HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > General Hockey Discussion > The Business of Hockey
Mobile Hockey's Future Become a Sponsor Site Rules Support Forum vBookie Page 2
The Business of Hockey Discuss the financial and business aspects of the NHL. Topics may include the CBA, work stoppages, broadcast contracts, franchise sales, and NHL revenues.

NHL to Expand 2 teams in Canada - THN

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
10-12-2012, 05:08 PM
  #326
Gump Hasek
Spleen Merchant
 
Gump Hasek's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: 222 Tudor Terrace
Posts: 7,780
vCash: 1500
Quote:
Originally Posted by KevFu View Post
And yet again, year-to-year profit and loss is meaningless to whether or not hockey "works" in these markets.

Tons of good markets have had long periods of losses in bad times (NYI, PIT, BUF, STL, DET, CHI)
A lot of teams in GOOD MARKETS have periods of losses in GOOD TIMES (Detroit spending $70 million on payroll before the cap, for example).
Tons of teams in "non-traditional markets" show consistent profit and have a nice population base. Hockey is "working" in Tampa, even if they have periods with losses.
Tons of teams show losses on purpose to hide revenue.
And most teams fluctuate between large profits and large losses.

And of course, accounting practices vary widely (depreciating the value of assets over time is an acceptable accounting practice; and it's frequently applied to PLAYERS as an accounting practice). This is why Forbes has estimates: To try and provide an estimate of each team using consistent accounting practices.

They listed Phoenix's losses at $9.7 million the year before the bankruptcy, and $24.1 million in 2011. How's the situation getting worse? Maybe the fact that PHX has lost 3,000 fans per game since Moyes declared bankruptcy. The debacle it's become has pissed off the fan base. Let's see who comes back when the team actually has an owner.

Not that I'm advocating the health of teams in PHX or wherever. Merely pointing out the flaw of that as a metric. Hockey works just fine in Long Island; they just need a new arena. So their 20 years of losses can't be used to say the market is a failure.
You claim year-to-year profit and loss to be meaningless; that flies fully in the face of the current reality however that sees a bunch of marginal US franchises forcing the locking out of their players in an effort to cut cost. You further refuse to admit that many of those markets are basically failures that only survive via the taxing of other conversely profitable locales.

You often essentially claim here that all will be well with increased revenue sharing. Geoff Molson, Rogers, Bell, etc are however also entitled to a fair rate of return on their massive recent purchases of the league's most profitable teams. I'm guessing the slight bump in revenue sharing represents the best the NHL have to offer on that front and believe that you likely grossly overestimate the desire of profitable teams to continue fronting failures in Columbus, Phoenix, Tampa, etc in perpetuity.

Gump Hasek is offline  
Old
10-12-2012, 05:27 PM
  #327
KevFu
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: New Orleans
Country: United States
Posts: 3,939
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gump Hasek View Post
You often essentially claim here that all will be well with increased revenue sharing. Geoff Molson, Rogers, Bell, etc are however also entitled to a fair rate of return on their massive recent purchases of the league's most profitable teams. I'm guessing the slight bump in revenue sharing represents the best the NHL have to offer on that front and believe that you likely grossly overestimate the desire of profitable teams to continue fronting failures in Columbus, Phoenix, Tampa, etc in perpetuity.
(Tampa. Seriously. We're talking about a team that outdrew the Leafs in 2006 as being a failure now?).

If those "failures" were in St. Louis, Pittsburgh, Edmonton and Ottawa, how willing would those owners be in continuing to front them? About as willing as the owners of MLB, NBA and NFL are to front their smaller markets?

Molson, Rogers and Bell (and Ilitch, Cablevision, Comcast, etc) are entitled to the privileges of owning an NHL franchise. No more, no less.

Why the sympathy for these guys? Why do you care about that at all? All those guys all billionaires and billionaire corporations. I give as much of a crap about their profits and losses as I do about what's orbiting Pluto right now. It's something I'll never see, so what's the point?

The traditional northern markets voted to add these franchises.
The traditional northern markets voted to add 4.5% of revenue sharing.
The traditional northern markets are probably going to vote to increase those numbers.

If they didn't own the team then, they knew these things existed when they bought the teams after the fact. Why is your devotion to billionaire corporations above your devotion to the game of hockey?

KevFu is offline  
Old
10-12-2012, 05:46 PM
  #328
Killion
Global Moderator
 
Killion's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Casablanca
Country: Morocco
Posts: 23,168
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by KevFu View Post
I don't think it would be the death of the Sabres. I do think it would hurt more than help.

I'd disagree on the "boon" part because
#1 - Buffalo doesn't need rivals. They have had TOR, MON, BOS as rivals for 40 years.
#2 - Buffalo is gate driven. Buffalo has sold 99.6% of their tickets for the last six years.
-- In a PHX to HAM scenario, Buffalo would have three games on the schedule against HAM instead of two vs ATL and one vs BOS. Well they sell out against BOS, and did vs WIN last year and ATL the year before that.
-- In an expansion, 4x8 scenario, they'd add 2 home dates vs HAM, 1 vs DET, and 12 vs the West to replace 1 each vs the entire Eastern Conference. So they'd be trading sellouts vs TOR and BOS for sellouts vs HAM.

#3 - What the Sabres actually need is corporate dollars. If they lost a sponsor to Hamilton, they'd see actual losses and no real substantial gains.
#1; a "rivalry" with Toronto promised by the league & Punch Imlach who for obvious reasons circa 1970 having been unceremoniously fired by the Leafs that but for 2 short blips over the past 42yrs has failed to materialize, and never will. Its beyond absurd to think that Toronto feels any kind of rivalry with the city of Buffalo on any level whatsoever.

#2; yes, Buffalo is gate driven to a large extent. Their claims that a team in Hamilton will damage them at the gate are absolutely ludicrous, have never been substantiated or proven despite being asked on numerous occasions over the last 25yrs to do so. Do they have fans in Hamilton, Saint Catherines, Kitchener-Waterloo, Guelph & Cambridge etc who might very very rarely make the trek across the border to watch the Leafs play the Sabres or any other number of their favourite teams play?

Sure, sporadically. Walk-ups. The odd STH, with the real group of Ontario based STH's living in or near Niagara Falls & Niagara on the Lake, and reputedly have a waiting list of 1000's in New York state proper. These wild claims of 15% Ontario based STH's have got to be proven, parsed by postal codes, then we'll see just what what with these ridiculous claims that you & others seem to like to parrot & trot out everytime the possibility of a team arriving in Hamilton's raised. Its posturing; propaganda. Im surprised youd buy into it KevFu.

#3; ahh, Hello? Different country. Entirely different market. Different local sponsors. Different broadcasters. Different rules. You have individual Team Sponsors, National Sponsors that are exclusive to either the United States or Canada, then another set that transcends borders with commercial interests in both countries, the NHL itself responsible for the marketing & signing of said sponsors at the National levels. The Sabres themselves, the brand & franchise has done absolutely nothing over 42yrs to "capture" the Southwestern Ontario region, which is where it would have to begin if they wanted to then rope-in Canadian sponsors to a US/CDN border team. As they have done nothing over 4 decades in that regard, again, a completely hollow argument lacking in critical thought that is easily shot full of holes.

There is no proof of performance, their actions (lack thereof) should tell you all you really need to know about the fiction that the Sabres would be goners with a team in the Hammer. Utter nonsense. The reverse, a "boon" for Pegula & Buffalo, not to mention the Leafs & a team in Markham should the brainiacs in charge ever wake up from their comas'. Somnambulist's passed out cold on the road to profits since 1985 when Copps opened its doors. Brilliant.

Killion is offline  
Old
10-12-2012, 06:19 PM
  #329
KevFu
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: New Orleans
Country: United States
Posts: 3,939
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gump Hasek View Post
You claim year-to-year profit and loss to be meaningless; that flies fully in the face of the current reality however that sees a bunch of marginal US franchises forcing the locking out of their players in an effort to cut cost. You further refuse to admit that many of those markets are basically failures that only survive via the taxing of other conversely profitable locales.
Because it IS meaningless.

Here's a little quiz. Guess the team and answer the question:
#1.
Team A has lost money every single year since 2002. Can their market sustain hockey?
Team B has lost money every single year since 2002. Can their market sustain hockey?
Team C has lost money every single year since 2002. Can their market sustain hockey?
Team D has lost money every single year since 2002. Can their market sustain hockey?

#2.
Team A lost money in a season when they won the Stanley Cup. Is that market a failure?
Team B lost money in a season when they won the Stanley Cup. Is that market a failure?
Team C lost money for six straight seasons, one of which they won a Cup. Is that market a failure?
Team D lose money for six straight seasons, one of which they won a Cup. Is that market a failure?

#3.
Team A was so broke, the league had to step in and help them sort out there mess. Is that market a failure?

#4.
Team A makes money half the time, loses money half the time. Attendance fluctuates wildly, but has won a cup recently. Is that a sustainable market or failure?
Team B makes money half the time, loses money half the time. Attendance fluctuates wildly, but has won a cup recently. Is that a sustainable market or failure?

#5.
Team A has had a brief period of financial issues, but over the long haul, has consistently won, sold out, and are among the top in revenue routinely. That market's a success, right?
Team B has had a brief period of financial issues, but over the long haul, has consistently won, sold out, and are among the top in revenue routinely. That market's a success, right?

KevFu is offline  
Old
10-12-2012, 06:46 PM
  #330
KevFu
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: New Orleans
Country: United States
Posts: 3,939
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Killion View Post
#1; a "rivalry" with Toronto promised by the league & Punch Imlach who for obvious reasons circa 1970 having been unceremoniously fired by the Leafs that but for 2 short blips over the past 42yrs has failed to materialize, and never will. Its beyond absurd to think that Toronto feels any kind of rivalry with the city of Buffalo on any level whatsoever.
Who cares how Toronto feels? We're talking about the people in Buffalo and what effects it has on them. The Sabres sell out games against all those teams. They aren't lacking a rival. It's not like the Islanders, who have an empty arena vs PHX and a full arena vs NYR. The Sabres sell 99.8% of their tickets.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Killion View Post
#2; yes, Buffalo is gate driven to a large extent. Their claims that a team in Hamilton will damage them at the gate are absolutely ludicrous, have never been substantiated or proven despite being asked on numerous occasions over the last 25yrs to do so. Do they have fans in Hamilton, Saint Catherines, Kitchener-Waterloo, Guelph & Cambridge etc who might very very rarely make the trek across the border to watch the Leafs play the Sabres or any other number of their favourite teams play?

Sure, sporadically. Walk-ups. The odd STH, with the real group of Ontario based STH's living in or near Niagara Falls & Niagara on the Lake, and reputedly have a waiting list of 1000's in New York state proper. These wild claims of 15% Ontario based STH's have got to be proven, parsed by postal codes, then we'll see just what what with these ridiculous claims that you & others seem to like to parrot & trot out everytime the possibility of a team arriving in Hamilton's raised. Its posturing; propaganda. Im surprised youd buy into it KevFu.
First, I didn't make any of those claims, the Sabres did. Second, I didn't buy into it.

The point here is: it doesn't matter if it's true or not, it doesn't help Buffalo at all in either case.

If it's true: 3 visits to Buffalo by their defectors to Hamilton doesn't offset the 38 times those defectors abandon their trips. That's a loss for Buffalo.

If it's false: 3 visits to Buffalo by NEW fans of Hamilton who weren't going to Sabres games before won't be able to get tickets because Buffalo's already selling out.

You can't have this argument both ways. It's impossible for this to be a ticket sale gain for Buffalo, because there's not room for them to sell more tickets. The games they don't sell out vs the games they do sell out aren't based on OPPONENT, they're based on DAY, DATE AND TIME of the game, which changes every single year.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Killion View Post
#3; ahh, Hello? Different country. Entirely different market. Different local sponsors. Different broadcasters. Different rules. You have individual Team Sponsors, National Sponsors that are exclusive to either the United States or Canada, then another set that transcends borders with commercial interests in both countries, the NHL itself responsible for the marketing & signing of said sponsors at the National levels. The Sabres themselves, the brand & franchise has done absolutely nothing over 42yrs to "capture" the Southwestern Ontario region, which is where it would have to begin if they wanted to then rope-in Canadian sponsors to a US/CDN border team. As they have done nothing over 4 decades in that regard, again, a completely hollow argument lacking in critical thought that is easily shot full of holes.
Did I miss the trade embargo between USA and Canada? Nothing prevents the (mostly tiny) companies that are Sabres Sponsors from spreading their budget out over both franchises in an effort to grow their business in Southern Ontario. Buffalo's corporate dollars are incredibly tiny compared to the rest of the league.

And that says nothing about the gap in revenues that continue to grow between the Sabres and NHL "haves." The financial situation is going to get worse for Buffalo regardless of Hamilton's existence as long as the Sabres revenues grow at a rate below that of the Toronto Maple Leafs, NY Rangers and others.

The question is "How much worse would it be with Hamilton, too."

Now, you know I advocate the financial health of all the teams with a new CBA. So you know I'm not arguing Hamilton would kill the Sabres. I'm arguing against the ludicrous claims that Hamilton would HELP the Sabres. That's impossible.

My personal opinion: Get Hamilton into the league and protect Buffalo with a joint RSN co-owned by the two teams (like the Orioles/Nationals arrangement). Then you have a rising tide raising all boats.

KevFu is offline  
Old
10-12-2012, 06:50 PM
  #331
DJ Omnimaga
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Québec City area
Posts: 209
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by KevFu View Post
à

They listed Phoenix's losses at $9.7 million the year before the bankruptcy, and $24.1 million in 2011. How's the situation getting worse? Maybe the fact that PHX has lost 3,000 fans per game since Moyes declared bankruptcy. The debacle it's become has pissed off the fan base. Let's see who comes back when the team actually has an owner. à
I thought they lost over $25 millions the year before the bankruptcy? (unless they went bankrupt the year before?)



Also while they lost $24.1 million in 2011, if they didn't receive the $25 million subsidy from Glendale they would have lost $49.1 millions. Even more if there was no revenue sharing.

DJ Omnimaga is offline  
Old
10-12-2012, 07:04 PM
  #332
KevFu
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: New Orleans
Country: United States
Posts: 3,939
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Killion View Post
^^^ c'mon Kev, names plz. S.P.E.L.L. I.T. O.U.T.
#1 - The Phoenix Coyotes have lost money since 2002, yes. Is there market sustainable? The vast majority say no.
But so have the NY Islanders, who's arena issues have nullified the fact that they are in an UNDISPUTED top three hockey market. (And the St. Louis Blues have lost money in 9 of 10 years, I drew it up to include them, but they had a tiny sliver over $1 mil profit in 2006).
#2 - You'd think this would be Tampa, Carolina, or Anaheim… but those are New Jersey, who's also in an UNDISPUTED top three hockey market. And Detroit, which - as the ice tells us - is HOCKEYTOWN.
#3 - Phoenix, duh. But also Buffalo! And with a loose definition, Pittsburgh, NY Islanders again and Ottawa!
#4 - This would describe CAR, ANA, TB… as well as COL and LA.
#5 - This would describe PIT, CHI, DET as one would expect, but also TB and DAL.

The point in all this is: The same "negative" description applies to both failing markets AND markets that have had plenty of financial success.

It's not an indicator that reveals anything. As a measure of success, it's a lot like using Time On Ice to determine the best player. The guy with most ice time might be the best player, but the best player could really get less time because he's on a deep team, and the TOI leader might just be a very good player who's just on a truly horrible team.

Like TOI isn't a good way to determine who's the best, annual profit/loss is a horrible way of determining who's in a good hockey market and who's not.

There IS no good measure. Profit/Loss, Revenue, Attendance, and even "Who Wants To Own a Team In _______?" has failed REPEATEDLY. Winnipeg isn't a failed market because no one stepped up to buy the Jets in 1997. Ditto Quebec.

KevFu is offline  
Old
10-12-2012, 07:10 PM
  #333
KevFu
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: New Orleans
Country: United States
Posts: 3,939
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by DJ Omnimaga View Post
I thought they lost over $25 millions the year before the bankruptcy? (unless they went bankrupt the year before?)



Also while they lost $24.1 million in 2011, if they didn't receive the $25 million subsidy from Glendale they would have lost $49.1 millions. Even more if there was no revenue sharing.
See: Accounting Practice discussion. Moyes gave $13 million of the Coyotes money to another company he owned to lease office space (from himself) when there was more than enough room in the brand new arena for everyone.

KevFu is offline  
Old
10-12-2012, 07:18 PM
  #334
powerstuck
User Registered
 
powerstuck's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Quebec City
Country: Serbia
Posts: 2,547
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by QuietCompany View Post
Gary Bettman does not seem to me like a guy who's gonna do these type of moves at once. The NHL would at the moment rather than dealing with the Phx situation just keep pushing it back because they're concetrated on CBA negotiations. So if there is a full yr lockout which doesn't get resolved till the summer like last time then I really doubt that Bettman will have the prep or time to move two separate teams to Canada or to expand 2 to Canada.

Also I'm a huge fan of having expansion and a large league but the NHL is just stupid if it wants to do this considering the other franchises being in distress. Their best bet now would be to relocate when the opportunity is there and not expand.

And also this was just lunch radio speculation.
I know this is from page one, but I honestly believe the league is managed by awesome monkeys who are bright enough to sell two new expansions while keep telling the rest of the world that everything is alright in Phoenix.

powerstuck is offline  
Old
10-12-2012, 07:23 PM
  #335
AHockeyGameBrokeOut*
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Colorado
Country: United States
Posts: 625
vCash: 500
This is actually old news. Quebec is getting a new arena and team in 2015. We knew that. Toronto is getting a second team by 2016 or 2017. We also knew that.

AHockeyGameBrokeOut* is offline  
Old
10-12-2012, 07:45 PM
  #336
Killion
Global Moderator
 
Killion's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Casablanca
Country: Morocco
Posts: 23,168
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by KevFu View Post
First, I didn't make any of those claims, the Sabres did. Second, I didn't buy into it. The point here is: it doesn't matter if it's true or not, it doesn't help Buffalo at all in either case.
... but you repeated them without qualification, unreservedly, so naturally anyone reading your post would assume that you did in fact believe it & had bought into the Sabres (and leagues) propaganda. A team in Hamilton would in fact provide a distinct & unique advantage to Buffalo & Toronto, a bridge between the two cities, a 3 way rivalry, 4 if you include Markham in the equation.

Thats money in the bank right there. 25yrs of neglect through obstinacy & billions spent elsewhere that the NHL, the Sabres & Leafs couldve capitalized on. This whole issue of "harm" I utterly reject & refute. Unfortunately you cant even argue it effectively because Buffalo's not about to come clean, open their books, show me, you & the rest of the World that 15% of their STH's live in the 4 or five postal code districts of Hamilton/Wentworth, Kitchener-Waterloo-Cambridge & Guelph. Its posturing, B***S***. Designed specifically to extort maximum indemnification from the Hammer.

Quote:
Originally Posted by KevFu View Post

#1 - The Phoenix Coyotes have lost money since 2002, yes. Is there market sustainable? The vast majority say no. But so have the NY Islanders, who's arena issues have nullified the fact that they are in an UNDISPUTED top three hockey market. (And the St. Louis Blues have lost money in 9 of 10 years, I drew it up to include them, but they had a tiny sliver over $1 mil profit in 2006).
... just a minute here. The New York Islanders are in an overcrowded market in terms of the number of NHL Franchises in the region, and even during their salad days and forgotten Dynasty years sandwiched in between the Habs' & Oilers were losing money hand over fist.

The only reason that franchise even exists was to block the WHA's efforts to enter the market. Charlie Wang is a piece of work. Never mind the Madness of Milbury, he brings in "yes man" and sycophant Garth Snow who couldnt find his butt with a map & both hands in the crease let alone as a General Manager. Completely dysfunctional situation, Drafts, Contracts, Line Selections etc all determined by Wangs' over-controlling hand, decision by Committee.

Im lost as to the rest of your rebuttals without checking the originals that I posted, which I will now do, unless youd like me to "stahp plz" (?) because really, Im just gettin warmed up. As for Phoenix, I believe your well aware of my position in support of that franchise and indeed all Southern teams, though theyve lost money since 96-97 (02?) and am perfectly willing to bear the slings & arrows fired at me by the many. Pretty much have to kill me if you want me to stop swinging on that one, including further Southern growth, a return to Atlanta.

As for St.Louis. What we have here in Missouri, since before the 67-68 Expansion is nothing short of one of the most hilarious Long-Con Games Ive ever witnessed. Norris owns the old decrepit St.Louis Arena; no owner applys for an Expansion Franchise but the city gets awarded one anyway. You cant make this stuff up. Everyone, from Ralston Purina to Towerbrook and Checketts, the Hulsizer, the whole frikin situation is beyond a panic of humour. I dont for one second believe in any number floated by the NHL nor by owners of that franchise for one second. Just makes me giggle quite frankly...

Killion is offline  
Old
10-12-2012, 08:15 PM
  #337
Confucius
Registered User
 
Confucius's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Toronto
Country: Canada
Posts: 9,824
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by KevFu View Post
For a long time, the NL and AL had different measure of attendance. One did paid, the other did turnstile.

Boston sold all their tickets. Who cares if they actually showed up? This is the BUSINESS forum, not the ATMOSPHERE forum (yes, I realize it's the "-- OF HOCKEY" forum, but comparing cross-league is pertinent to the discussion).



And yet again, year-to-year profit and loss is meaningless to whether or not hockey "works" in these markets.

Tons of good markets have had long periods of losses in bad times (NYI, PIT, BUF, STL, DET, CHI)
A lot of teams in GOOD MARKETS have periods of losses in GOOD TIMES (Detroit spending $70 million on payroll before the cap, for example).
Tons of teams in "non-traditional markets" show consistent profit and have a nice population base. Hockey is "working" in Tampa, even if they have periods with losses.
Tons of teams show losses on purpose to hide revenue.
And most teams fluctuate between large profits and large losses.

And of course, accounting practices vary widely (depreciating the value of assets over time is an acceptable accounting practice; and it's frequently applied to PLAYERS as an accounting practice). This is why Forbes has estimates: To try and provide an estimate of each team using consistent accounting practices.

They listed Phoenix's losses at $9.7 million the year before the bankruptcy, and $24.1 million in 2011. How's the situation getting worse? Maybe the fact that PHX has lost 3,000 fans per game since Moyes declared bankruptcy. The debacle it's become has pissed off the fan base. Let's see who comes back when the team actually has an owner.

Not that I'm advocating the health of teams in PHX or wherever. Merely pointing out the flaw of that as a metric. Hockey works just fine in Long Island; they just need a new arena. So their 20 years of losses can't be used to say the market is a failure.
There lies the problem,

Confucius is offline  
Old
10-12-2012, 08:20 PM
  #338
Kershaw
 
Kershaw's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Country:
Posts: 25,519
vCash: 500
Great news for the NHL.

Kershaw is offline  
Old
10-12-2012, 08:23 PM
  #339
KevFu
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: New Orleans
Country: United States
Posts: 3,939
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Killion View Post
... but you repeated them without qualification, unreservedly, so naturally anyone reading your post would assume that you did in fact believe it & had bought into the Sabres (and leagues) propaganda.
???? I said: #2 - Buffalo is gate driven. Buffalo has sold 99.6% of their tickets for the last six years.

Nothing about the loss of any ticket sales what so ever. You somehow inferred "No more room!" = "They'd lose ticket sales!"

Quote:
Originally Posted by Killion View Post
A team in Hamilton would in fact provide a distinct & unique advantage to Buffalo & Toronto, a bridge between the two cities, a 3 way rivalry, 4 if you include Markham in the equation.
You just said "Its beyond absurd to think that Toronto feels any kind of rivalry with the city of Buffalo on any level whatsoever." So adding Hamilton make Buffalo and Toronto rivals how?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Killion View Post
Thats money in the bank right there. 25yrs of neglect through obstinacy & billions spent elsewhere that the NHL, the Sabres & Leafs couldve capitalized on. This whole issue of "harm" I utterly reject & refute. Unfortunately you cant even argue it effectively because Buffalo's not about to come clean, open their books, show me, you & the rest of the World that 15% of their STH's live in the 4 or five postal code districts of Hamilton/Wentworth, Kitchener-Waterloo-Cambridge & Guelph. Its posturing, B***S***. Designed specifically to extort maximum indemnification from the Hammer.
Money in the bank from whom? More fans are going to show up in Buffalo because of Hamilton? Again, they sell 99.8% of their tickets. The unsold tickets are from the days on the calendar when it's not convenient; not based on opponent. Replacing a sell out with a sell out doesn't add more money. It's the same amount of money. That's not a gain.


You rejecting harm, calling it propaganda, calling BS and demanding proof is fine. You can be totally right on that issue. That's not what you and I are discussing (Well, I'm not. You keep bring it up).

Hamilton might not hurt the Sabres. They might not harm the Sabres. The financial ramifications should not prevent the establishment of a Hamilton franchise. These are claims that will get no argument from me.

"Hamilton actually HELPS the Sabres" however, that will get an argument. Because it's a load of crap. (It's no different than Buffalo's load of crap).

KevFu is offline  
Old
10-12-2012, 08:26 PM
  #340
Faidh ar Rud Eigin
Modhnóirí Claonta
 
Faidh ar Rud Eigin's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Transcendent
Country: Isle of Man
Posts: 16,656
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stix and Stones View Post
There lies the problem,
It's just buisiness, everyone does it.

Faidh ar Rud Eigin is online now  
Old
10-12-2012, 08:27 PM
  #341
Ringmaster316
Registered User
 
Ringmaster316's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: North Vancouver, BC
Country: Canada
Posts: 764
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by nogger View Post
I always lol when I hear about another team in Ontario, who would actually cheer for them?

Isn't everyone a TML or Sens fan?

thats what ppl said when Ottawa got a team...your either a leafs or habs fan lol

stupid people think that way

Ringmaster316 is offline  
Old
10-12-2012, 08:30 PM
  #342
KingJet*
Welcome Back
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Winnipeg
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,651
vCash: 500
Quebec and Hamilton? I think Saskatoon wouldn't be a bad idea instead of Hamilton, they have an MTS Centre style rink, and hardcore sports fans.

KingJet* is offline  
Old
10-12-2012, 08:34 PM
  #343
Gnashville
Never trade Weber
 
Gnashville's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Country: United States
Posts: 5,108
vCash: 500
LOL this thread
Canadian fans scream for years
"Canada deserves more teams it is our birthright!!!!" "Bettman hates Canada!!!!"
NHL plans to add 2 teams in Canada after relocation of one from the US
Canadian fans then say "WE don't want expansion!!!"
and then yell "We only want teams if it involves relocation of teams in locations we don't want" "It's our birthright to tell the NHL what to do and how to do it!!!!"

Quit whining if you get 2 more teams then be happy don't complain about other franchises!!!


Last edited by Gnashville: 10-12-2012 at 11:24 PM.
Gnashville is online now  
Old
10-12-2012, 08:39 PM
  #344
KevFu
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: New Orleans
Country: United States
Posts: 3,939
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Killion View Post
... just a minute here. The New York Islanders are in an overcrowded market in terms of the number of NHL Franchises in the region, and even during their salad days and forgotten Dynasty years sandwiched in between the Habs' & Oilers were losing money hand over fist. The only reason that franchise even exists was to block the WHA's efforts to enter the market. Charlie Wang is a piece of work. Never mind the Madness of Milbury, he brings in "yes man" and sycophant Garth Snow who couldnt find his butt with a map & both hands in the crease let alone as a General Manager. Completely dysfunctional situation, Drafts, Contracts, Line Selections etc all determined by Wangs' over-controlling hand, decision by Committee.
So we close up shop on the Rangers, because it's a "failed market"?

This is a difference between FRANCHISE and MARKET. If you'd like to say the Islanders franchise should be terminated because they suck so horribly, that's a fair assessment. As an Islanders fan, I'd disagree but be forced to concede on most of your points (I will now light myself on fire like a disgraced monk).

But their failures as a FRANCHISE do not condemn the MARKET. And the NY Rangers prove it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Killion View Post
Im lost as to the rest of your rebuttals without checking the originals that I posted, which I will now do, unless youd like me to "stahp plz" (?)
The hell is "stahp plz" ? I have no idea what you're referencing.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Killion View Post
because really, Im just gettin warmed up. As for Phoenix, I believe your well aware of my position in support of that franchise and indeed all Southern teams, though theyve lost money since 96-97 (02?) and am perfectly willing to bear the slings & arrows fired at me by the many. Pretty much have to kill me if you want me to stop swinging on that one, including further Southern growth, a return to Atlanta.
Yeah, I'm not sure why it's you and I who are arguing whatever it is we are arguing.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Killion View Post
As for St.Louis. What we have here in Missouri, since before the 67-68 Expansion is nothing short of one of the most hilarious Long-Con Games Ive ever witnessed. Norris owns the old decrepit St.Louis Arena; no owner applys for an Expansion Franchise but the city gets awarded one anyway. You cant make this stuff up. Everyone, from Ralston Purina to Towerbrook and Checketts, the Hulsizer, the whole frikin situation is beyond a panic of humour. I dont for one second believe in any number floated by the NHL nor by owners of that franchise for one second. Just makes me giggle quite frankly...
The whole point in all this was that annual profit/loss used as a MEASURE to determine what MARKETS are good and what MARKETS are bad is hideously flawed:

Using that measure of Phoenix would justify closing up the New York market forever and having zero teams there. That is crazy.
Using the measures that mark Florida, Tampa, Dallas, Nashville, Columbus, Carolina, Anaheim, as failures would justify closing the doors on the markets of Detroit, Edmonton, Pittsburgh, Chicago, Quebec, Winnipeg, Minnesota, Boston, etc, etc.

If every fact used to lobby for the relocation of southern and currently poor teams was applied to every team in the league, we'd have the Toronto Maple Leafs, the Montreal Canadiens, the Philadelphia Flyers and that's pretty much it.

No one is suggesting the history of the Blues, Islanders, Coyotes, Blue Jackets, aren't filled with clusterfudge. I'm suggesting that each clusterfudge needs to be examined on a fudge-by-fudge basis; and not condemn an entire market.

KevFu is offline  
Old
10-12-2012, 08:42 PM
  #345
Ogopogo*
 
Ogopogo*'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Edmonton
Country: Canada
Posts: 14,214
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by KingJet View Post
Quebec and Hamilton? I think Saskatoon wouldn't be a bad idea instead of Hamilton, they have an MTS Centre style rink, and hardcore sports fans.
Really? There is no way Saskatoon could sustain NHL hockey. 230,000 people is just not enough - 700,000 is the minimum you would want in a Canadian city. Double or triple that in the US.

Ogopogo* is offline  
Old
10-12-2012, 08:45 PM
  #346
PanthersHockey1
Bond.
 
PanthersHockey1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: UF & Boca Raton
Country: United States
Posts: 5,769
vCash: 500
yay now some fans can finally stop complaining about teams that have no relevance to them!

PanthersHockey1 is offline  
Old
10-12-2012, 08:54 PM
  #347
Killion
Global Moderator
 
Killion's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Casablanca
Country: Morocco
Posts: 23,168
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by KevFu View Post

A) You just said "Its beyond absurd to think that Toronto feels any kind of rivalry with the city of Buffalo on any level whatsoever." So adding Hamilton make Buffalo and Toronto rivals how?

B) Money in the bank from whom? More fans are going to show up in Buffalo because of Hamilton? Again, they sell 99.8% of their tickets.

C) Hamilton might not hurt the Sabres. They might not harm the Sabres. The financial ramifications should not prevent the establishment of a Hamilton franchise. These are claims that will get no argument from me.

"Hamilton actually HELPS the Sabres" however, that will get an argument. Because it's a load of crap. (It's no different than Buffalo's load of crap).
A) The one on one rivalry of two relatively close franchises in Buffalo & Toronto never took-off. Well do I remember Imlach talking to the press saying he couldnt wait to play the Leafs at the Gardens and embarrass them; that "our uniforms will be blue as well, only a lot sharper with gold trim" (note the Sabres socks for eg; the 3 stripes running the full length as per the Leafs) and so on & so forth.

Y'know Kev, Toronto doesnt suffer fools & the disgruntled gladly, certainly never considered Buffalo, of all places, a potential rival in any way, shape or form on any level, be it competing for business or industry, in sport be it baseball, hockey or whatever. Its like "over there". Over the border. Miles & miles away. Couldnt care less what they do. Its a mid-sized US market with which the city of Toronto shares nothing. But, BUT, you drop a team in Hamilton, that dynamic changes. With that bridge, easier to identify. Especially so if through realignment there grouped in the same Division. Savvy?

B) So, Buffalo sells 99.8% of their tickets already do they? Sounds pretty healthy to me. Now imagine a situation whereby Hamilton, Toronto & Markham visit 3X's or more per year per team driving the cost per ducat through the roof, Buffalo able to charge more. Follow?

C) No, they wont hurt Buffalo. They wont hurt the Sabres. On the contrary. They will help that franchise in addition to the Canadian, Great Lakes US, indeed, the rest of the league as right out of the box, money-making machines. Im not looking to drop teams into Markham & Hamilton at the expense of Phoenix, Sunrise or anywhere else. Im looking to consolidate the base, increase revenues exponentially through the birth of these franchises in order to maximize revenues through socialistic-capitalistic methodologies of revenue sharing, a portion of that old new-found money going towards the sponsorships of a full-on in your face type grass roots development programs in the South & Southwest. Rinks built, synthetic surfaces installed, leagues created, more talent.


Last edited by Killion: 10-12-2012 at 09:01 PM.
Killion is offline  
Old
10-12-2012, 10:00 PM
  #348
Alexdaman
Registered User
 
Alexdaman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Pominville, Qc
Country: Canada
Posts: 5,022
vCash: 50
Well one thing is certain Quebec will get a team sooner or later... The arena is under construction and the old colisée could still support a team for a short time. GTA does not have an arena so that would take longer. Seattle does not have any suitable NHL facility but an new arena is on its way.

Phoenix still is waiting for an owner and it seems clear now that the lock-out was the last blow the franchise could take, and unless the league and the players agree soon I believe the team will be sold to Quebec. Seattle being currently unable to host an NHL team.

Alexdaman is offline  
Old
10-12-2012, 10:54 PM
  #349
knorthern knight
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: GTA
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,178
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ogopogo View Post
How many do they get to Huskie football games?

The WHL is where NHL players are produced, just like the NCAA is for football. If they get 60,000 to Husky football games and 10,000 to Husky baskeball games while getting 4,000 for Thunderbirds hockey, it is very clear where the loyalties lie.

Hockey will get killed in Seattle.
The AHL is also where NHL players are produced, just like the NCAA is for football. If they get almost 26,000 to Blue Jays games and almost 17,000 to Raptors baskeball games while getting almost 5,500 for Marlies hockey, it is very clear where the loyalties lie.

Hockey will get killed in Toronto.

knorthern knight is offline  
Old
10-12-2012, 11:14 PM
  #350
mouser
Global Moderator
Business of Hockey
 
mouser's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: South Mountain
Posts: 12,173
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Habsfan18 View Post
Just got this issue of THN. It's an article by Adam Proteau and it quotes a "veteran player agent."
So essentially not the most credible source on league expansion plans.

mouser is offline  
Closed Thread

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 03:50 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.