HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > NHL Western Conference > Central Division > Winnipeg Jets
Mobile Hockey's Future Become a Sponsor Site Rules Support Forum vBookie Page 2
Notices

Business of Hockey: Jets Edition

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
08-24-2012, 08:13 AM
  #51
Tom ServoMST3K
I am Catbug
 
Tom ServoMST3K's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Peg City
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,878
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by blues10 View Post
I am a soccer fan so no big deal to me. It remains an untapped revenue stream in the NHL. Considering this is a primarily gate driven league the future may hold advertising on jerseys. With that being said I would want it to be up to individual teams to sell their own jersey advertising.

Jersey advertising could be very popular with the Nascar crowd to the south.


This = NOOOOOOO!

What the cfl has = why not?

Tom ServoMST3K is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-24-2012, 09:09 AM
  #52
KingSalamon
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Winnipeg, Manitoba
Country: Canada
Posts: 677
vCash: 500
$30 million in revenue for the league annually? Totally not worth it... that would make $1 per team... or was that meant to mean $30 million for each team annually? If that's the case, slap some tasteful logos on the jerseys (just don't touch the team logos!!)

Heck, if Reebok can get a big ad on the jerseys, why can we sell jersey real estate to others? Actually, the right leg of the player is vacant... how about there? (The left leg has the Jets logo) This way we avoid the jersey ad?

KingSalamon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-24-2012, 09:27 AM
  #53
ps241
The Danish Dash!
 
ps241's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 10,948
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by Holden Caulfield View Post
I am sure they have the plan in place that is needed, we can debate all day about hockey, but I honestly doubt anyone is questioning Thomson and Chipman's ability to make money and understand business

My main point in bringing this up is that I have a feeling that we will see many reports (think I saw one saying Jets revenue was under 100 million, could be wrong, I'll see if I can find it) stating the Jets revenue as not nearly as high as what is given in this thread, so I was just saying that although it may be this high or even higher, reported numbers may be much lower. And it may mean that it looks like the Jets are not doing that great, when in fact TNSE is making money hand over fist.

It is similiar to the situation in Florida in that although the team may not show up as a huge revenue source, the overall business plan is a very effective one that will be set up to maximize profits, which is why teams with a strong model like that will never be in financial trouble despite showing in the red at times. Teams like Los Angeles and Florida (that I know of off the top of my head) have reported losses in recent years, yet none are in bad shape financially since they are set up as mere parts of a huge business that makes alot of money for the owners. The Jets will be in a similiar situation to that (as in team is perhaps not the primary source of profit).
Yea I agree with your post. To begin with I do not fully trust any report that I have read yet on Winnipeg's revenue for the past 12 months. Anything I have seen is speculating or estimating similar to what we are doing here. There are some things that are easy to figure out and estimate like ticket sales but until anyone provides actual sponsorship revenues, TV deals, concession numbers, and actual merchandise sales from the Jets Gear stores, it is guess work.

I also agree when an owner has the land building, events, parking, etc etc. there are allot of ways to legally tax plan and push revenues into more tax advantageous areas. As long as TNSE keep selling out games they will be solidly in the black and a very profitable entity. The only issue other than demand dropping heavily that could side swipe TNSE would be if the Canadian currency took a huge beating and its hard to imagine that happening for a long long time.

ps241 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-24-2012, 03:48 PM
  #54
Concordski
Knockoff Jets FTW
 
Concordski's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Ann Arbor, MI
Country: United States
Posts: 6,973
vCash: 663
It'd be bad, but if Air Canada or West Jet did the sponsorship, maybe it'd be okay. Though I have no fears about inflation, not for at least the next 5 years.

Concordski is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-26-2012, 09:51 PM
  #55
surge1979
Registered User
 
surge1979's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 803
vCash: 50
Amended Revenue Projection

Here is an updated revenue projection based on comments recieved:

Ticket Revenues
Season Tickets $46,904,000 *
Game Day Seats $4,312,000 **
Club Seats Fee $500,000

Corporate Revenues
Luxury Boxes $10,100,000 ***
Advertising $8,600,000 ****
TSN Jets Contract $7,000,000 *****
Naming Rights $3,000,000 ******
Merchandise $2,500,000

In-Game Revenues
Parking $0 *******
Concessions $3,500,000

Revenue Sharing
Central (Broadcast & Ent) $13,750,000 ********
Bottom 15 Revenue Share $0

Other Revenues
Waiting List Fee $525,000
Seat Deposit Int. $300,000
Seat Transfer Fee $250,000
15% Suite Fees $228,000

Direct Subsidies
City Entertainment Tax Refund $5,800,000
City Business Tax Refund $250,000
City Tax Assessment Savings $841,000
Prov. VLT Rev. $4,000,000

Total $112,360,000
-----------------------------

* Season tickets decreased $1.8M. Season ticket revenues were adjusted to 13,000 seats rather than 13,500 (can't believe I missed this!) at an average price of $82

** Game day tickets increased $2.15M. Game day tickets volume was increased from 500 to 1000. Note: there are some tickets that are reserved for the NHL (players, execs to buy – probably at ST prices) and others that are given to sponsors / advertisers. Rather than account for these unknowns here, I have assumed all seats are sold at face value ($98 avg.) and adjusted the advertising revenue accordingly.

*** Corporate Suite increased by $1.1M. Adjusted the suites number based on public information supplied by Hank in an earlier post. New numbers are based on 55 suites at $180k avg plus the 2 smaller party suites at 100k each.

**** Advertising reduced by $1.4M. Of this, $400k was deducted to account for the 100 game day tickets that are given to sponsors/advertisers. Deducted an additional $1M because some have argued that $10M is fairly aggressive and likely overstated. For comparison, CAR's 2010 Advertising revenue was $6.1M.

***** TV reduced by $3M. I have a really good source who has argued that the $10M estimate is overstated based on the fact that MTL's contract is $20M per year and they have more than 3x the audience and air all 82 games (vs TSN Jets at 60). Nobody knows the real number, but it should be more money per viewer than MTL's given that our contract is newer and MTLs is likely underpriced in today’s market. If you use MTLs contract as the basis, and account for viewership and games, you get $4.8M. I think $7M is closer given that EDM and CAL's are in the $8-$10M range and CAR is at $5.5M. Worst case, we’re conservative by $500k - $1M (some would argue we’re aggressive in other areas).

****** Naming Rights reduced by $500k. Although TNSE proclaimed that their deal with MTS set a new benchmark for middle NHL markets, its hard to argue that it would be $1M and 30% higher than the $2.5 that Quebecor just agreed to pay for naming rights on the new QC arena with an NHL team. I've taken the Quebec deal and added $500k (based on the fact that Quebecor’s deal is speculative based on them getting an NHL team while the MTS deal is actual).

******* Parking reduced by $387,000 to zero. Some posters have pointed out that TNSE does not own the existing surface and covered lots around the MTS Centre. This will change once the new hotel and development are complete on the north side of the MTS Centre, but until then its zero (unless others can demonstrate that TNSE does in fact have parking spaces).

******** NHL Central Revenues increased by $4.75M I have an excellent source who is very familiar with the business and finances of NHL hockey (same guy who argued that TV and others were likely overstated) has indicated to me that these revenues are much higher and that the new estimate of $13.75M is on the money. The template and rationale I used to estimate these revenues was actually created by him for another team.

Total change: + 414,800

Other Notes: Despite a lot of debate in this thread about merchandise and concessions, I have not made adjustments to these. I think we can all agree that merchandise this year was likely 4-5 times what it would be in a normal year but for simplicity, I’m sticking with $3.5M (which is already 5 times CAR’s 2010 public number of $667k). We very well could be high there on an ongoing basis. As for concessions, while there was a lot of good discussion and info provided by ps241 – when you use his numbers and factor in hockey vs non-hockey events, we’re in the ballpark or even a bit high ($6.67M total. 40% for hockey events = $2.6M). Also note I have not included the Moxies / Tim Hortons / Arbys leases.

Finally, the waiting list and seat transfer fees are "one-time" revenues for 2011-12 only. Thats $775,000 that will come off the books for next year and beyond. Other items will increase (ticket prices at 3% annually, etc). We're still in the same range but this projection is probably a lot tighter than the last. Still guesswork for the most part. I'm not married to these numbers at all - so if anyone has any better numbers I'd be happy to adjust.

I hope to be getting some additional information from a good source on non-players expenses so hopefully we'll have a decent handle on that in the coming days.


Last edited by surge1979: 08-26-2012 at 10:26 PM.
surge1979 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-26-2012, 10:07 PM
  #56
ps241
The Danish Dash!
 
ps241's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 10,948
vCash: 50
surge1979 I think you have done a really solid job on this. If i get any new fresh information I will PM you or post it here.

ps241 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-27-2012, 01:28 AM
  #57
allan5oh
#Dive4Five #31Buyout
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 6,352
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by surge1979 View Post
Direct Subsidies
City Entertainment Tax Refund $5,800,000
City Business Tax Refund $250,000
City Tax Assessment Savings $841,000
Prov. VLT Rev. $4,000,000
I'm wondering about these. I know TNSE gets VLT revenue, and that should certainly count. But the other 3, are they not just cancelling a tax that would've been in place normally? So essentially it's a wash.

allan5oh is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-27-2012, 12:01 PM
  #58
surge1979
Registered User
 
surge1979's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 803
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by surge1979
Direct Subsidies
City Entertainment Tax Refund $5,800,000
City Business Tax Refund $250,000
City Tax Assessment Savings $841,000
Prov. VLT Rev. $4,000,000
Quote:
Originally Posted by allan5oh View Post
I'm wondering about these. I know TNSE gets VLT revenue, and that should certainly count. But the other 3, are they not just cancelling a tax that would've been in place normally? So essentially it's a wash.
Good question. ps241 actually raised this awhile back and I responded, likely incorrectly.

The City of WPG's charitable tax assessment ($841k in savings) and refund of the business tax ($250k) are defintely revenue neutral and would be netted out by the corresponding taxes that would be paid on the expense side. While these aren't revenues per se, they are reduced expenditures that TNSE would otherwise have to pay if they were operating any other business in WPG. So, they are direct subsidies in comparison to other WPG businesses but I expect given WPG's tax climate that these still don't level the playing field in comparison to operating an NHL team in other cities. In any case, they should be removed from our calculation especially considering that we're really only talking about operating revenues (earnings before interest, taxes and amortization.)

The outstanding question for me is the $5.8M in city entertainment taxes that are paid by TNSE and refunded each year. (Why a city would want to discourage entertainment is beyond me, but I digress). The entertainment tax is 10% of ticket revenues. Here's the City's explanation of the entertainment tax:

Quote:
Every person attending [the MTS Centre for Jets games], for every attendance at [the MTS Centre], pay a tax in the amount of 10% of the admission price. The tax amount is added to the cost of the ticket.
The question is: does TNSE get to charge an additional 10% entertainment tax, remit it to the City and then get a refund of $5.8M? This is not revenue neutral.

OR

Is the 10% already factored into the ticket prices ($82 avg for seasons, $98 avg for game day)? This would be revenue neutral.

surge1979 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-27-2012, 12:46 PM
  #59
surge1979
Registered User
 
surge1979's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 803
vCash: 50
Bonus entertainment tax rant: the City only charges entertainment tax at the following venues:

• MTS Centre
• Canad Inn Stadium
• Canwest Global Baseball Park
• Movie Theatre Cinemas

Given that the Bombers are community owned, its unlikely that they pay the entertainment tax. Our mayor owns the ballpark so I'm going to go out on a limb and suggest that the Goldeyes don't pay it either. Same for the Jets. So it looks like the entertainment tax is only being levied against concert goers and people who go to the movies. Fine. But its not really an entertainment tax then...its a tax on corporations who aren't headquartered in WPG (Cineplex) and entertainment that nots not sufficiently cultured (i.e. rock concerts).

This money is then diverted into a slush fund for "Arts and Culture" (orchestra, ballet, art gallery, theatre). This system is fairly ironic in that the blue collars who pay big money for AC/DC and Nickelback concerts are inadvertently subsidizing the elites so that they can watch "Les Miserables" at MTC with their top hats and monacles or be dazzled along with the other 12 guys who live on Wellington Crescent who came out to see the 3rd cellist on the left at the symphony. Amazing.

surge1979 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-27-2012, 01:17 PM
  #60
drew77
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 20
vCash: 50
^ not sure what the big deal is here, but the orchestra, ballet, art gallery and theatre are staffed largely by performers and support employees that live and work in Winnipeg.

So what if $5 from your AC/DC concert ticket goes to support them? At least it stays in the community.

drew77 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-27-2012, 01:37 PM
  #61
surge1979
Registered User
 
surge1979's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 803
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by drew77 View Post
^ not sure what the big deal is here, but the orchestra, ballet, art gallery and theatre are staffed largely by performers and support employees that live and work in Winnipeg.

So what if $5 from your AC/DC concert ticket goes to support them? At least it stays in the community.
I'm opposed to all corporate subsidies, Jets included. But if its not a big deal, then it shouldn't be a big deal to tack the $500/year I pay in entertainment taxes onto the price of your tickets for these events? Surely, the people who value the staff and performers would be the ones paying their own freight in admissions, no?

surge1979 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-27-2012, 01:39 PM
  #62
GrandChelems
Registered User
 
GrandChelems's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Winnipeg
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,700
vCash: 2209
Quote:
Originally Posted by surge1979 View Post
Bonus entertainment tax rant: the City only charges entertainment tax at the following venues:

MTS Centre
Canad Inn Stadium
Canwest Global Baseball Park
Movie Theatre Cinemas

Given that the Bombers are community owned, its unlikely that they pay the entertainment tax. Our mayor owns the ballpark so I'm going to go out on a limb and suggest that the Goldeyes don't pay it either. Same for the Jets. So it looks like the entertainment tax is only being levied against concert goers and people who go to the movies. Fine. But its not really an entertainment tax then...its a tax on corporations who aren't headquartered in WPG (Cineplex) and entertainment that nots not sufficiently cultured (i.e. rock concerts).

This money is then diverted into a slush fund for "Arts and Culture" (orchestra, ballet, art gallery, theatre). This system is fairly ironic in that the blue collars who pay big money for AC/DC and Nickelback concerts are inadvertently subsidizing the elites so that they can watch "Les Miserables" at MTC with their top hats and monacles or be dazzled along with the other 12 guys who live on Wellington Crescent who came out to see the 3rd cellist on the left at the symphony. Amazing.
Not quite accurate with your stereotypes. There are a lot of broke students, artists from other genres, teachers, elderly, and old-school blue collar types (e.g. from Italy, Poland, etc.) that enjoy the arts, while there are a lot of big spenders that ride on into the core from their sprawling suburban houses in their 45K pick-up trucks to see AC/DC and Nickelback.

GrandChelems is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-27-2012, 01:49 PM
  #63
surge1979
Registered User
 
surge1979's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 803
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by GrandChelems View Post
Not quite accurate with your stereotypes. There are a lot of broke students, artists from other genres, teachers, elderly, and old-school blue collar types (e.g. from Italy, Poland, etc.) that enjoy the arts, while there are a lot of big spenders that ride on into the core from their sprawling suburban houses in their 45K pick-up trucks to see AC/DC and Nickelback.
I think its fairly telling that tickets for the Manitoba Theatre Centre, Royal Winnipeg Ballet, Winnipeg Arts Gallery and Winnipeg Symphony Orchestra are NOT charged the entertainment tax when this money is very clearly being used to support them.

Obviously, my post and the stereotypes were tongue in cheek. But if you're saying that mostly poor people goto the MTC, symphony or ballet....well, I question if you've ever been. The issue isn't the socio-economic demographic of the people who goto these events...but rather the fact that there aren't nearly enough of them.

surge1979 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-27-2012, 02:00 PM
  #64
GrandChelems
Registered User
 
GrandChelems's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Winnipeg
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,700
vCash: 2209
Quote:
Originally Posted by surge1979 View Post
I think its fairly telling that tickets for the Manitoba Theatre Centre, Royal Winnipeg Ballet, Winnipeg Arts Gallery and Winnipeg Symphony Orchestra are NOT charged the entertainment tax when this money is very clearly being used to support them.

Obviously, my post and the stereotypes were tongue in cheek. But if you're saying that mostly poor people goto the MTC, symphony or ballet....well, I question if you've ever been. The issue isn't the socio-economic demographic of the people who goto these events...but rather the fact that there aren't nearly enough of them.
I wasn't saying it's mostly poor people that take in the arts, rather that it isn't just the '12 guys on Wellington Crescent'. Also, these institutions exist to promote the artists themselves, and most of them (symphony included) can't afford the luxury entertainment items like the Jets and (groan) $130 Nickleback tickets.

GrandChelems is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-27-2012, 02:01 PM
  #65
Gm0ney
Registered User
 
Gm0ney's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Winnipeg
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,632
vCash: 1300
Quote:
Originally Posted by drew77 View Post
^ not sure what the big deal is here, but the orchestra, ballet, art gallery and theatre are staffed largely by performers and support employees that live and work in Winnipeg.

So what if $5 from your AC/DC concert ticket goes to support them? At least it stays in the community.
Funding the arts is unnecessary. World class outfits like the RWB and WSO (and Jets) should be able to figure out how to make a go of it without government subsidies.

Gm0ney is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-27-2012, 02:10 PM
  #66
GrandChelems
Registered User
 
GrandChelems's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Winnipeg
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,700
vCash: 2209
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gm0ney View Post
Funding the arts is unnecessary. World class outfits like the RWB and WSO (and Jets) should be able to figure out how to make a go of it without government subsidies.
This is a larger debate that goes well beyond the thread topic, considering that almost everything is funded in some way or another by subsidies or tax incentives (basically the same). If it weren't for tax incentives to business, we probably wouldn't have the corporate base to support the luxery suites in the MTS centre. In fact, when you consider tax incentives, this discussion about the entertainment tax and the arts becomes almost moot.

GrandChelems is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-27-2012, 02:18 PM
  #67
Grind
Stomacheache AllStar
 
Grind's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Manitoba
Posts: 4,140
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gm0ney View Post
Funding the arts is unnecessary. World class outfits like the RWB and WSO (and Jets) should be able to figure out how to make a go of it without government subsidies.
Personally, i do believe there are some things worth protecting (including the arts..AND the Jets). The almighty dollar is good and all, but it is still a zero sum game which certainly doesn't make for the most varied and thus enjoyable society.

In many realms, sure, I don't give a **** if I don't have a whole bunch of choice because some monopoly has taken over, for example, the paper tissue industry.

On the other hand, when it comes to cultural preservation (of which i would include sports teams, music, theatre, etc) variety is the spice of life. I would imagine the large majority of museums, do not operate at a profit, though we feel it necessary to protect our history, so protecting culture makes sense too.

Honestly, what I'd love to see, is a study examining all pro sports teams, and looking to see what sort of government subsidies, tax breaks, situational exceptions, etc, etc are made for them.

I'd go out on a limb and assume that Manitoba and Winnipeg aren't the only city/province/state that lends a hand to their pro-sports franchise. It would be interesting to see and would maybe put such things in better light, as in the amount of "breaks" compared to other franchises, and their stability, etc.

Grind is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-27-2012, 02:24 PM
  #68
Gm0ney
Registered User
 
Gm0ney's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Winnipeg
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,632
vCash: 1300
Quote:
Originally Posted by GrandChelems View Post
This is a larger debate that goes well beyond the thread topic, considering that almost everything is funded in some way or another by subsidies or tax incentives (basically the same). If it weren't for tax incentives to business, we probably wouldn't have the corporate base to support the luxery suites in the MTS centre. In fact, when you consider tax incentives, this discussion about the entertainment tax and the arts becomes almost moot.
Agreed, this is way off topic...although I did manage to work the Jets into my post.

BTW: A "subsidy" is robbing Peter to pay Paul. An "incentive" is money not stolen from Peter in the first place.

Gm0ney is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-27-2012, 02:25 PM
  #69
GrandChelems
Registered User
 
GrandChelems's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Winnipeg
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,700
vCash: 2209
Quote:
Originally Posted by Grind View Post
Personally, i do believe there are some things worth protecting (including the arts..AND the Jets). The almighty dollar is good and all, but it is still a zero sum game which certainly doesn't make for the most varied and thus enjoyable society.

In many realms, sure, I don't give a **** if I don't have a whole bunch of choice because some monopoly has taken over, for example, the paper tissue industry.

On the other hand, when it comes to cultural preservation (of which i would include sports teams, music, theatre, etc) variety is the spice of life. I would imagine the large majority of museums, do not operate at a profit, though we feel it necessary to protect our history, so protecting culture makes sense too.

Honestly, what I'd love to see, is a study examining all pro sports teams, and looking to see what sort of government subsidies, tax breaks, situational exceptions, etc, etc are made for them.

I'd go out on a limb and assume that Manitoba and Winnipeg aren't the only city/province/state that lends a hand to their pro-sports franchise. It would be interesting to see and would maybe put such things in better light, as in the amount of "breaks" compared to other franchises, and their stability, etc.
Glendale anyone?

GrandChelems is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-27-2012, 02:28 PM
  #70
GrandChelems
Registered User
 
GrandChelems's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Winnipeg
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,700
vCash: 2209
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gm0ney View Post
Agreed, this is way off topic...although I did manage to work the Jets into my post.

BTW: A "subsidy" is robbing Peter to pay Paul. An "incentive" is money not stolen from Peter in the first place.
Nah, see Gm0ney, that's where we respectfully disagree. An incentive is the same as a subsidy because we only have one government pool of money. A subsidy is paid out of government coffers, while the incentive is just money not collected in the first place. It's our government, and our money, so money we never collect in the first place (the incentive) is money we never get to use for our purposes.

GrandChelems is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-27-2012, 02:47 PM
  #71
bodybreak
We're Back!
 
bodybreak's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 1,268
vCash: 500
I always assumed (rightly or wrongly) that the parking lots that had been "recommended" back when MTS Centre first opened were just that because they had some kind of deal in place with TNSE. I figured that some $ from each parking spot must go to TNSE, but have nothing to back that up. It could be as simple as advertising $ in exchange for being "recommended." Not sure if the Jets / MTS Centre still do that. It was through the Moose web site that I found out about the 4 lots. Of those, I can only remember two: Millenium and Portage Place. The other two might have been Winnipeg Square and Cityplace.

bodybreak is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-27-2012, 03:29 PM
  #72
Grind
Stomacheache AllStar
 
Grind's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Manitoba
Posts: 4,140
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by GrandChelems View Post
Glendale anyone?
that would be the obvious one that comes to mind, but I really would like to see what happens for other teams. I'd think NHL teams in particular probably have some pretty "convenient" terms in their respective cities, especially those that own their arena.

I'm actually surprised their isn't any sort of study on this..

Grind 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 12:35 AM.

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.