According to the Canadian Competition Authority, the NHL's assertion is valid.
Then you should have no worry about how this will resolve. Furthermore, the last time I checked, the CCA isn't a court of law, is it?
I am tired of you calling the APA and offer when you know full well it isn't an offer, and acting as if it's open to negotiation. It's not an offer it's a contract in place.
Contracts can't be amended? Okay.
Seems to me the judge has already scratched an item or two, but go ahead with being incensed.
Secondly, cannot anyone come in with another offer? Just because JB has this one, and/or if it he pulls it, can't he make another offer?
Are you saying that putting a team in Hamilton will not damage the Sabres and the Leafs? That APA, once again a CONTRACT specifically states that neither the NHL or any team will be paid any rights fees.
Irreparable damage. Your words.
I-R-R-E-P-A-R-A-B-L-E damage. I called you on it. Don't try to revise at this stage. (I'm not buying the irreparable damage part.)
...you make comments about non-traditional markets, southern markets etc. but never define them. I find that interesting.
You're welcome to dig through the forum and my 12K posts to find my dissertations on the topic. I was making an effort to not go too far OT, but lest it appear that I'm too worried about calling a spade a spade, I'll give you the abridged version: teams with a higher market potential and high revenues are already in the A group. It's also how Bain Capital came up with three tiers of teams in their offer. The second group of teams has a high market potential based on basic things like total population, income and demographics where NHL teams have flourished, etc. The sun does shine most of the year on a few of these (e.g., Atlanta, Dallas, LA, SJ). The teams that will have a hard time have a small population and corporate base as compared to the cities in the first two categories; thus their market potential, even under the best of circumstances can only be a half to a third of the bigger markets. Not their fault. Size counts.
Sorry, to disappoint but it's nearly as conspiratorial as you'd like it to be so you could lump it into the preconceived notions you've already brought to this argument in abundance.
Then please share your opinion with some specificity. You regularly request that of others. Please do the same.
Canadian markets are different. Without revenue sharing and a low CAD, they're not a good bet in the smaller cities either. They are however a better bet than smaller US markets. The question then is, how many of these size-challenged markets should a major sports league have, and ultimately need to subsidize? If you think of it terms of market penetration, or a rate of acceptance, Canadians watch more hockey than Americans, and pay more per ticket. All you have to do is compare the dollars/team in the US and Canada once you correct for currency differences. Obviously currency plays a large role that cannot be ignored. The question for the league is whether or not they're willing to ensure that disparities due to currency fluctuations are corrected (or equalized). One might also ask if there is more national TV money to be squeezed out of Canada. If there are two more teams (say Hamilton and Winnipeg), could more money come from TSN, CBC, et. al. That is a legitimate question that shouldn't be ignored due to the incessant nationalistic battles here.
The issue of smaller markets in the US is simply that the revenue gap between them and the biggest markets isn't easily addressed. If you bet that Phoenix or Atlanta can grow enough in a 10 yr period and become large revenue teams, then you have a basis for an investment. They are very big cities, and if they do get turned around, they fit the market potential argument. There are other cities that no matter what more you do at the local level, they'll never attract the media money and gate prices that a Chicago, NY and LA should be able to garner. Furthermore, if they're not registering on the national broadcasters' radar, how does having teams in these places really make the difference between the $100 million in a national TV deal and the $1 billion contract? No one wants to tell me how you go from $100 million to $1 billion. That's the premise of the Footprint ideology, but honestly, what evidence is there that it's even remotely feasible, seeing the league is already at 30 teams and has the footprint. What happens next to catapult it to the next level? Phoenix of LA or Dallas winning the Cup? IS THAT REALLY WHAT ANYONE IS SAYING?
