Discussion in 'Fugu's Business of Hockey Forum' started by Melrose Munch, May 12, 2011.
This is what I know of. Is this accurate?
The Oilers are also looking for a new arena.
The only troubling situations from that list (IMO) are Atlanta and Phoenix.
Lumping together teams that are "in trouble" (whatever anyone means by that) and teams for sale is IMO a flawed exercise.
What does "in trouble" mean anyway? If it means "unable to pay their bills", then no one is "in trouble".
St.Louis is looking for a majority partner, not a troubled team.
100% Bad on the poll thus far.
all of them problematical to varying degree's. Thats a lot of pucks in the air.
As I posted on the "Hulsizer looking to buy St.Louis" thread, Checketts' has been looking for a majority investor since last year to take on TowerCapitals' 95% stake in the team. Cost is $165M in cash; assumption of $120M in debt on the Scottstrade Center & the Blues, leaving him in charge, calling the shots. Who does that?. Im not suggesting St.Louis is in danger of an imminent collapse or relocation, but Checketts tenure could well be over unless he's able to secure an investor or investors quickly. Recent reports are not good. Its a problem which is why I included it in the group.
It is just disgusting. Really The NBA too.
I meant to get a broader sense so I included that. I mean in terms of bill paying, relocation, ownership, etc.
There really needs to be a definition for "problematic" and "trouble" for this discussion to continue.
At this point people are just lumping teams for sale into the "trouble" category, which is completely innacurate to say the least.
Ownership, money/cashflow problems, relocation threats.
Good or should I be more specific?
The Dallas Stars a few years back took out a loan to pay the bills using their farm team as collateral. That I would call troubled.
A team simply up for sale or looking for a majority/minority partner should hardly be classified as being in "trouble", especially with regards to Toronto and Dallas.
Dont really feel for Toronto since they make a crap ton of money unlike the rest of the teams on the list.
Gah, not Dallas, meant St. Louis.
Although I'd hardly call the situation in Dallas dire.
How about "Challenged"?. That PC enough for ya?.
you really think the nhl would allow an O-6 team to be moved? thats funny.
if you honestly believe that, you bumped your head...
i noticed those really bad, bad, and so-so teams do not have a bonafide star. the exception being rick nash. perhaps that helps contribute. the nhl putting franchises into markets they have no business being in doesnt help at all. looking at you dallas, phoenix, atlanta, and florida.
couldnt hurt any of these teams at all to pick up a real nhl star (khl guys can be had as well, theyre not shabby) to help fill seats and sell merch. its not like they dont have the cap space, for the most part.
"PC" ain't the issue, dude. Meaningless (IMO, of course) terms are, though. I read the responses above and STILL don't know what the OP is driving at.
Toronto falls under ownership.
Minnesota shouldn't be on this list. They are not struggling. They had one bad season this year, where they got hammered by their non-insured IR payroll. That accounted for 100% of their losses this year.
The OP consistently tries to make it look as if the NHL is a poorly run entity that will die out in a couple of years.
Melodramatic sums up his posts.
No, they weren't. Nashville hasn't been struggling since new ownership took over. We had our best regular season attendance numbers this season and corporate support has never been higher.
perhaps it does, but it would still never happen.
Although I agree I am over the top at times
I just feel so bad for those in Atlanta. ASG is pulling such garbage Vic. Even Stern to the Maloofs to shove it!
No disagreement here.
Those fans deserve far better...ASG is awful.
Separate names with a comma.