Decius wrote:
] ] Aside from buying teams through bankruptcies, NHL owners
] ] could offer to buy and fold teams in flawed markets. One
] ] banker suggested the league could afford to reduce the
] ] number of teams to as few as 22 using this strategy, and
] ] that many owners, realizing their teams would never make
] ] money, would be willing to accept $50 million to $80
] ] million for their franchise.
] ]
] ] Said the banker: "Since it will make the NHL a more
] ] financially stable league, I'm confident that those banks
] ] that lend to the NHL will give the league the money, at
] ] least $500 million, to do this in a heartbeat."
]
] An interesting analysis of the finances in the NHL.

This will never happen. The whole reason for expansion in the 90's was to build the minimum base for a television contract in the US. Without teams like Atlanta, Nashville, Columbus, Carolina, and the FL teams, the major hockey markets like Detroit, Chicago, Denver, NY/NJ and the Canadian teams, will not have the needed market to be profitable. Powerhouse teams like Detroit need teams like Nashville and Columbus to survive, much less thrive. Expansion was NOT the problem. Escalating costs and piss poor marketing are what have driven the league to the brink of irrelevance.

IF the NHL were to contract, the first teams to go would be Canadian. Edmonton and Calgary have been battling unprofitability for a decade. That would never stand.

RE: The risk of loosing the preds or the thrashers...