ATLANTA: Thrashing about for answers

[DeathToAllButMetal]

I disagree with this.

When an owner purchases a team, they are giving up the right to operate their franchise however they please. The pertinent right that they surrender being the right to move their team wherever they please. Other rights include rink size, salary cap, team size, etc.

The NHL has the right to decide where an NHL franchise can operate, and who may own it. If an owner wants the sacred right of moving their franchise wherever they may please, purchase an AHL franchise.

The owner isn't the be all end all, they are part of the NHL. They must be willing to abide by the NHL's rules. And the NHL's rules are very clear; they may decide where a franchise may be, not the owner.

I am astounded when people say this is a bad thing- this kind of deal is what has kept 6 teams in Canada, not 2 or 3.

Couldn't diasagree more. No league has a blanket right to order teams around or insist that teams stay put and lose money, or make less money in one location than they could in another. There is no way the NHL or NFL or whatever can just say no, or say no and not experience to get sued. There are real limits to how much control leagues have over teams. Unless you want an XFL model, where the league itself owns all the clubs, you are always going to have team movement.

And as for the CDN argument, get real. Edmonton was the only other team that could have moved, and that stopped because the team was sold locally. Same deal with Ottawa. That's how it should be. But if a US buyer did swoop in and offer a huge deal to a CDN team, that club should be free to sell. It all works out in the end. If Canada had lost a few more teams in the 90s, guess what? They'd all be coming home now. Then, if things change in another 20 years or so, maybe those teams move again.

I have no problem with this, at all. If you're going to attract good owners, you need to allow freedom of movement. Too much league control doesn't work. You just wind up with idiotic social engineering styled experiments, like the NHL move south, or the CFL move into the US. This sort of thing never, ever works.

As an example of how free movement works, look at MLB and the big moves west in the 50s and 60s. If MLB had stepped in, forbidden the Dodgers, Giants, and As from moving west, the league wouldn't have gone out there for another 10-15 years. These moves were traumatic, but nobody could argue that they weren't good for MLB in the long run.

Same with this Atlanta thing. You have to let the market work. Should have happened with Phoenix, too. The NHL meddles too much with thus crap, far more than any other league, and look at the messes it has created. It's been screwing up expansions for over 40 years now.

 

[Finlandia WOAT]

yeah, i noticed that during tonight's game. Seems like an odd time for atlanta to make that type of commitment.

you'd think carolina would have found another team to do it.

The Thrashers are the closest team to us, sans Nashville.

In addition, the Bobcats have (some sort of) a rivalry with the Hawks. So Atlanta is the most recognizable franchise in Charlotte.

I would make my own thread on this topic, but I highly doubt people would give two *****.

 

[DeathToAllButMetal]

5.5 Million people in atlanta care.
The fans who have put up with this care
The players care
Sorry, but just because Winnipeg offers up money to buy a team, doesn't mean they automatically get it. Exhaust all Local options, then proceed to other options. Much like they are trying to in PHX.

Yeah, it does. Especially when there are no local options. Again, bottom line here--this is ASG's team, not yours, and not Atlanta's. That's something that too many people still don't get. It's all business, folks. No room for emotions here.

 

[dobiezeke*]

And lets add to that convicted felon. Rarely have I ever been that happy to see someone head to the clink than I was when that ******* was locked up.

Go a little north of Calgary and add Peter the Puck to the group of deserving felons...

 

[knorthern knight]

I agree. So why is the NHL apparently open to the possibility of a sale and relocation of the Thrashers. It clearly must not be their first choice. I can think of a couple of speculative reasons:

Here's number 3. Since this an official Atlanta thread, hopefully this post won't cause it to get locked.

You don't get to be rich by being stupid, so if I have to choose, I'd go for ASG being evil. There are factors that give me reason to believe that ASG wants to see the NHL leave Atlanta.

• http://www.cbc.ca/sports/blogs/elli...eefe-has-coaching-chops-plus-30-thoughts.html
  

  4) Interesting: Word is The Raine Group, which is handling the sale of the Atlanta Thrashers for Atlanta Spirit LLC, is telling prospective buyers the team can be moved because having those dates available for other events (ie. concerts) is a better financial option than hockey. Neither a phone call nor a follow-up email were returned by 10 p.m. ET Monday.

• http://www.sprintcenter.com/news/detail/sprint_center_recognized_as_americas_third_busiest_arena
  
  Yeah, I know it's KC, but bear with me for a minute, this is relavant...
  
  

  Sprint Center, Kansas City's award winning arena, was one of three US concert venues listed among the Top 100 Worldwide Arenas -- trailing venues in New York City and Atlanta.

• And a similar blurb from Philips Arena in Atlanta at http://philipsarena.com/Content/view.aspx?CID=94f53b8b-860b-4721-852c-d90b195af67c
  

  ATLANTA, July 15, 2010 - Atlanta's Philips Arena has once again earned international acclaim as a top ranked entertainment venue according to industry-leading publication Pollstar magazine. For the first half of the 2010 calendar year, Philips Arena has been named as the No. 2 concert and events venue in the United States and the No. 5 concert and events venue in the world

Atlanta and Kansas City are respectively the #2 and #3 busiest arenas in the USA. They aren't like Podunk or Glendale desparately seeking a tenant for 45 dates a year. Maybe the reason that KC doesn't have an NHL team, or an NBA team for that matter, is because the arena management feels thay can make more money on event bookings AND MAYBE THEY DON'T WANT AN NHL TEAM. And I feel that Philips Arena, being even busier than Sprint Center, may be in the same position... "NHL team? We don't need no steenkin NHL team". You probably can't come up with a lease that is both...

1. Affordable enough that an NHL team could make a profit
2. Rich enough to make it worthwhile for Philips Arena in Atlanta (or Sprint Center in KC) to host it

Remember also that a Justin Beiber or Lady Gaga concert...

• Will attract fans, in Atlanta and KC, willing to pay $100 for a "nosebleed" seat, unlike an expansion NHL team in a US city
• Does not require flooding and freezing a larg ice surface, which is not cheap

If the management at the only suitable hockey arena in the city says they don't want to talk with the NHL, the NHL would have no bargaining power in this situation. This would be the opposite of the Glendale situation, the ultimate slap-in-the-face for the NHL. The NHL's only recourse in this situation might be to penalize the current owners if they aren't willing to negotiate a reasonable lease with potential buyers. That could land them in court.

 

[Whileee]

Thats an interesting take on things, but Im afraid I'll be disagreeing with your premise there Whileee. The parallels between the 2 situations are similar in many respects, but fundamentally different in one; direct or indirect governmental subsidies are not being sought by the current owners nor by prospective buyers in Atlanta, nor do I read any inference from the league that suggests such would be or should be a pre-requisit to completing a sale. Gary Bettman is not saying that. He is not telling ASG to seek out governmental assistance. He is not basing his decision to so far seemingly do little to nothing in helping usher along the process (because he's too busy elsewhere me thinks) by laying it on the City of Atlantas' doorstep. He knows what the problem is in Atlanta. Its ASG. He cant stand them. The fans cant stand them. They gotta go. Someone will buy the whole shooting match off of them & good riddance. Its your next leap (not just yours, but the medias, posters here & elsewhere) that I have a real problem with.....

The 3 Way that connects the NHL's contortions in Arizona to a relocation of the Thrashers in Atlanta to Winnipeg. I disconnect at this point. Veer off the hwy. Not drinking the Kool Aide. I simply, categorically refuse to believe that the NHL is hanging onto Phoenix in order to leave open a path for the Thrashers to be sold & moved to the only vacant market with an NHL ready arena & willing buyers. Who does this?. Who lets go a market like Atlanta without a serious fight to source & secure ownership to keep the team in place?. Leaves it entirely up to a bunch of Rounders in ASG to determine?. Or worse, gives them their blessing to do so after just signing a broadcasting contract, while turning its back, for good, on the Capital of the South, 5.5M people, a major center of corporate H.O.'s like Coke, Home Depot & RJR Nabisco; along with a vibrant media & high-tech sector?. It just doesnt make sense to me.

Interesting take, Killion. I don't disagree that ASG is the problem, or that Bettman can't stand them. But I am not sure how that changes the equation now. In that case, wouldn't Bettman have been pulling out all stops to find an owner to replace them in Atlanta? I would have thought so, and can only conclude that they have tried and their hands are tied because it appears that they want to sell the Thrashers, and retain the Hawks and arena operations. Not surprisingly, it is very difficult to imagine anyone paying much for the Thrashers alone as tenants of ASG.

So what can the NHL do, absent a local buyer? They have made it clear that the purchase of the Coyotes was an extraordinary maneuver, brought on more by the need to protect their interests in determining who owns franchises and where. They had to do it in Phoenix, but have no interest in doing it anywhere else. It is just not a precedent that they can afford to establish.

Bettman has made it clear that they are only staying the course in Glendale because the COG has agreed to pick up the lion's share of the tab. He has no such option in Atlanta, it would appear, according to recent statements by the mayor. Again, what Glendale is doing is extraordinary, and can't be expected from other local governments.

In terms of the linkage, I agree with you that the NHL is NOT hanging onto Phoenix to clear a path for an Atlanta sale. That would be ludicrous. What I meant was that I think if the Phoenix deal crumbled, it would have had a ripple effect on the Atlanta situation. For one thing, it would take away the most immediately available sale solution in TNSE, setting back ASG's plans for an out-of-town sale. Secondly, it would have given the NHL both latitude and motivation for finding a solution in Atlanta, since I cannot imagine them abiding the loss of both Phoenix and Atlanta in the same year. It would be a bridge too far. So, it appears to me that they would have very much liked to keep both markets over sale and relocation to Winnipeg, but have few local options in Atlanta.

Of course, this is all speculation, but based on the public comments of the principals.

 

[Finlandia WOAT]

Couldn't diasagree more. No league has a blanket right to order teams around or insist that teams stay put and lose money, or make less money in one location than they could in another. There is no way the NHL or NFL or whatever can just say no, or say no and not experience to get sued. There are real limits to how much control leagues have over teams. Unless you want an XFL model, where the league itself owns all the clubs, you are always going to have team movement.

The NHL has the very real right to decide who may own an NHL franchise, and where it may or may not operate.

If has rejected various sales and relocations based on both those factors. Two I can think of off the top of my head are Phoenix (Balsillie) and Blues (to Saskatoon).

And as for the CDN argument, get real. Edmonton was the only other team that could have moved, and that stopped because the team was sold locally. Same deal with Ottawa. That's how it should be. But if a US buyer did swoop in and offer a huge deal to a CDN team, that club should be free to sell. It all works out in the end. If Canada had lost a few more teams in the 90s, guess what? They'd all be coming home now. Then, if things change in another 20 years or so, maybe those teams move again.

I have no problem with this, at all. If you're going to attract good owners, you need to allow freedom of movement. Too much league control doesn't work. You just wind up with idiotic social engineering styled experiments, like the NHL move south, or the CFL move into the US. This sort of thing never, ever works.

Sports Leagues are made to make money.

And what do all the money making franchises have in common?

Stability.

What you propose completely undermines stability. It is completely against the League's best interests.

As an example of how free movement works, look at MLB and the big moves west in the 50s and 60s. If MLB had stepped in, forbidden the Dodgers, Giants, and As from moving west, the league wouldn't have gone out there for another 10-15 years. These moves were traumatic, but nobody could argue that they weren't good for MLB in the long run.

Same with this Atlanta thing. You have to let the market work. Should have happened with Phoenix, too. The NHL meddles too much with thus crap, far more than any other league, and look at the messes it has created. It's been screwing up expansions for over 40 years now.

If MLB had kept those franchises where they were, then they would have simply set up expansion franchises.

It's not the relocations that where good for the long run, it was the fact that MLB was in unsaturated, unpenetrated markets where demand was huge. You are mistaking what actually caused the boon. Expansion franchises would have had the same effect.

 

[Whileee]

Here's number 3. Since this an official Atlanta thread, hopefully this post won't cause it to get locked.

You don't get to be rich by being stupid, so if I have to choose, I'd go for ASG being evil. There are factors that give me reason to believe that ASG wants to see the NHL leave Atlanta.

• http://www.cbc.ca/sports/blogs/elli...eefe-has-coaching-chops-plus-30-thoughts.html
  
• http://www.sprintcenter.com/news/detail/sprint_center_recognized_as_americas_third_busiest_arena
  
  Yeah, I know it's KC, but bear with me for a minute, this is relavant...
  
  
• And a similar blurb from Philips Arena in Atlanta at http://philipsarena.com/Content/view.aspx?CID=94f53b8b-860b-4721-852c-d90b195af67c

Atlanta and Kansas City are respectively the #2 and #3 busiest arenas in the USA. They aren't like Podunk or Glendale desparately seeking a tenant for 45 dates a year. Maybe the reason that KC doesn't have an NHL team, or an NBA team for that matter, is because the arena management feels thay can make more money on event bookings AND MAYBE THEY DON'T WANT AN NHL TEAM. And I feel that Philips Arena, being even busier than Sprint Center, may be in the same position... "NHL team? We do need no steenkin NHL team". You probably can't come up with a lease that is both...

1. Affordable enough that an NHL team could make a profit
2. Rich enough to make it worthwhile for Philips Arena in Atlanta (or Sprint Center in KC) to host it

Remember also that a Justin Beiber or Lady Gaga concert...

• Will attract fans, in Atlanta and KC, willing to pay $100 for a "nosebleed" seat, unlike an expansion NHL team in a US city
• Does not require flooding and freezing a larg ice surface, which is not cheap

If the management at the only suitable hockey arena in the city says they don't want to talk with the NHL, the NHL would have no bargaining power in this situation. This would be the opposite of the Glendale situation, the ultimate slap-in-the-face for the NHL. The NHL's only recourse in this situation might be to penalize the current owners if they aren't willing to negotiate a reasonable lease with potential buyers. That could land them in court.

Yes, this is a good point, that we too often forget. If the ASG is essentially losing money on each Thrashers home game, and they could easily replace those dates with events that either earned money, or at least didn't lose as much, then they are ahead. In many circumstances the arena operations and ancillary revenues actually subsidize the hockey operations, not vice-versa. Since ASG seems much more interested in the Hawks, perhaps they are hoping that by jettisoning the Thrashers and bringing in more events that earn money, they will be in a better financial position overall.

 

[Whileee]

The NHL has the very real right to decide who may own an NHL franchise, and where it may or may not operate.

If has rejected various sales and relocations based on both those factors. Two I can think of off the top of my head are Phoenix (Balsillie) and Blues (to Saskatoon).



Sports Leagues are made to make money.

And what do all the money making franchises have in common?

Stability.

What you propose completely undermines stability. It is completely against the League's best interests.



If MLB had kept those franchises where they were, then they would have simply set up expansion franchises.

It's not the relocations that where good for the long run, it was the fact that MLB was in unsaturated, unpenetrated markets where demand was huge. You are mistaking what actually caused the boon. Expansion franchises would have had the same effect.

We are left with the very puzzling laissez-faire attitude of the NHL vis-a-vis the potential relocation of the Thrashers. I and a few others have tried to come up with some explanations. Do you have any theories about this that you could share?

 

[Finlandia WOAT]

Knorthern Knight,

ASG does not want to own a hockey team. The Thrashers were a throw in, and the plan was that they were going to dump them ASAP.

Unfortunately, Belkin decided that Joe Johnson {mod}, wants out, and suddenly the ownership is up in the air, with no way to dump the team.

 

[dobiezeke*]

Yes, this is a good point, that we too often forget. If the ASG is essentially losing money on each Thrashers home game, and they could easily replace those dates with events that either earned money, or at least didn't lose as much, then they are ahead. In many circumstances the arena operations and ancillary revenues actually subsidize the hockey operations, not vice-versa. Since ASG seems much more interested in the Hawks, perhaps they are hoping that by jettisoning the Thrashers and bringing in more events that earn money, they will be in a better financial position overall.

Nail hit squarely on head.

 

[DeathToAllButMetal]

How exactly does forcing a team to stay in a money-losing situation promote stability? The NHL is on shaky ground in many cities without movement. There are good arguments that there are better markets out there that would be far more profitable. So wouldn't that result in more league stability?

 

[saillias]

I want Atlanta to keep their team and for Winnipeg to get one as well, but at the same time I don't want expansion to dilute league talent. 30 is a good terminal number. We need another franchise to fold/relocate to make this all work out... Hey Columbus, I don't respect you much up here.

 

[DeathToAllButMetal]

Also the NHL didn't reject moves in St. Louis and Phoenix. The NHL rejected the proposed new owners due to the move possibilites, which made it easier. If you're not a member of the club, you don't have a lot of legal rights. The NHL has never said no to an existing owner who wanted to move.

 

[Finlandia WOAT]

We are left with the very puzzling laissez-faire attitude of the NHL vis-a-vis the potential relocation of the Thrashers. I and a few others have tried to come up with some explanations. Do you have any theories about this that you could share?

The only theory I have come up with (and it is a modified one that I have read) is that the NHL has no legal recourse to block the relocation.

In Phoenix, they had a very good reason to block the sale and but the Coyotes. They needed to prevent Balsillie from entering the League at all costs, and as decided in court, they had a legal right to do so.

In Atlanta, the NHL has no such reason. Assuming that local options have been exhausted, the NHL can not block a relocation. ASG has declared that they need to get out of this situation, and while it is very debatable if the NHL can force ASG to bankruptcy, it could very well be that ASG has no more money to blow. There is no hostile takeover, no illegal shennaigans.

IF the above is the case, then the only way that the NHL could block a sale is if they had concrete proof that ASG left a local offer on the table (which, interestingly, has been alluded to by several writers on twitter).

To sum it up plainly, NHL staying mum could simply be a case of them having no card to play, and just waiting to see if ASG is going to fold or up the ante. There is no reason to keep the Atlanta market, or rather, there is no reason that makes it special enough for the NHL to grant them the honor of valiant battle.

 

[dobiezeke*]

How exactly does forcing a team to stay in a money-losing situation promote stability? The NHL is on shaky ground in many cities without movement. There are good arguments that there are better markets out there that would be far more profitable. So wouldn't that result in more league stability?

Which North American markets do you believe would be more profitable? Which of those markets would go through the floundering associated to a new franchise which would result in speculation of the team moving? As an example, KC may have an arena - what is the fanbase to support a team in the city? Much like Atlanta, the support wasn't there in the past life, why would it suddenly appear today?

 

[Finlandia WOAT]

How exactly does forcing a team to stay in a money-losing situation promote stability? The NHL is on shaky ground in many cities without movement. There are good arguments that there are better markets out there that would be far more profitable. So wouldn't that result in more league stability?

No.

Markets change. 20 years ago, Canada was a terrible place for hockey. Outdated arena's and a loonie flushed half way to the local water treatment plant made it a terrible market.

Now the South is in that same predicament. Lackluster crowds and a crappy economy have that effect.

Chasing "a good market" is as foolish as chasing gold at the end of the rainbow. Markets always change, always fluctuate. If sports teams always followed "the good markets", then they would relocate every 5-10 years.

 

[Finlandia WOAT]

Also the NHL didn't reject moves in St. Louis and Phoenix. The NHL rejected the proposed new owners due to the move possibilites, which made it easier. If you're not a member of the club, you don't have a lot of legal rights. The NHL has never said no to an existing owner who wanted to move.

Maybe because we don't have much information regarding the going on's of NHL inner buisness.

Most owners do not have this illusion that moving their team will magically fix all of it's problems.

 

[Whileee]

The only theory I have come up with (and it is a modified one that I have read) is that the NHL has no legal recourse to block the relocation.

In Phoenix, they had a very good reason to block the sale and but the Coyotes. They needed to prevent Balsillie from entering the League at all costs, and as decided in court, they had a legal right to do so.

In Atlanta, the NHL has no such reason. Assuming that local options have been exhausted, the NHL can not block a relocation. ASG has declared that they need to get out of this situation, and while it is very debatable if the NHL can force ASG to bankruptcy, it could very well be that ASG has no more money to blow. There is no hostile takeover, no illegal shennaigans.

IF the above is the case, then the only way that the NHL could block a sale is if they had concrete proof that ASG left a local offer on the table (which, interestingly, has been alluded to by several writers on twitter).

To sum it up plainly, NHL staying mum could simply be a case of them having no card to play, and just waiting to see if ASG is going to fold or up the ante. There is no reason to keep the Atlanta market, or rather, there is no reason that makes it special enough for the NHL to grant them the honor of valiant battle.

Actually, I think that might well be the case. Absent a local ownership offer for the Thrashers (they can't compel ASG to consider omnibus offers for the Hawks and Philips Arena operations), and unless the NHL wants to purchase and operate the team, what recourse do they have? Even if Bettman has extreme enmity with ASG, he has to abide by basic processes that are applied across the league. Since the NHL probably already discussed the prospect of a sale and relocation of the Phoenix franchise to Winnipeg with the BOG (and he has been quoted as having a "bona fide" offer from TNSE for the Coyotes), he could hardly now say that TNSE was a suitable ownership group to purchase the Coyotes, but not the Thrashers.

I still maintain that if the NHL really wanted to thwart ASG, their best option might have been to sell the Coyotes to TNSE. That would have taken that sale option away from ASG, and at least bought some time to find a solution in Atlanta. But for a myriad of reasons that have been discussed ad nauseum, the NHL preferred to keep the Coyotes in Glendale, and are perhaps resigned to the fact that they not be able to retain the Thrashers in Atlanta.

 

[Killion]

I don't get how or why so many people think these teams are held as some kind of public trust, like there is some mystical covenant between team and fan?. Nope. Never worked that way, never will.

Then let me explain it to you. There is a "covenant" between team & fan. Between city, state/prov/country, team, building & fan. Between players & fans. Theres a code. You dont mess with the code. Break it & there will be consequences. Theres a code between the team & the league. Break it, there are legal consequences. Owners are custodians in as much as they are businessmen. You cant be having the kind of Wild West movement of franchises that took place throughout the 50's-90's. George Gillet in Montreal upon selling the Habs back to the Molsons was in tears explaining the "code"; Conn Smythe spent 30 years inculcating the Leafs & the operations at the Gardens with the "code", Ballard spent the next 30 doing his best to shred it & nearly succeeded. The "code" exists in Phoenix, Atlanta, Nashville and everywhere else. Hockey is a culture of codes...... here are just a couple;

118) Permissible to punch Sean Avery in the face absent provocation.

136) Permissible to beat Hell out of an overweight drunken Flyers fan when he falls into the penalty box at the Wells Fargo Center.

No code, your talking anarchy Todd. Mayhem. Running riot. Like that game you had in Philly back in....

I disagree with this.

As you should. You understand the "code".

 

[DeathToAllButMetal]

It's not my call. Like I said above, let the market forces decide. Right now, Winnipeg is a no brainer due to the arena and the deep pockets of TNSE. Remove one of those factors, and the city isn't as attractive. You could easily have similar situations in Hamilton and Quebec City soon. In the US, Seattle seems like the best bet to me, with a strong owner. Other than that, there are no markets left that are close to sure things. Maybe Hartford again.

But really, you get a strong owner with huge bucks and a good arena and you could try Houston, Milwaukee, KC, or even some place like Saskatoon. It's not so much the city as the situation. I'm not opposed to any experiment, really, if it's driven by good buyers and not idiotic schemes like Bettman's southern expansion to questionable buyers, areas, and rinks.

Leave things open, though, and I think you'll see clubs coming to Canada. The US markets don't make financial sense right now. Seattle would be interesting though, like I said above.

 

[Free Edler]

Chasing "a good market" is as foolish as chasing gold at the end of the rainbow. Markets always change, always fluctuate. If sports teams always followed "the good markets", then they would relocate every 5-10 years.

Playing Devil's Advocate for a second here: Atlanta is a massive market, but a crappy sports town on the whole. If sports teams always followed "the good markets" - which Atlanta is not, apart from the Falcons - the Thrashers would never have existed.

 

[htpwn]

Sports Leagues are made to make money.

And what do all the money making franchises have in common?

Stability.

What you propose completely undermines stability. It is completely against the League's best interests.

Well, if that is the case, then the Leafs having been bucking that trend for the last fifty years.

 

[DeathToAllButMetal]

Killion, I get it, but those are the kinds of illusions most of us leave behind with a belief in Santa Claus. Kudos for keeping the innocence, though, and be sure to keep leaving out the milk and cookies!

 

[DeathToAllButMetal]

No.

Markets change. 20 years ago, Canada was a terrible place for hockey. Outdated arena's and a loonie flushed half way to the local water treatment plant made it a terrible market.

Now the South is in that same predicament. Lackluster crowds and a crappy economy have that effect.

Chasing "a good market" is as foolish as chasing gold at the end of the rainbow. Markets always change, always fluctuate. If sports teams always followed "the good markets", then they would relocate every 5-10 years.

That's just not true, and is an absurd stretch of my point. There aren't enough good or big enough markets in NA to allow for that sort of movement.

Anyhow, the NFL is the gold standard for pro leagues. Yet it has allowed moves out of LA, Houston, Cleveland, Oakland, St. Louis, and Baltimore the past couple of decades. And it has always been rock solid. The NHL, otoh, fights moves tooth and nail, as in Phoenix, and look at what a mess much of the league is.

You're arguing from an emotional place that has no room in pro sports. I actually agree with this, in that I'd also like things to be the way you think. But they're not. They never have been and never will be. This is just a myth to keep us buying tickets. I can buy into it on game nights, but not when discussing the nuts and bolts of the business reality of leagues.