I'd like to agree but I can't. We know there are 4 or 5 teams losing big time money every year (Yotes, Panthers, Thrashers, Isles etc)
Such is always the situation for major sports leagues in the modern day world and such was even an issue in the previous couple NHL expansions.
and despite winning the Cup, the Blackhawks apparently failed to turn a profit last year...
You would do well to research the reasons behind the loss. Such was not due to a lack of revenue but rather many underlying financial issues remaining from the $Bill era, coupled with expenses that went well beyond the on-ice product. You also have to keep in mind that the Hawks are operated by an owner that also has large stakes in the local media and liquor distribution, and that the owner can intentionally operate the team itself at a loss (by spending a crapton of money on improving him) because he stands to make money overall with his businesses as the Blackhawks product improves. The Hawks technically ran at a loss but Rocky Wirtz made out like a frigging bandit, don't even kid yourself otherwise.
The long-term model of the league needs a cap around $51-53M to succeed and I don't think the players are going to be happy with that. If we see one of the three failing franchises moved, the relocation fee would go a long way to helping the league but only in the short term. The only possible way the league could support two more teams would be to allow Phoenix and Atlanta to move North first and for the American economy to rebound rapidly.
The max cap hasn't been an issue, the floor has... this will likely be worked out. Of course, such widens the gap in parity but with the revenue sharing system, the bigger teams spending more will also allow the smaller teams to spend more. A lower cap floor combined with more revenue trickling down from the upper end will make it easier for these teams to grow (having to spend less money in their 'down' years and receiving the shared revenue to be able to make more of an investment/spend more on salaries when they're trending upwards).
The first is, at best, somewhat possible but the second is extremely unlikely. We're looking at a double dip recession in the states, along with an annualized rate of 10% wholesale price inflation. Economically, it's nearly impossible for the NHL to consider expansion, trust me on this.
Economically, this is an excellent time for the league to consider expansion because of the simultaneous strong Canadian dollar (where much of the financial basis for revenue sharing is present) coupled with dirt cheap and plentiful American labor and real estate. If you can either sell yourself to a struggling city that already has a vacant and capable arena, or have an investor that's willing to make a significant investment into the planned area, you'll easily be accepted by the local governments; the added jobs make this even more of an incentive, as I said, the labor will be cheap for the NHL. And if you have to buy land, this is a great place to do it.
Obviously, there are concerns about revenues for the team in the next handful of years what with the American recession, but fact of the matter is even with a stronger economy you're likely looking at a team operating at a loss in its first handful of years no matter what American cities you expand into. However, the NHL has an agenda beyond pure short-term revenues and such is part of why revenue sharing exists.
