View Single Post
Old
10-07-2012, 01:51 PM
  #55
RogerRoeper*
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 21,694
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mayor Bee View Post
My point is that there are reasons for teams to suddenly have an attendance decline; in some cases a substantial one.

I'm not here simply to unload on certain teams. My point is that EVERY team in the last 30 years with the exception of four (NY Rangers, Philly, Toronto, Montreal) has had some type of circumstances that kept people away. It could be shady ownership. It could be the local economy. It could be years upon years of brutal hockey.

But my point is that there is a massive double standard. "Traditional" teams have hundreds of thousands of apologists who will bend over backwards and make excuses for Chicago having 62% attendance (2006-07), or Pittsburgh being under 12,000 (2003-04), or the Islanders averaging less than 75% overall for the last 22 years....but as soon as a "non-traditional" team has a downturn for any reason, it's because "it's not a hockey market". Excuses are made for every "traditional" team no matter how irrational it may be, but no such leeway is given for anyone else no matter how serious it may be.

That's what pisses off me and every other "non-traditional" fan.
How many years can a business lose 20 million + each year though? You've given examples of teams strugling financially for 2 or 3 years. Phoenix has been a financial disaster for 15 years.

There's a limit to how long you can exist in that situation. Ottawa, Pittsburgh Buffalo were able to turn it around. At some point Columbus, Anaheim, Florida etc. has to stop the bleeding.

RogerRoeper* is offline   Reply With Quote