the NHLPA would NEVER agree to this.. they would be tar and feathered by half the league if they did agree to it..
- SabresFaninIndiana

The NHLPA would NEVER agree to relocate Phoenix and 2 other of the constant money suckers? Cool story.

Note the difference between relocate and eliminate. The NHLPA would NEVER agree to eliminate... Relocate? Sure.

Seattle would be one location. I'd go with one more from the US and the other in Canada.
- laughs2907

Seattle, Oklahoma City or Kansas City, and Quebec City or Markham (depending on if that arena gets built in time).

Blah Blah Blah
- sippyd

The NHLPA would NEVER agree to relocate Phoenix and 2 other of the constant money suckers? Cool story.

Note the difference between relocate and eliminate. The NHLPA would NEVER agree to eliminate... Relocate? Sure.
- laughs2907

relocate yes.. that could happen.. i was talking about elimination

GARTH: Miller: Enough Is Enough
- garth

http://my.hockeybuzz.com/user.php?user_id=35170

Seattle, Oklahoma City or Kansas City, and Quebec City or Markham (depending on if that arena gets built in time).
- buffalofan19

Agreed.

I'm interested in seeing how Oklahoma does with attendance in the AHL this season though. Last season they had one of the best teams in the league, and their attendance was garbage. If they don't start coming when Eberle, RNH, and possibly Hall are on board, I'd question moving a franchise there.

relocate yes.. that could happen.. i was talking about elimination
- SabresFaninIndiana

Oh I agree with you there... Not only would the NHL have to buy those teams out, the NHLPA would lose a lot of members/jobs. Elimination isn't an option.

Agreed.

I'm interested in seeing how Oklahoma does with attendance in the AHL this season though. Last season they had one of the best teams in the league, and their attendance was garbage. If they don't start coming when Eberle, RNH, and possibly Hall are on board, I'd question moving a franchise there.
- laughs2907

i don't think OKC is a good NHL option.. they have a NBA team and they care more about college sports.. the NHL is not a known commodity there i think you would have better attendance putting a team in millwaukee.. I also think Seattle has to be the first place considered

i don't think OKC is a good NHL option.. they have a NBA team and they care more about college sports.. the NHL is not a known commodity there i think you would have better attendance putting a team in millwaukee.. I also think Seattle has to be the first place considered
- SabresFaninIndiana

I was in Seattle in late April/early May. We went to a restaurant and asked if one of the many TVs could be changed from basketball to hockey.

Waitress: "No, we can't turn off basketball. It's the playoffs."

Us: "But, the NHL games are all playoffs too."

Waitress: "Not around here they aren't."

I was in Seattle in late April/early May. We went to a restaurant and asked if one of the many TVs could be changed from basketball to hockey.

Waitress: "No, we can't turn off basketball. It's the playoffs."

Us: "But, the NHL games are all playoffs too."

Waitress: "Not around here they aren't."
- keptupl8

well i have never been to seatle so i didn't know they were like that.. i would have thought they were a little bitter about the NBA after the way things ended for the sonics..

Seattle, Oklahoma City or Kansas City, and Quebec City or Markham (depending on if that arena gets built in time).
- buffalofan19

Enough already with places that hockey just doesn't belong.

That's why we're in this mess in the first place.

Enough already with places that hockey just doesn't belong.

That's why we're in this mess in the first place.
- Powerslave

Fun fact: Oklahoma City was tied for #5 TV Viewership market for the Stanley Cup finals in the US.

http://www.sbnation.com/n...tings-game-1-devils-kings

This is only for Game 1, but there is an interest down there. Why, I'm not sure.

Fun fact: Oklahoma City was tied for #5 TV Viewership market for the Stanley Cup finals in the US.

http://www.sbnation.com/n...tings-game-1-devils-kings

This is only for Game 1, but there is an interest down there. Why, I'm not sure.
- buffalofan19

my secretary grew up in OKC.. she said they used to go to the local games every now and then becuase it was the only thing to do in town and the tickets were cheap... if the NHL were to come in they would no longer have cheap tickets and the NBA is now there, i have a feeling even with the TV viewership they have that an NHL team would greatly struggle. there is a difference between watching it on TV when there is nothign else on vs. paying over $100 to take the family to the game.

The point here is that the OWNERS held a gun to their heads to get this agreement 7 years ago. They (frank)ed up in spectacular fashion and are now holding everyone hostage over their mistakes.

Go back to 24 teams then if you want to be picky. How many teams lose money? The product would be better as well. As far as I'm concerned, if the city doesn't have snow in the winter, they shouldn't have a team if they can't make money. Phoenix? Atlanta twice? Really?

Bettman sucks.
- mr-b

Your argument has a single downfall. There is an expiration date on each and every Collective Bargaining Agreement. At the expiration date, there is no agreement, and it doesnt matter where you were, where you are, where your contract says you will be. Much has changed in 7 years, you reached puberty, and the economics of hockey has changed, and the collective bargaining agreement has expired. The players can play shinny, softball, or pockethockey for all I care. you live by the sword, you die by the sword, and the players are starting to bleed...

What I want to know is why are the Millers talking and not the Ellises? Why are the guys with the 6 million dollar a year contracts doing all the talking. Miller probably has more money in his wallet then 60% of the players make in a year. None of them have it terrible, but do the guys making league minimum feel the same way as the guys making 5,6,7,8 million dollars a year?

I work for a concrete company and i wish we got half the freaken revenue they make. What a joke! The only revenue that should be shared is anything sold with the players name on it. A jersey for instance. It has the Buffalo logo in front and the players name in back. 50-50 split sounds right to me. Anything else like seating should all be owners profit. When a player signs a contract, thats what he should get paid, plain and simple. Or as some tards say, ( which I hate) "nuff said"