tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5861376507958461042.post8901057487689715706..comments2009-05-07T16:41:16.864-04:00G Valentinohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05044434461795652179noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5861376507958461042.post-10855575510016140352009-05-07T16:41:00.000-04:002009-05-07T16:41:00.000-04:00That's true, and valid and I admit that I did gloss over that a bit in building my rant.<br /><br />The thing is, like you said, it will fill the coffers, but it won't promote the game. If the league decides that all it really cares about is a bottom line that will probably be constant, than by all means, move the team to Hamilton. BUT, if it is serious about being a North American league (as well as this crazy idea for Euro expansion) then moving to the area is a bad idea.<br /><br />NOW, having said that, there is the third way: the NHL admits defeat and says "You know what, we're just a Canadian and a northern US league. Let's hit THAT instead" and contracts/moves teams to the north and Canada. Yes, it would admit defeat, but it would avoid the hew and cry that comes up every time the league tries to market itself. (In my dream scenario, they also take a Premier league/Championship league structure and have annual promotions and relegations, plus an FA style cup for both NHL, AHL, and CHL teams...but that's a big pipe dream).G Valentinohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05044434461795652179noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5861376507958461042.post-8391044912938824972009-05-07T16:33:00.000-04:002009-05-07T16:33:00.000-04:00something you are missing G. hockey revenues are currently gate driven and more than 30% of those revenues come from the 6 (i.e., 20% of the league) canadian teams. move a team from a location that is not selling tickets to one that will and you increase revenues. so it can do the job of increasing revenues, but it can't do the job of selling the sport in the US.Don Millshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/18051586405217528073noreply@blogger.com