HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > NHL Eastern Conference > Atlantic Division > Montreal Canadiens
Mobile Hockey's Future Become a Sponsor Site Rules Support Forum vBookie Page 2
Notices

Team 990 - Expect 2-3 more Canadians teams within 3 years

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
05-08-2010, 05:52 PM
  #51
King Woodballs
MVP! MVP! MVP!
 
King Woodballs's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Your Mind
Posts: 32,734
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Habs View Post
I really don't see Winnipeg getting a team again.
Why would you say that?

King Woodballs is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-08-2010, 06:58 PM
  #52
badfish
Habs fan in SK
 
badfish's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: SK
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,797
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sardo View Post
This is the argument that irritates the most when Americans talk about how we shouldn't get more Canadian teams. And if I were better at writing my thoughts down in the form of a text I would explain myself

Something about that being an extremely selfish comment, not all Canadians having access to live NHL, ticket sales being more important then TV ratings, revenues going up and so on.
No kidding. If you live anywhere in Northwest Ontario, Manitoba, or Saskatchewan you're driving 10+ hours or flying.

badfish is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-08-2010, 07:07 PM
  #53
Kid Dynomite
Registered User
 
Kid Dynomite's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 156
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by 66871 View Post
I have always loved that the NHL has good representation between the US and Canada. But it has gotten out of balance, and I don't think there is any question that neither Winnipeg or Quebec would have had to move under the new economics of the NHL. So I would like to see those cities have teams again -- and Hamilton if it can be worked out. I've always thought 3 in the NYC area was a stretch (and really it kinda 4 for a while with the Whalers pulling fans from southwestern CT.

Anyway, I think the league is struggling between two interests: immediate profitability/economic viability and the desire to grow the sport in the states (for the purpose of generating TV revenue). From what I have read, the NHL gets something like 3% of its revenue from TV where the NFL gets 66% of its revenue from TV.

Could the NHL get to 66%? No. But could it get much much more than what it does now? Yes. But for that to happen, the NHL needs a presence in as many US cities as possible.

If the NHL bails on Atlanta, Phoenix and Nashville, it can kiss any sort of lucrative network contract goodbye. In the long term, it's better for the league to take a bath on some of these teams to build lasting interest in the sport in the states.

The other thing to consider is that the MLS is coming into its own and expanding. Despite its name I don't think it is quite "major league" yet. But it's close and NHL ownership might be looking at the growth of the MLS as a threat to its status as the fourth most popular league in North America (not this year or even this decade, but on the long term it has to be something an owner would think about).

So all that said, what I think is going to happen is this. Two team expansion (though not within the next three years) to add Winnipeg and Quebec back into the league and one team (probably the Islanders since it wouldn't really mean the NHL is 'losing' a market) moves to Hamilton and the NHL realigns into four eight team divisions to reduce/eliminate the situation where an eastern time zone team is playing so many games on the west coast.

EDIT: I meant to add that I think over the long term I think markets like Atlanta and Phoenix are workable due to the corporate populations and the number of northerns moving south.
The NHL will never have a lucrative TV deal in the U.S. It doesn't matter how many teams you have there.
Bobby Orr was supposed to help build "lasting interest" in the sport in the U.S.
Miracle on Ice was supposed to do it too.
Gretzky to L.A. didn't work as well as the NHL would have hoped and neither did the Americans' fluke World Cup win in 1996.
It's simply time to get NHL hockey out of fledgling U.S. markets and into areas that will support them. If the time ever comes when hockey can be supported across the U.S., then so be it. However, I'm 37-years-old and I've never seen hockey catch on in the U.S. except for certain markets.

Kid Dynomite is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-08-2010, 07:08 PM
  #54
Klaus
Teemu!
 
Klaus's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,739
vCash: 500
Quote:
I'm against teams in smaller Canadian cities

Hockey doesn't need to grow in Canada, and smaller cities have a team close enough to them to root for.
Cities like Winnipeg, Hamilton and Quebec are BORING, they don't deserve a pro franchise. Frankly, I don't think cities like Edmonton, Calgary and Ottawa do either, but I'm willing to live with them for now

I'd rather the NHL gain more legitimacy in the states that way the Montreal Canadiens becomes a much bigger "household" franchise over there.

If we start adding teams in Canada, the NHL loses legitimacy in my eyes
Wtf? How are they "boring"? More importantly, how is that even a legit reason for not deserving an NHL team?

Klaus is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-08-2010, 07:14 PM
  #55
Fish on The Sand
Untouchable
 
Fish on The Sand's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Nanaimo
Country: Canada
Posts: 50,289
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sardo View Post
This is the argument that irritates the most when Americans talk about how we shouldn't get more Canadian teams. And if I were better at writing my thoughts down in the form of a text I would explain myself

Something about that being an extremely selfish comment, not all Canadians having access to live NHL, ticket sales being more important then TV ratings, revenues going up and so on.
ticket sales are not more important than tv ratings though.

Quote:
Originally Posted by badfish View Post
No kidding. If you live anywhere in Northwest Ontario, Manitoba, or Saskatchewan you're driving 10+ hours or flying.
with the exception of putting a team in Winnipeg, this would not change. Even with a team in Winnipeg, we are talking about a drop in the bucket in terms of added attendance league-wide.

Fish on The Sand is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-08-2010, 08:17 PM
  #56
deandebean
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Gatineau, câlisse
Country: uriname
Posts: 8,956
vCash: 500
Winnipeg has been a option for years, but the problem lies with the city itself. The city and its economic market. Has Winnipeg's economy grown enough over the last 20 years? I couldn't tell. Those who know the city and its area could probably comment on them. I just hope that it has, because 20 years ago, Winnipeg was a fledging hockey market. Attendances were ridiculously low for a canadian market.

Québec City's problem is the same. I'm still not convinced that the economic picture of the city, long term, would permit the return of the franchise, unless the owner is Peladeau and is keen on having pro content on his sports cable network, even if he's at a loss at the end of the year.

deandebean is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-08-2010, 11:49 PM
  #57
macavoy
Registered User
 
macavoy's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Houston, Tx
Country: United States
Posts: 7,616
vCash: 500
Having 9 Canadian teams is going to harm the attendance figures of probably 15 American teams. The reason most owners support keeping them in US markets is because its hard to draw against Vancouver, Edmonton, Calgary in a US market, imagine them trying to draw Winipeg and Quebec city.

You can blame Bettman all you want but he's just looking out for the majority of owners. The US owners will continue to protect their interests.

macavoy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-09-2010, 12:41 AM
  #58
Darth Joker
Registered User
 
Darth Joker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Canada
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,793
vCash: 500
The likelihood of the NHL growing in the US is pretty slim. After following pro sports most of my life, this is what I think the NHL would need to have happen in order to really hit it big in the US:


1. The Islanders, Rangers, and/or Kings need to be amongst the Top 5 teams in the League, and consistent Cup contenders. They are in the two big US markets. Part of the reason why US interest in NHL hockey grew a bit in the mid-to-late 90s was LA in the 93 cup finals, and the Rangers winning in the 94 cup finals. Getting the NHL talked about, in a good way, by a David Letterman (New York) or a Jay Leno (LA) can really help.


2. The NHL can't be dominated by defensive hockey. Basketball is a very fast-paced sport with constant scoring. Football has one team going all-out on offense all the time. It's the big homerun hitters that tend to get most of the attention in baseball; you don't see any pitcher get the degree of attention that McGuire, Sosa, or Bonds got.

Americans tend to like offensively-oriented sports. Period. The biggest mistake Bettman ever made was not cracking down on holding and obstruction earlier. He allowed this problem to fester for too long, and lower the entertainment level of the hockey in the eyes of many Americans.


3. The Americans need to become the dominant hockey power in the world. Americans like the sports that they do the best at, like most people in general do.


These are three pretty big variables, and all three need to happen at the same time.

Crosby and Ovy certainly help, of course, but they're not really, per se, what would put the NHL over the top in the US. The NHL has almost always had marketable star players. Crosby and Ovy aren't really any better than Mario and Jagr when you get right down to it.


So, given the lack of likelihood of the US growing in America anytime soon, I think it's time for the NHL to cut its losses as it pertains to Phoenix, and perhaps a couple other franchises down there.

Darth Joker is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-09-2010, 01:06 AM
  #59
Hackett
HF Needs Feeny
 
Hackett's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Country: Canada
Posts: 15,825
vCash: 500
hmm, time to fire up the old genesis and play some nhl 92

Hackett is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-09-2010, 09:58 AM
  #60
Darch
Registered User
 
Darch's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Country: Canada
Posts: 552
vCash: 500
Relocations would be good. Expansions would be horrible, talent is already diluted too much.

Darch is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-09-2010, 09:59 AM
  #61
Killiecrankie*
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 5,999
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by hab junkie View Post
Exactly my point. The NHL should not be in any city that is "growing" it's hockey program. I can name you 10 other cities that have established minor hockey programs that continuousely produce pro hockey players that deserve to have a team over Nashville.
6 rinks by the way? Holy ****. Worse than I thought.
This has to be the stupidest comment I have ever seen in my life.

Deserve a team? Go crawl back into your hole. What does producing NHL players have to do with NHL hockey?

When the Pittsburgh received a franchise they had almost 70 years of professional hockey history, including the NHL, and yet they only had 4 rinks. Now there is over 30 just within Allegheny county and every high school has a Ice hockey team.

The predators have been around for a DECADE and hockey is picking up fast in that region. The problem with the preds was ownership and corporate support. That appears to be solved or being solved.

One thing I hate about *SOME Canadians, its not your game, it never was and it never will be. Hell, your national game is lacrosse.

Lose the arrogance, I love going to Montreal and Toronto to watch hockey games (also Quebec was awesome too, hope they receive a team in the future again) but a small minority of canadian hockey fans need to knock off this pompous, bombastic attitude above.

its pathetic

Killiecrankie* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-09-2010, 10:48 AM
  #62
Nakawick
Registered User
 
Nakawick's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Nova Scotia
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,161
vCash: 500
The Coyotes moving to Winnipeg is a no brainer and should happen now. Winnipeg might be the best hockey city in the world per capita. Instant fan base, instant rivalries, etc. David Thompson (the potential new owner of the Winnipeg franchise) is one of the richest people in the world. His money comes from media (reuters, etc). I am almost positive that he could swing some type of media deal for the league. Having him as a potential owner is huge and is something that the league and existing owners should really get behind.

The same thing with having Balsillie as an owner. He is a very rich dude and is very business savy. We all know that another franchise in southern Ontario would be a license to print money. I am not quite sure on Quebec city. I know that they are great fans but I am not sure about an NHL franchise.

Betman needs to go. The NHL needs a fresh face. I also don't give a **** about "growing" the game. The game is perfectly fine as far as I'm concerned. It just needs to be sold in it's existing markets. Anyone with half a brain knows that you sell your product in markets where there is demand. Trying to establish the game in non traditional hockey markets with sketchy ownership takes too long to be forced and results in the problems we see today, growth has to happen naturally.

I am in favour of moving teams to Canada and/or Northern US cities. Florida, Tampa Bay, Phoenix and Atlanta really should be moved. The Islanders need to get out of the suburbs. Carolina seems to be doing well and Nashville I think will pull through.

Nakawick is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-09-2010, 10:48 AM
  #63
coolasprICE
Registered User
 
coolasprICE's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Montreal
Country: Canada
Posts: 9,491
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Culloden View Post
This has to be the stupidest comment I have ever seen in my life.

Deserve a team? Go crawl back into your hole. What does producing NHL players have to do with NHL hockey?

When the Pittsburgh received a franchise they had almost 70 years of professional hockey history, including the NHL, and yet they only had 4 rinks. Now there is over 30 just within Allegheny county and every high school has a Ice hockey team.

The predators have been around for a DECADE and hockey is picking up fast in that region. The problem with the preds was ownership and corporate support. That appears to be solved or being solved.

One thing I hate about *SOME Canadians, its not your game, it never was and it never will be. Hell, your national game is lacrosse.

Lose the arrogance, I love going to Montreal and Toronto to watch hockey games (also Quebec was awesome too, hope they receive a team in the future again) but a small minority of canadian hockey fans need to knock off this pompous, bombastic attitude above.

its pathetic
Thanks for the laugh man.

If the states had the equivalent amount of passion for hockey than you wouldn't have the opportunity to post such a ridiculous statement in this thread.

The truth is, and I hope you can handle this, that America really doesn't give a **** about hockey.

There are parts where it works enough, but there are parts where it doesn't work enough.

These teams need to be moved asap: Atlanta, Phoenix, Tampa, Florida and possibly NYI (everybody in NY cheers for the Rangers, Islanders a very far 2nd behind).

I'd also add the Devils since the only reason they are even surviving is because of success in the standings since the Brodeur era.


Last edited by coolasprICE: 05-09-2010 at 10:53 AM.
coolasprICE is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-09-2010, 11:06 AM
  #64
ILuvLucic*
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Location Location
Country: Canada
Posts: 11,923
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by coolasprICE View Post
Thanks for the laugh man.

If the states had the equivalent amount of passion for hockey than you wouldn't have the opportunity to post such a ridiculous statement in this thread.

The truth is, and I hope you can handle this, that America really doesn't give a **** about hockey.

There are parts where it works enough, but there are parts where it doesn't work enough.

These teams need to be moved asap: Atlanta, Phoenix, Tampa, Florida and possibly NYI (everybody in NY cheers for the Rangers, Islanders a very far 2nd behind).

I'd also add the Devils since the only reason they are even surviving is because of success in the standings since the Brodeur era.
Islanders and Devils relocated, really?

Your post is just as laughable as his.

ILuvLucic* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-09-2010, 11:10 AM
  #65
coolasprICE
Registered User
 
coolasprICE's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Montreal
Country: Canada
Posts: 9,491
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kezia View Post
Islanders and Devils relocated, really?

Your post is just as laughable as his.
Give me a reasons why you're laughing

coolasprICE is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-09-2010, 11:10 AM
  #66
Killiecrankie*
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 5,999
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by coolasprICE View Post
Thanks for the laugh man.

If the states had the equivalent amount of passion for hockey than you wouldn't have the opportunity to post such a ridiculous statement in this thread.

The truth is, and I hope you can handle this, that America really doesn't give a **** about hockey.

There are parts where it works enough, but there are parts where it doesn't work enough.

These teams need to be moved asap: Atlanta, Phoenix, Tampa, Florida and possibly NYI (everybody in NY cheers for the Rangers, Islanders a very far 2nd behind).

I'd also add the Devils since the only reason they are even surviving is because of success in the standings since the Brodeur era.
I agree, in some respects. America is a far larger and for less homogeneous society than Canada. I am positive that there are at least twenty million hockey fans in the States; roughly equal to Canada. The game is growing here, it has almost reached the law of diminishing returns in Canada.

Look, I want to see a couple of more Canadian teams; especially in Quebec as that was my first non civic arena NHL game and still my favorite hockey jerseys of all time. However, to discount how much the game has grown in the States just in the last 10 years, is foolish.

The amount of professional sporting competition here is also tremendous, NFL, NBA, MLB, NHL, MLS, Lacrosse, ultimate fighting, nascar..... hockey is on the upswing.

I just hate pompous hockey fans, especially nationalistic ones.

Luckily, at least in this series, there are far more mature, knowledgeable fans of the Montreal Canadiens than the kind that I quoted above.

Now if we can only get over the "refs love/hate us" routine, all will be well

Killiecrankie* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-09-2010, 11:15 AM
  #67
ILuvLucic*
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Location Location
Country: Canada
Posts: 11,923
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by coolasprICE View Post
Give me a reasons why you're laughing
Because the Islanders and Devils have had more success than some teams you did not metion. Hell, even more than some Canadian teams. The Islanders are going through a rough patch needing a new building and cleaning up Milbury's mess. The Devils will continue to be successful even without Brodeur due to Lou Lamoriello.

The day one of the New York area teams goes under, the whole league is probably in deep ****.

ILuvLucic* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-09-2010, 11:25 AM
  #68
Killiecrankie*
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 5,999
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kezia View Post
Because the Islanders and Devils have had more success than some teams you did not metion. Hell, even more than some Canadian teams. The Islanders are going through a rough patch needing a new building and cleaning up Milbury's mess. The Devils will continue to be successful even without Brodeur due to Lou Lamoriello.

The day one of the New York area teams goes under, the whole league is probably in deep ****.
I think the Islanders only generate 45M or so in revenue, if/when they get a new building I am sure they will be pulling in the 55-60M needed to be a successful franchise. Also, I think they have a sweet tv deal (not an islanders fan, but in a trip to NY vaguely remember talking about it in a bar-not the best source though hahah).

Rangers and Devils both are run at a profit.


I still think Hamilton is the best potential site for a new Canadian franchise, simply because Toronto area is undeserved with the NHL (not a leaf joke)

Killiecrankie* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-09-2010, 11:30 AM
  #69
Little Nilan
Registered User
 
Little Nilan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Praha
Country: Czech_ Republic
Posts: 8,209
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to Little Nilan
I would relocate in Las Vegas and Southern Ontario personally.

Little Nilan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-09-2010, 11:37 AM
  #70
coolasprICE
Registered User
 
coolasprICE's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Montreal
Country: Canada
Posts: 9,491
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Culloden View Post
I agree, in some respects. America is a far larger and for less homogeneous society than Canada. I am positive that there are at least twenty million hockey fans in the States; roughly equal to Canada. The game is growing here, it has almost reached the law of diminishing returns in Canada.

Look, I want to see a couple of more Canadian teams; especially in Quebec as that was my first non civic arena NHL game and still my favorite hockey jerseys of all time. However, to discount how much the game has grown in the States just in the last 10 years, is foolish.

The amount of professional sporting competition here is also tremendous, NFL, NBA, MLB, NHL, MLS, Lacrosse, ultimate fighting, nascar..... hockey is on the upswing.

I just hate pompous hockey fans, especially nationalistic ones.

Luckily, at least in this series, there are far more mature, knowledgeable fans of the Montreal Canadiens than the kind that I quoted above.

Now if we can only get over the "refs love/hate us" routine, all will be well
I hated pompous baseball fans that use to trash talk the Expos ... but that's another story.

If there were 20 million hockey fans in the united states, which would be lets say equivalent or more than that of Canada, than why is that tv ratings for games in Canada are much larger than tv ratings for games in the united states?

You would think, they'd be pretty close to equal... But they're not, Nascar, bowling and horse racing draws bigger ratings in the states than hockey.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Kezia View Post
Because the Islanders and Devils have had more success than some teams you did not metion. Hell, even more than some Canadian teams. The Islanders are going through a rough patch needing a new building and cleaning up Milbury's mess. The Devils will continue to be successful even without Brodeur due to Lou Lamoriello.

The day one of the New York area teams goes under, the whole league is probably in deep ****.
dude, why are you bringing on-ice success with the issue on hand?

It has nothing to do with it. You don't keep a team in a market because they've won cups.

In New York, it's all rangers. Islanders are a distant 2nd. As for the Devils, think about what kind of crowds they'll be getting if lets say the Devils miss the playoffs for a few years in a row. It would be about the same as Atlanta, Phoenix and every other non-hockey market
Quote:
Originally Posted by Culloden View Post
I think the Islanders only generate 45M or so in revenue, if/when they get a new building I am sure they will be pulling in the 55-60M needed to be a successful franchise. Also, I think they have a sweet tv deal (not an islanders fan, but in a trip to NY vaguely remember talking about it in a bar-not the best source though hahah).

Rangers and Devils both are run at a profit.


I still think Hamilton is the best potential site for a new Canadian franchise, simply because Toronto area is undeserved with the NHL (not a leaf joke)
There is a reason why the Islanders do not have a rink and ultimately that comes down to doubt regarding the gate prospects. What's the excuse, that fans don't go to games because the rink is old and outdated? Come-on man, you know that it would be empty even with a new rink.

coolasprICE is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-09-2010, 11:57 AM
  #71
Habs
Registered User
 
Habs's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Country: Canada
Posts: 9,398
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by King Woodballs View Post
Why would you say that?
I don't see the value of a small market team being added to the league. The Jets bring zero buzz or interest, even if they would be financially stable.

Habs is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-09-2010, 12:10 PM
  #72
Killiecrankie*
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 5,999
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by coolasprICE View Post
I hated pompous baseball fans that use to trash talk the Expos ... but that's another story.

If there were 20 million hockey fans in the united states, which would be lets say equivalent or more than that of Canada, than why is that tv ratings for games in Canada are much larger than tv ratings for games in the united states?

You would think, they'd be pretty close to equal... But they're not, Nascar, bowling and horse racing draws bigger ratings in the states than hockey.




dude, why are you bringing on-ice success with the issue on hand?

It has nothing to do with it. You don't keep a team in a market because they've won cups.

In New York, it's all rangers. Islanders are a distant 2nd. As for the Devils, think about what kind of crowds they'll be getting if lets say the Devils miss the playoffs for a few years in a row. It would be about the same as Atlanta, Phoenix and every other non-hockey market


There is a reason why the Islanders do not have a rink and ultimately that comes down to doubt regarding the gate prospects. What's the excuse, that fans don't go to games because the rink is old and outdated? Come-on man, you know that it would be empty even with a new rink.
First, I hate baseball.

Second, "fan support" is not a deciding factor with the Islanders and most teams who need new arena. This has been covered ad nausea with dozens of threads on this site, if your interested in arena economics I suggest read them as there are more knowledgeable posters than I explaining in detail the situation presented by an out of date arena.

What do you define as a hockey market? I define it as any NHL city where an owner can spend above the cap minimum and produce a profit. The game will grow in those places, and has already grown.

I'm sure Canada will get at least another team, it is just good business, however do not disparage other markets. After all, the proud Canadiens almost folded and Montreal lost their maroons.

Killiecrankie* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-09-2010, 01:10 PM
  #73
CanadienErrant*
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Country: Cook Islands
Posts: 4,956
vCash: 500
Canada should have two more franchises: Winnipeg and Quebec City

NHL should expand in Europe and have a six team division with teams in Sweden , Germany, Swiss, Czekoslovakia, Russia and Finland. KHL would collapsed at some point.

The Islanders, Panthers, Coyotes, Thrashers, TB, Anaheim, Nashville, could be relocated or folded.

CanadienErrant* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-09-2010, 01:14 PM
  #74
Krautso
Registered User
 
Krautso's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,753
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Culloden View Post
I think the Islanders only generate 45M or so in revenue, if/when they get a new building I am sure they will be pulling in the 55-60M needed to be a successful franchise. Also, I think they have a sweet tv deal (not an islanders fan, but in a trip to NY vaguely remember talking about it in a bar-not the best source though hahah).

Rangers and Devils both are run at a profit.


I still think Hamilton is the best potential site for a new Canadian franchise, simply because Toronto area is undeserved with the NHL (not a leaf joke)
You dont think that central canada is underserved? The nearest franchise is 1000kms away...

Krautso is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
05-09-2010, 01:37 PM
  #75
Habs
Registered User
 
Habs's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Country: Canada
Posts: 9,398
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by CanadienErrant View Post
Canada should have two more franchises: Winnipeg and Quebec City

NHL should expand in Europe and have a six team division with teams in Sweden , Germany, Swiss, Czekoslovakia, Russia and Finland. KHL would collapsed at some point.

The Islanders, Panthers, Coyotes, Thrashers, TB, Anaheim, Nashville, could be relocated or folded.
The Islanders are important to this league, they always have been and will continue to be. Anaheim is a good hockey market, so is Nashville.

However, the European expansion is the next logical step, I agree.

Habs is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Forum Jump


Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 11:03 PM.

monitoring_string = "e4251c93e2ba248d29da988d93bf5144"
Contact Us - HFBoards - Archive - Privacy Statement - Terms of Use - Advertise - Top - AdChoices

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. ©2014 All Rights Reserved.