Now I understand there's a lot of thought against this, but I think it's a fairly reasonable idea. I don't think it's preposterous and I'd like to think that even the most ardent of critics would acknowledge there's some merit to the idea. Well not Scott Burnside who brushes it off without even giving it any kind of proper examination:
Everything from travel to scheduling to television to ticket prices and fan bases make the idea of an NHL Europe simply impossible. So, if we accept this basic truth, the next most pertinent question is what the NHL does to continue to market itself outside North America. In short, what do they do for an encore to the British invasion?
What?!? how can you just write it off as impossible? Scheduling isn't that bad, and travel isn't any worse than when the Dodgers and Giants moved west from New York. Has Burnside ever been to a foreign city? Trust me people in Oslo and Stockholm could pay for the tickets. And these are big cities, why wouldn't they be able to support a franchise? And what the hell does he mean by "fan bases"? local fan bases? foreign ones?
If you're going to argue against it, make a reasonable argument please. Don't just say "It's impossible, and now let's move onto something else". Please Mr Burnside what else is impossible, because apparently your word is the one that binds.