NHL to Expand 2 teams in Canada - THN
View Single Post
10-12-2012, 01:18 PM
...in the drink
Join Date: Aug 2002
Originally Posted by
In a gate-driven league, why have teams in places where you need to give away free tickets to fill the place? Put teams where people want to pay for the product.
Could Seattle work? Maybe. But we know that Quebec City and Toronto2 will work. What kind of business avoids its strongest markets so they can panhandle for customers in places that don't care?
Much smarter to open a new Tim Horton's in dowtown Edmonton than dowtown El Paso.
I think it comes down to those who want to see the sport grow as much as it can vs. those who believe that it can thrive where it is now (plus maybe another market here or there).
Both do have their merits.
I lost my team soley due to some of the worst (if not the worst) ownership we've seen in our lifetime. So now the growth of the league means little to me; I don't have a dog in the fight anymore. But I still believe that trying to reach into every corner of the US and Canada is the way to grow the sport and make it as viable as possible. This just takes time, a generation + in a new market. Kids who grew up watching the new team will eventually become adults who have their own kids and the money to go to games and buy the merch. Many fans judge the new markets on the others that have been around for 50+ years and/or are in a region where hockey has been ingrained in the culture. They certaintly don't have the patience to see the merits of a long term growth strategy. The current owners of the most established markets might not like this plan either to be honest; their wanting more immediate returns as opposed to a plan that would pay off in a couple decades.
Putting a team in Quebec and another in Toronto would definitely work. The arena's would be packed, at least for the first few years. Merchandise would fly off the shelves. I don't see a problem in that.
In some way, I'm torn between the two schools of thought (mostly because I have no vested interest anymore). But I do know that anyone on either side cannot state with any true certainty that one plan is destined to fail. Too many other factors that can and will change prevent us from knowing (future economy, future demographics, etc). And too much passion with too little rational thought from the fans render just about every argument null and void.
Just sticks in my craw that some think their perspective is the only way. Whether it agrees with what I think is irrelevant.
Most threads would die if the fans thought like this, I know. But it perplexes me how many people believe they can present the same points and perspectives (98% of the time with little facts or just plain lies) in every thread and have an arrogance of how "correct" they are.
View Public Profile
Find More Posts by cws