So is this about making the Sabres better or punishing the Pegulas? The NHL mandates prices be at a certain level. The Pegulas can't unilaterally slash ticket prices without forfeiting shared revenue from the NHL.
At least they won't make you wait till 7pm.
Hauser has looked better of late then UPL. I think we all assumed the Amerks would the playoffs so they couldn't play in Buffalo late. But would it be so bad if the Amerks core all got called up to finish the season in Buffalo?
This is not an answer to my question.
So what I'm getting is that anyone who owns a team must be comfortable with running at a loss out of civic duty. If you don't want to lose money, don't own a team.
That's fine. And I agree. They are mostly just toys for Billionaires. So I ask you again: is a sports team owner obligated to run their team at a loss?
I was actually taking about the Bills too. Is Terry obligated to run the Bills at a loss?
And what about a new Sabres owner. Would you expect them to operate at a loss? What if the Sabres are still a few years away from being good? Do you expect a new owner to cover all losses until you decide to to a game?
I used to lose my mind over the Bills and Sabres. But one day I just decided there's no fun in being miserable. So I don't take it as seriously anymore. Bills are great now. And I'll get enjoyment from seeing any improvement in the Sabres.
The border closure put a serious hurt on attendance. Now that they are lifting the testing requirement for quick visits to the US I expect things to pick up some in December. If not then hoo-boy. All I can say is it's a good thing Gary Bettman doesn't have a itchy trigger finger.