Quote:
Originally Posted by Le Grande Orange
The Maple Leafs are a pretty good example of what happens when a team has a territorial monopoly over a hungry market: it has no incentive to put anything on the ice other than a barely sufficient team because its monopoly ensures it will get every hockey dollar in the market.
|
Another good example: the Montréal Canadien, which has the monopoly in Québec, and is a top 3 (and possibly absolute best) team in the NHL.
I'm wondering, even if I looked at an NHL team as an investment, as a financial project, wouldn't I try to get the personnel available anyway? Isn't being competitive more appealing to prospective buyers, and to the ownership's pride?
Toronto could very, very well have a second NHL team. Hell, it could perhaps hold three. Montréal could definitely hold more than a single team as well.