cobra427
Registered User
- May 6, 2012
- 9,342
- 3,379
Why would the NHL not consider footing the bill, that might be a false assumption? If the team moves because it fails in AZ, it could hurt the value of all franchises. It could also effect expansion fees. The NHL could be telling new potential franchises that there are not any teams available to relocate.Rumors run all the time, Jakey. But guess what... you don’t base a position on them. And just because you never heard anything more doesn’t mean it didn’t happen.
Just like “ Oh the league will find a minority owner.” Based on what??
The league’s position has been they will support Barroway and the franchise in Arizona as long as HE is willing to stick it out. What happens if he decides he can’t? If he finds another city willing to host him he can move the Coyotes there and the league has little recourse to stop it (Raiders v NFL II)
The league isn’t going to operate the team without someone footing the bill other than them. Last time they got Glendale to do it, but that bridge is burnt.... pulverized and buried 200 feet under. And you can be assured every other city took note of that.
Any short term losses the NHL (which means all other teams) would have to cover is likely way less then the potential of a team moving that could hurt long term franchise values and any expansion fees. Think about the success of Vegas last year. The NHL can argue how great that was for Vegas and the new owner and now want to charge a higher franchise fee. Do you think they screw that up by letting the coyotes move or do they cover any short term losses if needed. The NHL (all owners) have been playing the long game and this is why the team is staying in my opinion. Long term value for everyone trumps short term losses on the Coyotes.
You guys can all disagree but this is the math equation they are running.