The Messenger said:
HERE IS MY - I AM JUST A FAN ** SOAP BOX SPEACH **
I am just a fan who believes that expansion has watered down the game that I love to watch with a passion.
As a fan .. Why would I care if there are 30 teams or 24 remaining after this lockout holocaust ??..
With 24 Teams they all would be stronger financially and stronger on the ice as the good players on the contracted/bankrupt teams would be added to the remaining surviving ones. Resulting in the players on those teams that are career minor leaguers to once again return to where they belong. As I firmly believe you are only as Strong as your Weakest link ..
I would rather see Jerome Iginla setting up Ilya Kovalchuk in Calgary for a highlight reel goal then to see Calgary setting up the trap to prohibit Atlanta's Kovalchuk from scoring, while Iginla is taking passes from 40 year old Dave Lowry and goon Chris Simon to try to get the Flames a win..
I bet you Revenue and attendance in Calgary post lockout would soar upwards to see Ilya and Jerome on the same team then playing against each other .. and so would I if I was tuning into a HNIC Canada double header game on TV .. I might even renew my Centre Ice Hockey Package and catch the Flames during the week to see that in fact .. Imagine that excitement from a fan perspective post lockout ..
I don't care if NHL players jobs are lost as I am not a player and I don't care if Teams are lost as I am not an owner, but as as a FAN who is paying the bill on both sides I care what I am paying for ..
I am a fan and the only part of this whole Fiasco that I am interested in that begs the question - "What's in it for me"? ...
I think Bettman's tearing down the strong for the sake of the weak already on life support is a very poor business decision ..and after all the dust settles will make the NHL game a far less entertaining product on the Ice and profitable one in the books, and when these teams fail and I firmly believe they will, which will result in Bettman's head and firing...Fans then we will be locked into a 6 year CBA, without the head of the monster that created it around to blame any longer ..
So that is why I want to see the PLAN .. MR. Bettman that will convince me otherwise ..If this is all about Money and which side gets more then I am keeping mine and finding others ways to spend it .. Have fun dividing up nothing ..
I would have loved to not have my heart broken as a little kid when I was moved to Atlanta where I had the chance to finally see a real NHL team (or any hockey for that matter), only to have them move away a year later. Didn't really care how or why at that age, I was just pissed. Became even more pissed when I got older and found out the reason for the relocation had nothing to do how the team was fitting into the NHL. The team owner lost a bundle when the real estate market hit the skids in the late 70s, he had no choice but to sell and several bids to keep the team here were trumped by a group from Calgary.
Now, imagine if our places were switched. That anger has of course dissipated over the years. But I do sometimes wonder what the situation would be now if the Flames hadn't moved to Calgary.
No one can say if they would have prospered if they had stayed here in Atlanta, too many unknowns between then and now. But it would have been quite interesting to find out. The population constantly growing (now more than 4.5M people), a good percentage of that coming from up north to work due to the hordes of corporate entities in the city. The city and the team growing together. If they had stayed and survived (which I very much believe would have been the case), it would now be more than thirty years. They would be considered established. Nobody would be able to say that Atlanta doesn’t deserve an NHL team, even those who (unfortunately) use geography as their primary argument.
This is part of the point I'm getting at. I do agree with many that expansion happened too quickly and maybe not every franchise deserves to be in the league. But the fact is they are right now, whether we like it or not. Even though I don't exactly agree with how the NHL went into expanding the sport, I definitely agree that trying to expand its popularity and extend it's reach is a good thing. But these things take time, and patience. And by time, I’m talking about close to two decades to fully establish a team.
Neither of us may agree that there should be this many teams, but that’s the way it is. The NHL has shown their commitment to doing whatever they can to keep every team. In time, it’s possible that some teams will fail on their own due to ownership issues and/or lack of support. If that happens, so be it. But I’m keenly interested in finding out how each and every team will fare with a moderately stable economic base, when management of the team is the primary reason for success or failure.