This is a copy/paste of my post in the YBTD thread (which I regretfully derailed) This PDF file is a list of various cities, and their available disposable income. The idea is that a city needs a certain amount of money for a team to draw from in order to have a chance to be viable. The makers score each city out of 100 in their ability to hold a team, with only a score of 100 being a truly viable city. But triplet1 argued that we should be going for a higher number, namely $38 billion, the number needed to support an NHL team. I agree with a much higher standard than $16B, but maybe not that high. triplet1 also wrote that this should be the first question asked of an expansion city before anything else. If a market is oversaturated (negative available dollars) or simply doesn't have enough money (we'll say $25-30B as a minimum) it should be disregarded. Then we get this: TL;DR If we eliminate candidate cities that cannot financially support a team, we are left with Miami, Orlando, NY2 and Carolina all being viable teams, but none of the other candidate cities are. I am posting this here not to just advance an opinion; I am searching for facts more than anything. Is there a better way to gauge possible candidate cities? I am not looking for a passionate argument, but an objective one. I could care less which city gets it as long as it is a success.