tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7580667822946468554.post4466411207194575112..comments2010-03-03T14:45:05.230-07:00Comments on Hip Checks: Ok, back to hockey!hipcheckhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07426517700642297873noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7580667822946468554.post-2967727458320238372008-07-29T17:51:00.000-07:002008-07-29T17:51:00.000-07:00I never said it was fine for American cities. If t...I never said it was fine for American cities. If the article had mentioned returning hockey to Atlanta, Colorado or Oklahoma, my thoughts would be the same. Obviously they have already put franchises back in Colorado and Atlanta so that point is null and void. I was focused on what the article said. If Oklahoma had been brought up, I would say no to that too. <BR/><BR/>My thoughts are the NHL needs to not add any new teams (this would include both in America and Canada) and the teams should stay where they are.hipcheckhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07426517700642297873noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7580667822946468554.post-35742614448136646702008-07-28T21:38:00.000-07:002008-07-28T21:38:00.000-07:00winnipeg didn't leave because they were losing mon...winnipeg didn't leave because they were losing money per se, but because there was no salary cap to ensure any investors that there wouldn't be huge future losses, and a new arena. winnipeg had respectable numbers of paying ticketholders all things considered having never achieved more than the first round of the playoffs. also they needed a new arena, but without a stable nhl, there was nobody rushing to build it. winnipeg now has a new arena and would probably fare well. same with quebec. your whining about returning to cities where money is lost.. well, thats fine if its american cities, apparently. Atlanta, Colorado, Oklahoma, the first two got second NHL franchises after the first folded or moved, and Oklahoma City is always in the running.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com