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
05-09-2010, 05:37 PM
  #101
coolasprICE
Registered User
 
coolasprICE's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Montreal
Country: Canada
Posts: 9,431
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kezia View Post
Because they can purchase teams failing in non-traditional markets (Phoenix) for a ridiculously low price and move them to a new market. That fresh start will generate interest in the team causing the organisation to increase in value.
Wrong. They would be paying more than what any U.S investor is willing to pay for a team to relocate. Admit it, you own an opinion and you're trying desperately to avoid changing it.

If there were investors in the U.S that are willing to match the bids and relocate the team to a U.S market, don't you think we would be discussing this on a thread? Show me some RECENT news that points to a trend in this direction of U.S investors willing to pay as much as Canadian investors and relocate a team within the U.S....

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kezia View Post
Then stick to the point. I was talking about arena upgrades over existing arenas, what the Islanders are trying to do. They can't invest more money into a team when there arena is too small to back up their investments. You cannot spend money like a team selling 19 000 when you can only sellout to 16 000.
I've given you examples of 4 teams with laughable attendance (which destroys the game) despite having modern arenas... I should of added Florida in there too. And why is it that Long Island does not have a new Arena in the making? Is it because city council and state officials are afraid of opportunity? Or are they afraid of the RISKS and PROOF that new arenas do not always translate to an increased bottom line.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kezia View Post

You named 1 team which has been the most succesful over the past decade and a half as well as 3 expansion teams in non-hockey markets.
So I shouldn't give you examples of struggling franchises in modern arenas if they are non-hockey markets ??? lol ...

Here's a little 101 for you: Most struggling teams are in bad hockey markets.



Quote:
Originally Posted by Kezia View Post


You haven't. Unless the same old "hockey is Canadian" rambling translates to only teams in our country can work.
Hockey is not just Canadian. Did I ever mention any of the teams in California? Did I call out the u.s original six? Philly, Buf, Min, Col, Dal etc.. No I did not. I'm calling out a franchise with a stellar decade and a half and horrible attendance. I'm calling out a franchise that is unable to get a new arena, and with a very small core following. I'm also calling out certain southern locations where hockey is just an afterthought, where success is only possible if the circumstances are right.


Also, a lot of the struggling southern teams that are pointing to money problems as one of the reasons for their failures are basically just making the point that do not have enough core support.... If they did, than they would have the resources to make the necessary changes to begin to compete.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Kezia View Post
Of course the Islanders are a far second, the Rangers are an Original Six team. That does not mean every person in and around New York is a Rangers fan.
True. But that doesn't mean the Islanders have enough core support for the long term either.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kezia View Post

I never said nothing matters to me. The market in Quebec City may have changed for the better. It all depends on what the market has evolved into. Can the residents afford to attend games regularly and buy memorabilia? Are the newer generations Canadiens' fans? Has immigration increased (they probably don't care for hockey)?

All of these come into play for both existing markets and potential markets.
You should be asking these questions BEFORE asserting your opinion , shouldn't you? Perhaps you would have an informed opinion.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kezia View Post

Way to avoid answering the question. Anyways, I don't seem to get where you are trying to go with this. Calling New York a non-traditional market for both hockey and sports just means you must be delusional.
I never said that, quit dummying down the discussion with false statements.

coolasprICE is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-09-2010, 05:58 PM
  #102
King Woodballs
MVP! MVP! MVP!
 
King Woodballs's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Your Mind
Posts: 32,150
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by Habs View Post
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.
Zero buzz and interest according to? Someone who doesn't live in the like I do? The interest here is crazy and nothing is close to being done
so I beg to differ

King Woodballs is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-09-2010, 06:56 PM
  #103
JrHockeyFan
Registered User
 
JrHockeyFan's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Country: Canada
Posts: 5,520
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by coolasprICE View Post
I should clarify - a new rink is an arena that is fit to serve the team for years to come and in no need of replacement, renovation or extensive upgrade.
Well Nassau qualifies in any case

Quote:
Originally Posted by dmacin2 View Post
You're kidding right?

Calgary has more people than San Jose, Detroit, Columbus, Boston, Denver, Nashville, Washington, Atlanta, Miami, Raleigh, St Louis, Tampa, Anaheim, Pittsburgh ect.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of..._by_population

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of..._by_population

Winnipeg even has more population than many of these cities.

I understand that many of the cities in the USA that I listed have much more people living in surrounding cities. In many cases those people live way to far away from the arena for a casual sports fan to go when hockey is so far behind pretty much every other major sport. Would you drive 2 hours in rush hour traffic to watch a CIS Basketball game?

By your logic Edmonton having a team is bad for the league.

Do you really think that just because you don't like Winnipeg and you don't want to live there that them having a team is bad for the league.

Many Canadian teams did have an issue with attendance before the lockout, there is no denying that. How could a team in Winnipeg get less fans that Phoenix does now?

Dallas is one of the biggest cities in the USA and has a great history of being a dominant team for 10 years and they were giving seats away and still not selling out this year.

If having a team in Winnipeg devalues the league as you suggest, what about cities that don't give a **** about hockey and never sell out. Besides, who really cares what an outsider thinks of the NHL as long as the quality of play is good and teams are making money. (which many AMERICAN teams aren't)
One thing to note when discussing some American cities on the list. many of those cities do have small populations because so few people actually live in the city proper. Surrounding areas are quite populated though. St Louis is a good example of that. Same thing for SJ or San Francisco. Anaheim is a "city" surrounded by cities in the LA area, so obviously LOTS of people there. Straight demographics do not cut it

The strange thing is that some arenas were purposely put in the suburbs to "go where the people are" out in the burbs. That does not work all the time either

Anyway, point is, just looking at city populations is not a valid way to compare things

JrHockeyFan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-09-2010, 08:03 PM
  #104
dmacin2*
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 1,758
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by JrHockeyFan View Post
Well Nassau qualifies in any case



One thing to note when discussing some American cities on the list. many of those cities do have small populations because so few people actually live in the city proper. Surrounding areas are quite populated though. St Louis is a good example of that. Same thing for SJ or San Francisco. Anaheim is a "city" surrounded by cities in the LA area, so obviously LOTS of people there. Straight demographics do not cut it

The strange thing is that some arenas were purposely put in the suburbs to "go where the people are" out in the burbs. That does not work all the time either

Anyway, point is, just looking at city populations is not a valid way to compare things
Absolutely! I actually couldn't agree more. I have lived just outside St Louis for a summer and know that they actually have many more people than is stated on Wikipedia. Anaheim is obviously another good example.

However, in really big cities like that it can take well over an hour to get to games during rush hour traffic. Not to mention getting out of the arena and heading home. Most casual hockey fans that live far enough away from the arena would most likely prefer to watch the game on TV and channel surf any other sports games on.

Game 7 in Phoenix this year is a good example, the game was at 6pm local time and they were unable to sell out because of traffic. The die hard fans were there of course, but many people stayed away.

dmacin2* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-09-2010, 08:05 PM
  #105
ILuvLucic*
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Location Location
Country: Canada
Posts: 11,923
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by coolasprICE View Post
Wrong. They would be paying more than what any U.S investor is willing to pay for a team to relocate. Admit it, you own an opinion and you're trying desperately to avoid changing it.

If there were investors in the U.S that are willing to match the bids and relocate the team to a U.S market, don't you think we would be discussing this on a thread? Show me some RECENT news that points to a trend in this direction of U.S investors willing to pay as much as Canadian investors and relocate a team within the U.S....
I'm not talking about US investors. The Coyotes are valued at around 130 million dollars and would gain in value if moved to a traditional market. That is why investors in Canada want to move teams back here. If the team worked out in their new location, their investment would pay off more than if they kept the team in Phoenix.

Quote:
Originally Posted by coolasprICE View Post
I've given you examples of 4 teams with laughable attendance (which destroys the game) despite having modern arenas... I should of added Florida in there too. And why is it that Long Island does not have a new Arena in the making? Is it because city council and state officials are afraid of opportunity? Or are they afraid of the RISKS and PROOF that new arenas do not always translate to an increased bottom line.
New Jersey with 90% capacity last year is laughable? Again you are comparing a very successful franchise with stupid expansion teams that have been mediocre for the majority of their existence.

As for Wang's situation, the franchise is in desperate need of a new arena and everybody knows it. No new arena, means no ability to have a bigger budget and make money off the new development.

Read here: http://libn.com/blog/2009/05/06/kier...-sports-arena/

Quote:
The Islanders have not been good for a long time. When the Islanders were good, they won four consecutive Stanley Cups and from 1980 to 1983 the Coliseum was packed. However, several owners who preceded Wang put terrible teams on the ice and the fans became disenchanted.

Officials involved during the last two decades with trying to bring major sports events to Long Island figure skating, NCAA basketball, gymnastics and so forth have known that the Coliseum needs major improvements. The Long Island Sports Commission has brought major events to Long Island, such as the 1998 Goodwill Games and the first round of NCAA Final Four games. However, event owners pointed out that the Coliseum did not measure up to other venues.
It has nothing to do with being in a bad market.

Quote:
Originally Posted by coolasprICE View Post
So I shouldn't give you examples of struggling franchises in modern arenas if they are non-hockey markets ??? lol ...

Here's a little 101 for you: Most struggling teams are in bad hockey markets.
Have I been supporting teams like the Thrashers, Panthers, Lightning, Blue Jackets and Coyotes? No, because they are not in good hockey markets while the Devils and Islanders are.



Quote:
Originally Posted by coolasprICE View Post
Hockey is not just Canadian. Did I ever mention any of the teams in California? Did I call out the u.s original six? Philly, Buf, Min, Col, Dal etc.. No I did not. I'm calling out a franchise with a stellar decade and a half and horrible attendance. I'm calling out a franchise that is unable to get a new arena, and with a very small core following. I'm also calling out certain southern locations where hockey is just an afterthought, where success is only possible if the circumstances are right.
Call out the people involved in the approval process for the Lighthouse Project. Or even the GMs that ran the team into the ground before Wang bought the team. They have ruined the franchise and pissed off a lot of the fans.


Quote:
Originally Posted by coolasprICE View Post
Also, a lot of the struggling southern teams that are pointing to money problems as one of the reasons for their failures are basically just making the point that do not have enough core support.... If they did, than they would have the resources to make the necessary changes to begin to compete.
I'm not talking about southern teams, stop bringing them up.


Quote:
Originally Posted by coolasprICE View Post
True. But that doesn't mean the Islanders have enough core support for the long term either.
They probably have more of a core than a died down Winnipeg and Quebec fan base that has not had a team for a while.

Quote:
Originally Posted by coolasprICE View Post
You should be asking these questions BEFORE asserting your opinion , shouldn't you? Perhaps you would have an informed opinion.
I'm not the one planning on investing millions of dollars in relocating a dying franchise to a location that didn't work the first time. If I had the resources and the time to do a census of the Quebec City region I would. Bringing the Nordiques back would be great, but at the expense of a franchise like the Coyotes.

Quote:
Originally Posted by coolasprICE View Post
I never said that, quit dummying down the discussion with false statements.
You imply it by repeating that bad hockey markets have teams that fail and keep on yabbering about the Devils and Islanders. They are there to stay.
And you still have not told me which teams are immune to bouts of mediocrity. I'm still waiting

ILuvLucic* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-09-2010, 09:58 PM
  #106
Habsfanatical
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Country: Canada
Posts: 787
vCash: 500
If the NHL is a business, and if I'm not wrong but in a business your goal is to make money. It only makes sense to put more teams in Canada, I've been saying this for years now. The 6 Canadian teams produce 60% of the leagues revinue, the 24 Americans contribute the other 40%.. Seems kind of one sided in my mind but whatever, I've also been saying the 6 Canadian teams should split and form their own league, Canadian teams only league hahaha.. Needless to say Mr.Bettman has to realize that he has done what he could in saving a few teams down south, Winnipeg and Quebec had there chances and they were moved. Phoenix and a few others (Atlanta,Tampa,Florida...) Are getting there chances now, if things don't change in a year or two, try and move them north (not sure how lease agreements would go there).. You know your getting an influx of cash because of the "new" teams, sweaters, hats, shirts etc....
for the first couple years, that should make Mr.Bettman look good for abit, I'd sooner fire him but that's neither here nor there. Also, I'm wondering if tv contracts can be reworked? Because if the only way to grow the game down south depends on going to the game (if you live close to a team of course), your not growing squat IMO! If I can't watch a game, how am I supposed to grow to love it? Same here in Canada, being in SW Ontario sucks! You think I enjoy deciding on a sat night Laughs, Sens or snooker? I have RDS now but if you only get basic service or whatever, how are you expected to follow your team? We (all of us) know about streaming, but how many others don't? How many don't have a computer? If more games were available (without spending outrageous $$$) more people may freely turn to it, but that's just what my melon thinks.

Habsfanatical is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-10-2010, 06:35 AM
  #107
JrHockeyFan
Registered User
 
JrHockeyFan's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Country: Canada
Posts: 5,520
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by dmacin2 View Post
Absolutely! I actually couldn't agree more. I have lived just outside St Louis for a summer and know that they actually have many more people than is stated on Wikipedia. Anaheim is obviously another good example.

However, in really big cities like that it can take well over an hour to get to games during rush hour traffic. Not to mention getting out of the arena and heading home. Most casual hockey fans that live far enough away from the arena would most likely prefer to watch the game on TV and channel surf any other sports games on.

Game 7 in Phoenix this year is a good example, the game was at 6pm local time and they were unable to sell out because of traffic. The die hard fans were there of course, but many people stayed away.
Obviously the desire has to be there to go at all. It also helps if there is a mass transit system to take people there.

In the case of St L the Cards in baseball are practically religion. Everybody wears cards stuff. Folks find a way to get to the core. Hockey football and baseball are all in the city core there. It helps that there is lots of parking and rail access as well. But what really takes them there is the desire to go.

Some places though, other forces dictated the location of arenas, fields, rinks etc. Things like the state, property developers, etc. Often placement was based upon $$$ factors instead of fan factors. Big mistake sometimes

JrHockeyFan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-10-2010, 07:36 AM
  #108
macavoy
Registered User
 
macavoy's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 7,474
vCash: 243
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dutchy View Post
Although one thing still works against them: Buttman.
Bettman is merely a puppet. Until fans realize that, the US owners will continue to get away with what they are doing. Bettman is the scapegoat.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Habsfanatical View Post
If the NHL is a business, and if I'm not wrong but in a business your goal is to make money. It only makes sense to put more teams in Canada, I've been saying this for years now. The 6 Canadian teams produce 60% of the leagues revinue, the 24 Americans contribute the other 40%.. Seems kind of one sided in my mind but whatever,

Needless to say Mr.Bettman has to realize that he has done what he could in saving a few teams down south, Winnipeg and Quebec had there chances and they were moved.
You guys are forgetting very important point when you look at this. A majority of teams have to approve relocation. Guess what, those owners have THEIR OWN INTERESTS to protect. Canadian teams don't draw well in the US except for Toronto and Montreal.

If I am a US owner, I am going to protect my $500 million investment by not allowing more Canadian teams, which draw less fans than American teams. The Isles are going to draw more fans playing against Las Vegas than they will playing the Quebec Nordiques.

You guys are also forgetting that most US owners don't rely on the NHL product to make a profit, its the real estate attached to their team. The NHL team is simply a tool to draw people to the rest of their investments. Its about cable deals, property deals etc... why do you think The Lighthouse Project is so important. Same thing with the Phoenix situation, for the US buyers of the team, its about the real estate attached to it, not the actual team.

macavoy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-10-2010, 07:49 AM
  #109
Kebekoi
Registered User
 
Kebekoi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Matane, QC
Country: Martinique
Posts: 1,466
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Culloden View Post
The only potential canadian investor that is/was actively trying to bring a team to Canada is Jim Balsillie; and I doubt that every happens.
Thomson (Canada's wealthiest man) in Winnipeg
Peladeau in Quebec
Balsillie in Hamilton
Andrew Lopez (?) in Toronto

Kebekoi is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-10-2010, 08:22 AM
  #110
neofury*
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Montreal, PQ
Country: Canada
Posts: 20,277
vCash: 500
While I agree that developing hockey teams in new places is good for the sport, I also would have to say that not having a team in places that clearly could/should have a team, is equally bad for the sport.

One has success almost immediately while other places take years to succeed in their markets.

I have no doubt in my mind Quebec City and Winnipeg could support a team.

neofury* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-10-2010, 08:29 AM
  #111
Markovskaya
Registered User
 
Markovskaya's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Montreal
Country: Canada
Posts: 885
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by mrCoffea View Post
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
Amercians...

Boring you say ? Because Pheonix and Nashville are so much fun right ? Have you ever been to these cities or did you just google map them ?

They don't DESERVE a pro franchise ? You're right, major cities with huge hockey fan bases in the country that gave you're sorry ass the game you like and care so much about, don't deserve a pro-franchise in said sport.

Btw Calgary and Edmonton are boring and only have an annual GDP growth of 10%...your american cities are doing so much better then that...oh wait...no they don't.

Ottawa is only the capital of the second biggest country on earth but I guess that's not enough to deserve a pro-franchise of said country national sport, right ?


Get out of here fool !


Last edited by Markovskaya: 05-10-2010 at 08:35 AM.
Markovskaya is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-10-2010, 09:14 AM
  #112
Killiecrankie*
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 5,999
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Markovskaya View Post
Amercians...

Boring you say ? Because Pheonix and Nashville are so much fun right ? Have you ever been to these cities or did you just google map them ?

They don't DESERVE a pro franchise ? You're right, major cities with huge hockey fan bases in the country that gave you're sorry ass the game you like and care so much about, don't deserve a pro-franchise in said sport.

Btw Calgary and Edmonton are boring and only have an annual GDP growth of 10%...your american cities are doing so much better then that...oh wait...no they don't.

Ottawa is only the capital of the second biggest country on earth but I guess that's not enough to deserve a pro-franchise of said country national sport, right ?


Get out of here fool !
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_California

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_Canada

And I would like to see another Canadian team or two; however to not invest heavily in areas that have so much potential wealth is silly. That is why there are teams in California, Florida, Atlanta. If it offends your dignified sensibilities too bad. I would be all for a 32 team league; 4 divisions of 8 adding two canadian teams...

It is also silly to debase teams such as Edmonton or Calgary as "boring". True hockey fans watch such games as the battle of Alberta, and I personally still tune into Edmonton-Dallas as I have since the late 1990's.

As for potential investors; the group listed above is impressive-however I know of not one of them who have offered a concrete bid or signed a letter of intent. I could be wrong though, loved to proven wrong in this instance however.

Killiecrankie* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-10-2010, 09:34 AM
  #113
macavoy
Registered User
 
macavoy's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 7,474
vCash: 243
Quote:
Originally Posted by neofury View Post
I have no doubt in my mind Quebec City and Winnipeg could support a team.
Just because a city can support itself, doesn't mean it can also lend support to the 29 other teams in the league. People need to understand that the NHL has a monopoly. It isn't a free market enterprise, just ask Jim Ballsillie.

macavoy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-10-2010, 09:39 AM
  #114
StoneColdFlower*
El Sid
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Country: Canada
Posts: 539
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by mrCoffea View Post
I'm not Gary Bettman, I come from one of the only 3 real cities in Canada, Montreal

Winnipeg is a joke, as a city it's horrible. It's boring, it's ugly, it's in the middle of nowhere, no one in the world knows anything about Winnipeg. Giving Winnipeg a franchise devalues the image of the NHL to the outsider looking in

Canada doesn't need to "grow" Hockey. People in cities without franchises are going to watch Hockey regardless. I'd rather another success story of building a hockey scene in the San Jose's and Dallas' of the world than put a team in a city that once lost it because it was too poor and hasn't shown anything since then to make us believe they deserve the franchise again

It's easy for people from Winnipeg to say they were amazing fans, but they didn't even sell out all of their games. You give the team to Winnipeg or another small Canadian city, it's just a matter of time before they risk losing it again. All it takes is for the American economy to be strong again really...
What devalues hockey is using a formula that rewards cities for high rates of incest, warm weather, and low knowledge of hockey when relocating teams.

StoneColdFlower* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-10-2010, 10:22 AM
  #115
mrCoffea*
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 894
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by King Woodballs View Post
Zero buzz and interest according to? Someone who doesn't live in the like I do? The interest here is crazy and nothing is close to being done
so I beg to differ
This goes out to you and any other nationalistic "old timey" canadian hockey fan in this country and in this thread. I am a Canadian citizen, born in this country, with a Canadian passport, so don't take this as some american giving his two cents. But I am someone that's cultured, well traveled, that has lived in many countries around the world, etc....

Be ready for a reality check: NO ONE IN THE WORLD, INCLUDING MOST PEOPLE IN CANADA, GIVE A **** ABOUT WINNIPEG, OR MOST OTHER CANADIAN CITIES

Maybe Phoenix isn't selling as many tickets as Winnipeg might, but Phoenix is a better market for the NHL. Phoenix has other sports franchises that are well known outside of the NHL, if someone sees that Phoenix has an NHL team, it gives the franchise more legitimacy. Phoenix is in a potentially bigger market, and definitely a bigger media market. The money for the NHL is in the USA, not Canada. If the sport grows in the USA, the NHL makes more money in the long term. If you add a franchise to Winnipeg, there might be growth in the short term, but it will stagnate rather quickly because there is no room for growth in Winnipeg whatsoever. Winnipeg is an ugly city, a boring city that would offer nothing to entice star players to go there and play, it's already bad enough we're trying to con people to go live in Edmonton and Ottawa. Jesus, I'm Canadian and I'd never live in those god forsaken "cities". Do you blame foreign athletes for not wanting to go there? I certainly don't. And not only that, fans in the states don't want to watch a game on tv if their team is playing "Winnipeg". I guarantee you that as low as ratings might be for phoenix, ratings for Winnipeg road games in the states would be lower.

You can't just look at the few positives for having a team in Winnipeg and then let your stupid nationalistic pride cloud your judgment into completely dismissing the negative aspects, and trust me there are more negatives than positives for the overall growth of the NHL.

You want the NHL to grow, it HAS to grow in the USA. If the NHL becomes any more Canadian than it actually is without growing in the States, then the overall quality, prestige, and monetary value of the league will go down considerably. This might be "Canada's game", but Canada can't build a league on its own that can compete with the other big 3 leagues in America. The way the NHL is now, I can see it being close to he NBA. More teams in Canada and you're no better than the National Lacrosse League or the WNBA to most people.

The worst is that you suckers fall for it every time. The "make it 7 campaign" wasn't about getting more franchises in Canada, it was about a greedy billionaire playing up the gullible and ignorant nationalistic masses in order to get support for HIS franchise in HIS city. He didn't give a **** about Winnipeg or Quebec City, but you guys all fell for his snake oil anyways. And you'll continue to do so because you're unable to look at the big picture outside of your tiny little "canadian" wonderland.

mrCoffea* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-10-2010, 10:41 AM
  #116
mrCoffea*
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 894
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Markovskaya View Post
Amercians...

Boring you say ? Because Pheonix and Nashville are so much fun right ? Have you ever been to these cities or did you just google map them ?

They don't DESERVE a pro franchise ? You're right, major cities with huge hockey fan bases in the country that gave you're sorry ass the game you like and care so much about, don't deserve a pro-franchise in said sport.

Btw Calgary and Edmonton are boring and only have an annual GDP growth of 10%...your american cities are doing so much better then that...oh wait...no they don't.

Ottawa is only the capital of the second biggest country on earth but I guess that's not enough to deserve a pro-franchise of said country national sport, right ?


Get out of here fool !
First of all, I'm not american and have absolutely no ties whatsoever to the united states. I am, however, someone with common sense that can understand the simple logic behind the United States having a bigger economy than Canada and being able to potentially offer much more to the league than Canada ever could

What part of this do you not understand:

- Hockey fans in Winnipeg already exist.
- Hockey fans in Winnipeg already watch hockey and cheer for an existing team
- If Winnipeg gets a team, all you are doing is diverting the attention from one existing franchise, to another existing franchise. You are NOT GAINING fans
- No one outside of Winnipeg would cheer for the team, you are not ADDING NEW Fans
- Winnipeg is a tiny, minuscule media market
- Winnipeg isn't a very rich city, nor is it a very populous one
- Many Canadians would never live there, let alone foreign pro athletes.
- It has NOTHING to offer other than Hockey in terms of entertainment
- No one in the world knows what Winnipeg is, nor will they care about watching a Winnipeg team on television. Winnipeg is ratings murder outside of Canada

Now, let's compare that to a big USA market:

- Hockey fans don't exist there, adding a team automatically creates new hockey fans and gives people that might have never followed hockey the chance to cheer for a team
- This chance also extends to people outside of the city, in the entire state. American cities, and especially states, tend to have a bigger population than Winnipeg or Manitoba
- It creates interest not only for a team, but oftentimes hockey in general, allowing the sport to grow. Such growth can't happen within a few years, it takes time and patience.
- big US media markets can bring in so much more money than Winnipeg ever could.
- Big US markets tend to have other pro franchises, putting the team in good company and integrating it withing the overall sport culture of the market.
- Cities like Nashville and Phoenix are much more internationally renown than Winnipeg could ever be, and have much more to offer in terms of entertainment. They are much better places for pro athletes to live, especially american ones.
- People in the States, where the money is, are more likely to want to see their team play another american city with a rich sport history than to see them play Winnipeg.
- Overall, in the long term, franchises in big US markets can only benefit the league as long as we are patient and allow them to

But please, keep spouting nonsense in the form of your blind nationalistic pride.

mrCoffea* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-10-2010, 10:50 AM
  #117
Killiecrankie*
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 5,999
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by mrCoffea View Post
First of all, I'm not american and have absolutely no ties whatsoever to the united states. I am, however, someone with common sense that can understand the simple logic behind the United States having a bigger economy than Canada and being able to potentially offer much more to the league than Canada ever could

What part of this do you not understand:

- Hockey fans in Winnipeg already exist.
- Hockey fans in Winnipeg already watch hockey and cheer for an existing team
- If Winnipeg gets a team, all you are doing is diverting the attention from one existing franchise, to another existing franchise. You are NOT GAINING fans
- No one outside of Winnipeg would cheer for the team, you are not ADDING NEW Fans
- Winnipeg is a tiny, minuscule media market
- Winnipeg isn't a very rich city, nor is it a very populous one
- Many Canadians would never live there, let alone foreign pro athletes.
- It has NOTHING to offer other than Hockey in terms of entertainment
- No one in the world knows what Winnipeg is, nor will they care about watching a Winnipeg team on television. Winnipeg is ratings murder outside of Canada

Now, let's compare that to a big USA market:

- Hockey fans don't exist there, adding a team automatically creates new hockey fans and gives people that might have never followed hockey the chance to cheer for a team
- This chance also extends to people outside of the city, in the entire state. American cities, and especially states, tend to have a bigger population than Winnipeg or Manitoba
- It creates interest not only for a team, but oftentimes hockey in general, allowing the sport to grow. Such growth can't happen within a few years, it takes time and patience.
- big US media markets can bring in so much more money than Winnipeg ever could.
- Big US markets tend to have other pro franchises, putting the team in good company and integrating it withing the overall sport culture of the market.
- Cities like Nashville and Phoenix are much more internationally renown than Winnipeg could ever be, and have much more to offer in terms of entertainment. They are much better places for pro athletes to live, especially american ones.
- People in the States, where the money is, are more likely to want to see their team play another american city with a rich sport history than to see them play Winnipeg.
- Overall, in the long term, franchises in big US markets can only benefit the league as long as we are patient and allow them to

But please, keep spouting nonsense in the form of your blind nationalistic pride.
I agree with a lot of what you said; I believe logically that another team in Ontario will be forthcoming. I do believe that market could support another NHL franchise.

Additionally, it may be likely that one of Winnipeg or Quebec returns to the NHL. However, I would think it as likely for a team to be placed in Las Vegas, Seattle/Portland, or in Kansas City. In fact, I would bet that within ten years the NHL expands to 32 teams, adds a team in hamilton and in one of those three american cities mentioned; probably Kansas City....

Killiecrankie* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-10-2010, 11:01 AM
  #118
macavoy
Registered User
 
macavoy's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 7,474
vCash: 243
Quote:
Originally Posted by mrCoffea View Post
The worst is that you suckers fall for it every time. The "make it 7 campaign" wasn't about getting more franchises in Canada, it was about a greedy billionaire playing up the gullible and ignorant nationalistic masses in order to get support for HIS franchise in HIS city. He didn't give a **** about Winnipeg or Quebec City
Why are you pretending that the make it 7 campaign had anything to do with Winnipeg or Quebec City? I don't see anybody claiming that the make it 7 campaign was about those cities, it was always about getting a team to Southern Ontario. You had a pretty good arguement until you try to tie Ballsillie to things that he isn't.

Ballsillie never said here buy some snake oil, it will get you a team in Winnipeg, he said, here get behind my campaign to bring a team to Southern Ontario. You lose credibility in your arguement when you make stuff up like him pretending to care about those other cities.

macavoy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-10-2010, 11:25 AM
  #119
coolasprICE
Registered User
 
coolasprICE's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Montreal
Country: Canada
Posts: 9,431
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kezia View Post
I'm not talking about US investors. The Coyotes are valued at around 130 million dollars and would gain in value if moved to a traditional market. That is why investors in Canada want to move teams back here. If the team worked out in their new location, their investment would pay off more than if they kept the team in Phoenix.
So, you say that by moving a $130 Million team to a traditional market the team would gain value. Ok, but the Islanders are actually worth only a bit more than 130 Million. And the current owner has lost what, 100 Million on the team since owning it? He's even said that he regrets owning the team. If this is not sufficient evidence that the Islanders are bad business than I don't know what is.

They have a horrible lease. They have a horrible arena and an owner who's only willing to keep the team if they happen to build the entire elaborate lighthouse project. That's condos, baseball stadium, towers, malls, restaurants etc...

He needs all these bells whistles to JUSTIFY keeping the team, to justify renovating or building a new team... he has to do this project, otherwise investing hundreds of millions on arena simply won't cut it once the appeal of fancy chairs and a new jumbotron are over.

The only thing that is keeping them alive is a TV deal that was established in the 80's when the Isles were good. Today it is recognized as one of the worst TV deals in history (well, for the Cable company that is). Islanders are said to have one of the smallest tv ratings in all of professional sports.





Quote:
Originally Posted by Kezia View Post

New Jersey with 90% capacity last year is laughable? Again you are comparing a very successful franchise with stupid expansion teams that have been mediocre for the majority of their existence.
And one of the major catalysts of revenue for the Devils has nothing to do with the actual hockey team.

" But their first year in the new Prudential Center was a big success in large part because of non-hockey events that enabled the building to quickly become one of the busiest in the country... Boxing, college basketball, concerts and dance contests brought in money to the Devils, who get the lion's share of the building's revenue, which they could only dream about when they played at the Meadowlands. "

Here's the forbes link to that article: http://www.forbes.com/lists/2008/31/...ls_313149.html

So, this how we justify the value of a hockey market? Franchises that can ONLY survive via other events? Come on man. NJ is not a good hockey market. Doesn't mean there aren't passionate Devils fans, it just means there aren't enough of them.

Now, when I watch a Devils home game, all I see are empty seats. Whether they are sold or not does not change the fact that the reason those seats are empty is because people just don't care about hockey. Especially for the fact they have been one of the most successful franchises in the last 15 years, and were having a great season this year. We've all seen what their crowd looks like on a weeknight. Pathetic. Leads me to my next point...

You mentioned before that the reason why the Devils will remain successful is because of 68 year old Lou Lamoriello. You seem to think that a franchise is sustainable if it wins and has good management . Well guess what, the Devils will suck one day. It's inevitable... and the risk of having bad managment is unavoidable - what happens if Lou just loses his magic, or that the next GM ends-up making bad decisions?

If you're not sure what will happen I will tell you: Ticket sales will become a joke (and this time tickets will be un-sold), the arena will be 20 % full on a weeknight, the NHL will look even more like a joke to other fans and markets witnessing all of this. It's hard to describe the level of patheticness that a few losing seasons would be in NJ.... especially when you consider that this pathetic franchise is only surviving from other non-hockey events.

Sorry, but the bread and butter of an NHL franchise should be hockey. Not Boxing, dog or car shows.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kezia View Post
As for Wang's situation, the franchise is in desperate need of a new arena and everybody knows it. No new arena, means no ability to have a bigger budget and make money off the new development.

Read here: http://libn.com/blog/2009/05/06/kier...-sports-arena/

It has nothing to do with being in a bad market

....


Call out the people involved in the approval process for the Lighthouse Project. Or even the GMs that ran the team into the ground before Wang bought the team. They have ruined the franchise and pissed off a lot of the fans.

Actually, economically, Long Island is really nothing to brag about .. which is why the LHP was proposed to begin with, to develop the area if you will.

Again, why do you think Wang is unwilling to simply settle for a renovation or a new project? Why doesn't he just get a permit for that instead? The answer: because he knows after the first 10 games, the appeal of going to see a game in a new arena will die out... there needs to be a lot more attraction to the area to justify keeping the team there.

Compare this to a Canadian investor who simply wants to operate a gate based business by putting hockey fans in seats, and using that venue for some other events (which is really not all that many if we're talking about Winnipeg etc..)









Quote:
Originally Posted by Kezia View Post
You imply it by repeating that bad hockey markets have teams that fail and keep on yabbering about the Devils and Islanders. They are there to stay.
And you still have not told me which teams are immune to bouts of mediocrity. I'm still waiting[/QUOTE]

What do you define as mediocre? Most of the league falls under mediocre if you look at their success in the last 10-20 years. Some teams can handle the consequences, others spiral down and suffer even more. Like I wrote before, teams located in passionate hockey markets will withstand the effects of mediocrity more so than teams located in markets where hockey is an afterthought.


Last edited by coolasprICE: 05-10-2010 at 11:31 AM.
coolasprICE is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-10-2010, 11:52 AM
  #120
coolasprICE
Registered User
 
coolasprICE's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Montreal
Country: Canada
Posts: 9,431
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by mrCoffea View Post

if someone sees that Phoenix has an NHL team, it gives the franchise more legitimacy.
You're completely wrong.

1.What gives the franchise legitmacy, and most importantly the NHL, are arenas that are full of people, not empty seats.

You think that empty arenas are a better selling point? I don't know about you, but if I'm a fan of say, Nashville, and I'm watching a game in Phoenix, or NJ, and all I see our empty seats, I'm really not that interested... IF I were that fan, and I was watching my team play in Winnipeg or Quebec City, in front of packed arenas, in front of screaming passionate fans... THATS what's going to get me interested in the game. And hell, that might even start some HEALTHY RIVALRY (Canada vs U.S for example).

2. You and others seem to have this opinion about the U.S as if you guys are stuck in 1990. The U.S economy sucks balls, and Canada has caught-up if not surpassed the U.S in many respects. Resources, a regulated banking industry that did not almost bankrupt the country are a few reasons off the top of my head. There's a reason why Phoenix's owner went bankrupt; there are reasons why investors are not stepping up like they were 15 years ago.

Gdp per caita, real estate valuation, retail sales, employment in Manitoba and Quebec city are nothing like it was 15-20 years ago. Where markets like Phoenix have gone down, these cities have gone up.

3. QC and Win. have suffered the loss of a franchise, and trust me, hockey is more popular all over Canada now than it was 20 years ago (despite the fact that you think it's stagnant, it's not... hard to believe but it's true).Do you not think they are going to embrace them back with more "love" than in the past (when the love in the past was still far more than what exists in most U.S markets today).

So couple these factors together (losing a team, increased popularity) and add the economic realities of 2010 (and not 1990) and the benefits of a full arena, you'll find that justifying a team in Phoenix over a legitimate hockey market is beyond ridiculous. Especially for the reasons that you have pointed out.


Last edited by coolasprICE: 05-10-2010 at 12:16 PM.
coolasprICE is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-10-2010, 12:26 PM
  #121
mrCoffea*
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 894
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by coolasprICE View Post
You're completely wrong.

1.What gives the franchise legitmacy, and most importantly the NHL, are arenas that are full of people, not empty seats.

.
You are wrong, and one only has to look at the the NBA for the reason why

NHL has, on average, slightly better attendance than the NBA, yet the NBA is still considered a "better", "more prestigious" league. Don't talk to me about the Canadian teams making the average higher because it works both ways, basketball is more of an "american" sport so it should have cities that sell out as much as Canadian hockey cities sell out, but it doesn't. I've seen plenty of empty seat NBA games, but no one cares. Same goes for the MLB. The start of this season has been pitiful, many games had empty seats all over the place, screenshots of nearly completely empty sections.

The reason why is because of the better television deal. Attendance means practically nothing when you've got more people watching the games on television. That's why the Islanders still exist, that's why many NBA teams still exist, that's why many baseball teams still exist.

Attendance is nothing but a minuscule piece of the pie. I'm happy that Winnipeg can sell out their small arena, but that means ABSOLUTELY nothing, because the lost television revenue will make things WORSE for the franchise in the long run.

edit: I guess I should tackled your other weak arguments as well

Quote:
Originally Posted by coolasprICE View Post

2. You and others seem to have this opinion about the U.S as if you guys are stuck in 1990. The U.S economy sucks balls, and Canada has caught-up if not surpassed the U.S in many respects. Resources, a regulated banking industry that did not almost bankrupt the country are a few reasons off the top of my head. There's a reason why Phoenix's owner went bankrupt; there are reasons why investors are not stepping up like they were 15 years ago.

Gdp per caita, real estate valuation, retail sales, employment in Manitoba and Quebec city are nothing like it was 15-20 years ago. Where markets like Phoenix have gone down, these cities have gone up.

3. QC and Win. have suffered the loss of a franchise, and trust me, hockey is more popular all over Canada now than it was 20 years ago (despite the fact that you think it's stagnant, it's not... hard to believe but it's true).Do you not think they are going to embrace them back with more "love" than in the past (when the love in the past was still far more than what exists in most U.S markets today).

2. Canada's economy can get as good as it wants, it will NEVER EVER EVER come close to the USA's economy. That's such a weak argument, I don't know where to start. There are american states that have a much more important economy than all of Canada put together, let alone a hick province such as Manitoba.

3. It doesn't matter if they embrace it with love, the new honeymoon might not last forever, and then what? In 5 years, the city might not support the team like it does the first year the team is back. We'll go back to the last days of the franchise when the team wasn't selling out. And then you lose the ONLY positive thing Winnipeg can offer, the POSSIBILITY of selling out

Really, that is all Winnipeg has. Any american city trumps Winnipeg in every other category than "potential to sell out each game". As stated above, there are more important things for a franchise than just selling out each game.


Last edited by mrCoffea*: 05-10-2010 at 12:34 PM.
mrCoffea* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-10-2010, 12:34 PM
  #122
coolasprICE
Registered User
 
coolasprICE's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Montreal
Country: Canada
Posts: 9,431
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by mrCoffea View Post
You are wrong, and one only has to look at the the NBA for the reason why

NHL has, on average, slightly better attendance than the NBA, yet the NBA is still considered a "better", "more prestigious" league. Don't talk to me about the Canadian teams making the average higher because it works both ways, basketball is more of an "american" sport so it should have cities that sell out as much as Canadian hockey cities sell out, but it doesn't. I've seen plenty of empty seat NBA games, but no one cares. Same goes for the MLB. The start of this season has been pitiful, many games had empty seats all over the place, screenshots of nearly completely empty sections.

The reason why is because of the better television deal. Attendance means practically nothing when you've got more people watching the games on television. That's why the Islanders still exist, that's why many NBA teams still exist, that's why many baseball teams still exist.

Attendance is nothing but a minuscule piece of the pie. I'm happy that Winnipeg can sell out their small arena, but that means ABSOLUTELY nothing, because the lost television revenue will make things WORSE for the franchise in the long run.
The Islanders have a TV deal that was drawn up back in the 80's.

If you think for a second that they would land a similar deal today you are out of your mind. The bottom line is, tv deals are going to reflect not how many people live in the greater area, but how many people are likely going to WATCH the sport on tv.

Islanders have horrible tv ratings, and even with a lucrative TV deal, they still lose money.
Bad management is an excuse , but how did bad management get their in the 1st place? Because only a stupid owners would buy that franchise ! lol

Anyways, it's no secret, NHL owners make money with selling tickets to games and other events to their arena. The TV revenue is the bonus, not the meat and potatoes.

Packed arenas create rivalry, passion, atmosphere and interest... Empty arena's do nothing but RUIN the game of hockey.


Quote:
Originally Posted by mrCoffea View Post
2. Canada's economy can get as good as it wants, it will NEVER EVER EVER come close to the USA's economy. That's such a weak argument, I don't know where to start. There are american states that have a much more important economy than all of Canada put together, let alone a hick province such as Manitoba.
What do you mean come close to the U.S economy man? You're talking about size. Unfortunately, that has very little to do with anything. The U.S economy is bigger than all of the Scandinavian countries combined. Does that make it healthier or more prosperous? lol ... anyways dude, you're in denial. That's fine. 1990 was a great era!

Quote:
Originally Posted by mrCoffea View Post

3. It doesn't matter if they embrace it with love, the new honeymoon might not last forever, and then what? In 5 years, the city might not support the team like it does the first year the team is back. We'll go back to the last days of the franchise when the team wasn't selling out. And then you lose the ONLY positive thing Winnipeg can offer, the POSSIBILITY of selling out

Really, that is all Winnipeg has. Any american city trumps Winnipeg in every other category than "potential to sell out each game". As stated above, there are more important things for a franchise than just selling out each game.
The new honeymoon will not last forever? Why passionate hockey fans will just stop caring? WTH are you talking about? This is OUR game. There are reasons why teams in the NFL, NBA and MLB continue to prosper despite never winning anything man... it's called tradition, history, culture, passion... take away all those things, and then I agree with your honeymoon theory (which is exactly what defined the Coyotes and such).


Last edited by coolasprICE: 05-10-2010 at 12:41 PM.
coolasprICE is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-10-2010, 12:39 PM
  #123
mrCoffea*
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 894
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by macavoy View Post
Why are you pretending that the make it 7 campaign had anything to do with Winnipeg or Quebec City? I don't see anybody claiming that the make it 7 campaign was about those cities, it was always about getting a team to Southern Ontario. You had a pretty good arguement until you try to tie Ballsillie to things that he isn't.

Ballsillie never said here buy some snake oil, it will get you a team in Winnipeg, he said, here get behind my campaign to bring a team to Southern Ontario. You lose credibility in your arguement when you make stuff up like him pretending to care about those other cities.
Except for the fact that he was using it to say that all he wanted was more franchises back in Canada and specifically used Winnipeg and Quebec City as examples to rile people up. Trust me, I was following this a lot back then, because the idea of a team in a city like Hamilton makes me physically ill. I was the happiest person in the world when Ballsillie ****ed everything up due to his stubbornness.

mrCoffea* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-10-2010, 12:42 PM
  #124
JackZap
Registered User
 
JackZap's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 4,080
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kezia View Post
Please tell me which teams are immune to mediocrity over long periods of time.
The Leafs

JackZap is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-10-2010, 12:46 PM
  #125
mrCoffea*
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 894
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by coolasprICE View Post
The Islanders have a TV deal that was drawn up back in the 80's.

If you think for a second that they would land a similar deal today you are out of your mind. The bottom line is, tv deals are going to reflect not how many people live in the greater area, but how many people are likely going to WATCH the sport on tv.

Islanders have horrible tv ratings, and even with a lucrative TV deal, they still lose money.
Bad management is an excuse , but how did bad management get their in the 1st place? Because only a stupid owners would buy that franchise ! lol

Anyways, it's no secret, NHL owners make money with selling tickets to games and other events to their arena. The TV revenue is the bonus, not the meat and potatoes.

Packed arenas create rivalry, passion, atmosphere and interest... Empty arena's do nothing but RUIN the game of hockey.
Have empty arenas ruined the sport of Basketball or Baseball? No, both of those sports are doing fine. And regardless, you never have completely empty arenas. Stop acting as if they are 100% empty in those cities, but would be 100% full in Winnipeg. Hell, a slightly empty arena in Phoenix is still more people watching than a full arena in Winnipeg, because their arena is tiny.

If you continue to think that all that matters to a franchise is full arenas, then you are completely delusional and know absolutely nothing about what it takes to run a franchise. It takes much more than simply filling the arena. All of the cards are stacked against a city like Winnipeg for reasons I have already mentioned above. Your childish argument "but....but....the arena would be full EVERY night" is pure garbage, because you have no guarantees that the arena would be full every night anyways. Anything can happen, and Winnipeg already has a history of not selling out when times were rough. But I guess it was ok for Winnipeg then, but not ok for Phoenix now, even though they were facing a similar situation.....(fans knowing the team is in limbo and might be moving)

Quote:
Originally Posted by coolasprICE View Post



What do you mean come close to the U.S economy man? You're talking about size. Unfortunately, that has very little to do with anything. The U.S economy is bigger than all of the Scandinavian countries combined. Does that make it healthier or more prosperous? lol ... anyways dude, you're in denial. That's fine. 1990 was a great era!



The new honeymoon will not last forever? Why passionate hockey fans will just stop caring? WTH are you talking about? This is OUR game. There are reasons why teams in the NFL, NBA and MLB continue to prosper despite never winning anything man... it's called tradition, history, culture, passion... take away all those things, and then I agree with your honeymoon theory (which is exactly what defined the Coyotes and such).
Who cares about prosperity, the United States isn't going anywhere as a superpower and will always have more money to throw around on things like professional sports. Do you see the MLB implementing a salary cap because of the "bad economy"? No, it's going to remain a billion dollar industry despite any "mess" the country might be in. If you seriously think Winnipeg can compete with any american city in that regard, you're out of your mind. If Phoenix were to become even a moderately successful franchise in Arizona, it will make much more than the team selling out in Winnipeg every night.

And again with the "our game" ********. So what if its "our" game? First of all, it isn't, the USA has just as much of a right to enjoy hockey as Canadians do. Second of all, by your logic the NHL should be all Canadian teams, and then we'll have the crappiest league in the world and there will be NO money for the players. It will be the equivalent of the CFL.


Last edited by mrCoffea*: 05-10-2010 at 12:56 PM.
mrCoffea* 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 07:00 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.