues, and it would seem these ownership groups would have kept the teams if new rinks had been secured. Yet Mr. Bettman did nothing to sit down with the cities in question to hammer out compromises like he did with Pittsburgh and the Penguins. In fact any claim Gary Bettman makes that he was sad to see Winnipeg and QC move is a downright lie. He wanted teams in Denver and Phoenix and he stood by and let two teams from great markets move to achieve that.

Hence any argument made that Gary Bettman is just doing his best to make sure NHL teams don't relocate is nothing but bunk.

Also, Pittsburgh had nothing to do with ownership groups either. Had the Pens moved to KC Lemieux's group would have still owned the team.

[Lee.]

At the same time Mr. Bettman has exhibited behaviour that he does not desire to see Canada's number of teams grow from more then is statistically needed for the country to continually produce the kind of cash flow he desires.

This is an interesting point, and one that I never really thought about until just now.

Let's look at a scenario in which the Coyotes move from Phoenix back to Winnipeg, small arena and all.

The Coyotes had, for sake of argument (plus the fact that I don't feel like going to look up the actual numbers), an average attendance of 14,000, with an average ticket price of (considering the number of giveaways and markdowns they had over the course of this past season) $70 per ticket. Phoenix is looking at an approximate revenue stream of $980k per game, or $40.2M over the course of a regular season. We can't really take parking or concession revenues into account, because I believe most of those are eaten up by the lease agreement, or in the case of concessions, built into the price of some of the tickets ($20 lower bowl seats, free food, etc etc etc). Now factor in a $45M loss for the Coyotes this season, and we can see problems.

Now, say they move back to Winnipeg, to the MTS Centre. Assuming (for the first season, anyway) a sell-out crowd every night, at a conservative estimate average of $100 per seat, that's $1.5M per game, or $61.5M per regular season. ALso assuming a favorable food/parking/merchandise agreement with the building owners (likely to also be team owners, but that's for another scenario), we can assume another $150k per night in concessions alone, or another $6.15M in revenues. Parking and merch also factor in, of course.

All of a sudden, league revenues are that much higher. This means the cap goes that much higher, making the NHLPA that much happier, but some of the lower-tier US owners that much poorer.

Mind you, I haven't really planned this out that well, but it does show, in a sense, where the ownership mindset may be at. Combined with the fact that Anaheim/LA/Dallas all want to do what they can to keep Phoenix in the league (travel costs is the official reason), then this all gets pretty gluey.

[twi]

Couple of points:

The Assistance Program didn't matter because it's not needed now? How does that make sense? Some of those teams are only able to enjoy the boon they see today because of the program. While it may not be necessary now, it most certaintly was a decade ago.

To me, it makes every bit of sense that Bettman would work harder to save Pittsburgh then the Jets/Nords. Combined, they didn't have the history or prestige that the Penguins carry. What could possibly look worse for the league then to move the franchise that has the premier advertising player?

Unless you've read Bettman's diary, I have no idea how you know he "flat out lied" when he said he didn't want to see them moved. I find it hard to believe a commissioner of a major sports league wants to see teams move. Teams moving is a signal of a weak league.

Keeping Edmonton is a way to minimize the Canadian footprint? What? They were the logical next team to follow their WHA bretheren south. Bettman and Co. allowed an ownership group just to keep the team there when they would have much preferred a single owner. One was ready in Houston. (Name escapes me atm.)

Slightly off topic, but I disagree with your assumption of Winnipeg as a strong market, at least today. It's oft-discused on HF Boards and people much smarter than I in the economic arena (and Winnipeg residents to boot!) almost unanimously agree that Winnipeg can't keep up in the current NHL.

Lee, as you noted at the end of you post, there will always be a #30 team, money wise. One of the main things killing teams now is the salary floor as many teams are forced to spend more now then at any time before the lockout. If you start the dance of moving the bottom teams around and thus forcing the cap and floor up, you'll just end up forcing someone else out. The question that comes with that is when does it stop?

Edit: Icecap, I didn't mean to imply any bias on your part. I was trying to ascertain if you truly hadn't heard answers or just didn't agree with them. My apologies.

[HedleyLamarr]

No Mac, you're clearly missing the point. Jim Balsille has upset the exclusive club that the NHL ownership have for themselves, and that's far more important then any of that "business" and "money" talk you keep rambling on about.

Off with Balsillie's head, I say.

The debate on Bettman's actual power within the NHL aside, one thing is clear. He will fight tooth and nail to save a franchise. Or will he? Again, I bring this up because no one, not even Mr. Bettman's strongest supporters, have answered it in any kind of satisfactory way.

Now something that has been bugging me for a while now....

In that HNiC interview with Gary Bettman he said he didn't want to see Winnipeg and Quebec City move. Now all other reasons to call BS! aside, I'll just bring this up. When the Penguins were seriously ready to walk away from Pittsburgh and start talks with KC Bettman personally travelled to Pittsburgh, sat the Pens reps and the city reps down, and forced a compromise. Where was this zeal for saving teams when the Jets and Nords had arena troubles with their cities Mr. Bettman?

In the 90's and earlier this decade, Bettman and the NHL chased the "quick money" like it was going out of style, hence the numerous expansion teams (and the expansion fees that go with it), and the numerous franchises relocating to cities with fewer hockey fans (Minnesota to Dallas, Quebec to Colorado, Winnipeg to Phoenix, Hartford to Carolina).

Now that the league operates within a salary cap, Bettman and the NHL have a structured commitment to each of the 30 teams, in each of the current markets. They saw the error of their money-grabbing ways of the past.

If there were no cap in place, it's very likely that Bettman and the NHL wouldn't be putting up much of a fight to keep the Coyotes in Phoenix.

[IceCap]

No Mac, you're clearly missing the point. Jim Balsille has upset the exclusive club that the NHL ownership have for themselves, and that's far more important then any of that "business" and "money" talk you keep rambling on about.

Off with Balsillie's head, I say.

The debate on Bettman's actual power within the NHL aside, one thing is clear. He will fight tooth and nail to save a franchise. Or will he? Again, I bring this up because no one, not even Mr. Bettman's strongest supporters, have answered it in any kind of satisfactory way.

Now something that has been bugging me for a while now....

In that HNiC interview with Gary Bettman he said he didn't want to see Winnipeg and Quebec City move. Now all other reasons to call BS! aside, I'll just bring this up. When the Penguins were seriously ready to walk away from Pittsburgh and start talks with KC Bettman personally travelled to Pittsburgh, sat the Pens reps and the city reps down, and forced a compromise. Where was this zeal for saving teams when the Jets and Nords had arena troubles with their cities Mr. Bettman?

In the 90's and earlier this decade, Bettman and the NHL chased the "quick money" like it was going out of style, hence the numerous expansion teams (and the expansion fees that go with it), and the numerous franchises relocating to cities with fewer hockey fans (Minnesota to Dallas, Quebec to Colorado, Winnipeg to Phoenix, Hartford to Carolina).

Now that the league operates within a salary cap, Bettman and the NHL have a structured commitment to each of the 30 teams, in each of the current markets. They saw the error of their money-grabbing ways of the past.

If there were no cap in place, it's very likely that Bettman and the NHL wouldn't be putting up much of a fight to keep the Coyotes in Phoenix.

Which is part of my criticism. Expanding the NHL's footprint is all fine and dandy, but doing it so quickly, and then not willing to recognize a mistake after the fact, is downright foolish.

Yes, the NHL chased quick money, but in the long run, especially in Phoenix, there was really no money to go after. Yes, the potential was definitely there, but we're 13 years in, and still nothing. So how much longer does the league piss away its own money AND the money of potential owners on a market that very clearly is not working?

As for the cap and its role in all of this, well any system that would prefer to see a team stay in a city where it's lost $400 million in 13 years rather then a city where hockey is the unquestioned number one sport seems broken to me. Yes, the current system has a structured commitment to the thirty teams where they are located. If one of those locations proves not to be viable, however, it's in the entire league's best long term interests that the location is abandoned and the structure reorganized to accommodate a more suitable location.

As for the NHL's business strategy as a whole, well it's a bust. Sorry, it has been. Bettman was brought on to expand the NHL's "footprint" in the States to, as you said, "chase quick money" and become a major player on the American sports landscape. So they moved teams out of Quebec City and Winnipeg ('cause Americans won't care for those second rate Canadian markets) and out of Hartford for good measure (hey, they can always root for the Bruins or Rangers, right?) in favour of Denver, Phoenix, and Carolina. And they've expanded into Nashville, Atlanta, Tampa Bay, Dallas, Anaheim, and Miami. So wow, the NHL is looking like a real national league. All that's left to do is wait for the money and ratings to come in and....

Opps. All in all, the relocation/expansion was a mixed bag. Some successes, some failures, some the jury isn't out on. Really though, the successes of the teams wasn't what mattered, it was the revenue and the ratings. The year before the Lighting won the Cup they still had a respectable playoff showing and a fantastic regular season by team standards. Attendance even shot through the roof. Yet the team still reported they would have made more money had they just not played that season. That's not a good sign.

Even these playoffs, the most watched in years, did about half of what the NBA, a distant third in the American sports landscape, did.

My point? The NHL's "chasing fast money" plan in the 90's was not only dumb on the level that money didn't exist in half the places they looked, but the very idea behind it, to make the NHL a truly national (by American standards) league was simply moronic. Hockey will never be that big of a deal in the United States. It has a niche, most definitely larger then that of, say, soccer, but a niche non the less.

So for the NHL to operate like it is one of the big boys is incredibly naive at best and incredibly blind at worst. If they think putting the Coyotes on life support is more preferable to moving them to a place where hockey is the unchallenged number one sport in the name of keeping the league's national footprint visible is pretty shortsighted. The NHL isn't MLB. They aren't even the NBA. They need to keep that in mind when it comes to matter such as franchise location and the salary cap structure.

A simple example. Changing the names of the Conferences from Wales and Campbell to East and West. This was done to lure in the casual American sports fans who would be unfamiliar with the historical associations of the old names. Problem was, this didn't achieve that effect, because the causal American sports fan didn't tune in. So no one was attracted by it, and it aliened old school fans. So who benefited? Why the change? Now apply that to franchise location.

Though I do want to thank you. And I'm not being sarcastic. I'm serious, thank you for taking the time to respond to my question with a well thought out explanation. It was nice to read after the "RARRR" post from twi.