awfulwaffle
Registered User
Caution: Dan Bickley wrote this article and I'll admit I didn't read it.
http://www.azcentral.com/story/spor...l-expansion-coyotes-revenue-sharing/14722991/
Do you ever read any article you post?
Caution: Dan Bickley wrote this article and I'll admit I didn't read it.
http://www.azcentral.com/story/spor...l-expansion-coyotes-revenue-sharing/14722991/
Worst case is it equals out? But best case is all four eventually turn profit?
No, I think the point of the article is that:
Las Vegas is short of profitability by 210k to 310k fans.
Seattle is short by 60k to 160k.
QC and Toronto could reasonably expected to be profitable from the start. The NHL, being interested in profit, would not select Las Vegas or Seattle.
That's exactly the point. There would be no reason to include the two minuses. The four cities are not a package deal. And the two which would be excluded are pretty obvious, LV and Seattle.
I think it would only be two teams, Seattle and Vegas. The reason I think that is because the west is short two teams from being even with the east. To keep it uneven sounds like a dumb idea.
Vegas has a NHL ready arena and good size population and visitors that the team could do alright. I'd prefer Houston but it probably takes away from the Stars market which is not very big at the moment but should grow quickly because they are going to be a really good team for a few years. Vegas would be nice because I think they would be the Coyotes geographical rivals. Lastly, it will drive some people mad
Seattle is only a matter of time. They have been asking for an NHL team and almost landed the Coyotes...if I remember that correctly. Seattle is also building a new arena and I think they are also trying to get the NBA back in town.
I really don't expect another Toronto team or a Quebec team.
You do realize that balancing to 16 and 16, is as easy as telling some teams that are now in the East - "Starting in 20XX, you are in the West"...