View Single Post
Old
02-18-2013, 09:09 AM
  #58
berklon
Registered User
 
berklon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 858
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by AtlantaWhaler View Post
Here's an honest question. How come, whenever it's mentioned that Canadian teams were in trouble or moved in the 90's, it's all because of the Canadian economy back then. Yet, it's rarely mentioned that America has been in one of its worst recessions in history over the last 5 years?
The teams struggling in the US pre-dates this latest recession. And Canada has gone through the same recession in the last 5 years, yet hockey is generally unaffected.

Winnipeg and Quebec needed a new arena desperately and the Canadian dollar was horrible. That combined with the NHL wanting badly to move those teams to "grow the game" was the reason they moved.

The Jets 2.0 is the type of success that proves the Jets/Nordiques 1.0 were temporary problems. You'll see the exact same response when the Nordiques 2.0 arrive.
I'm sure we can't say the same thing if the Thrashers 2.0 comes about.

It's all about what sport the market prefers. Canadians love hockey - it's as simple as that. You really can't compare the two. During the recession the Falcons did well attandance-wise... so it's not just about the economy, it's about preference.

berklon is offline