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.

NYI & Barclays Center To Make Major Announcement (mod edit: NYI to Brooklyn in 2015)

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
10-24-2012, 08:53 PM
  #376
Le CH
Registered User
 
Le CH's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 1,242
vCash: 500
I'll admit to not knowing very much about the financial implications of the team moving to Brooklyn and that I'm probably seeing things too simplisticly but I can't help but think that the NHL is either moving sideways or maybe even taking a step backwards.

The leagues two most recent moves ( Winnipeg and NYI ) have NHL franchises playing in arena's that don't appear on the surface to be "big" league venues. They are most definitely improvements in term of context given where they were playing prior to the moves but these arena's are still quite small and comparable to arena's from the 80's in terms of seating. On the basis of optics, it appears that the league (i.e Bettman) has not been able to move the league forward due to poor management decisions.

The revenues have definitely improved but when compared to other major sports leagues I'm not sure the NHL is improving - I get the impression its falling behind. Neither MTS or Barclay's was built with the intention of housing an NHL franchise but have been granted franchises nonetheless because the other venues were so poorly capable of supporting a professional hockey team... not exactly a sign of good management on a league level.

This post isn't a diss on Winnipeg or Brooklyn ( both deserving of an NHL team ) but rather the fact that the NHL has been forced to accept moving a franchise in arena's that weren't suited for the NHL. The NHL comes across as flailing to remedy its lack of vision/management.

Le CH is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-24-2012, 08:54 PM
  #377
PWJunior
Beware the POOP!
 
PWJunior's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Watertown, MA
Country: United States
Posts: 13,450
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ogopogo View Post
Are they going to resurrect the name Brooklyn Americans? The unis were really cool back in the day.
I wouldn't be surprised to see a 'retro' night where they pay homage to the Americans by wearing the old jersey. Would be a smart marketing ploy. I forget who brought it up in the presser, but it shows they are aware of that history.

PWJunior is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-24-2012, 09:02 PM
  #378
YWGinYYZ
Global Moderator
Alien Hockey Wizard
 
YWGinYYZ's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Toronto
Country: Canada
Posts: 12,526
vCash: 200
Quote:
Originally Posted by Le CH View Post
(...)

The leagues two most recent moves ( Winnipeg and NYI ) have NHL franchises playing in arena's that don't appear on the surface to be "big" league venues. They are most definitely improvements in term of context given where they were playing prior to the moves but these arena's are still quite small and comparable to arena's from the 80's in terms of seating. On the basis of optics, it appears that the league (i.e Bettman) has not been able to move the league forward due to poor management decisions.

(...)
This might shed some light on the matter of arena size: http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/loc...123679284.html

If creating demand can work for the Jets, I don't see why it can't work for a much larger market.

YWGinYYZ is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
10-24-2012, 09:08 PM
  #379
KevFu
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: New Orleans
Country: United States
Posts: 3,888
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by htpwn View Post
I still don't understand why a team in a market of 22 million should get revenue sharing.
I think a revenue sharing system shouldn't exclude teams based on just ONE factor, when revenue is tied to a number of factors. Exclusions to revenue sharing should be based on "do you meet the ideal conditions for generating revenue? You do? Then don't piss off your fans and you'll have all the revenue you need. You ain't getting none from us."

But there's more to ideal conditions for generating revenue than "number of households in the market." That exclusion wasn't picked because 2 million households is the ideal economic climate for NHL teams. It was picked specifically to exclude Chicago, since their presence in the bottom of revenues was based on not selling their TV rights. The Islanders were collateral damage.

When the biggest market has teams #2, #15 and #30 in revenues all located in it, there's clearly not a very strong relation between market size and revenue.

If you look for what has the strongest correlation to revenues, the answer is simple: Do you own/operate a modern arena, or do you lease one? 14 of the top 17 revenue teams own and operate OR don't own, but were handed the keys to a free venue.

All of my proposals (as an Islanders fan) to revise the NHL's revenue sharing exclusions were to include any team leasing an arena over 35 years old. THAT'S why the Islanders need it.

And the second they move into Barclays, they should STOP getting it.

KevFu is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-24-2012, 09:10 PM
  #380
Le CH
Registered User
 
Le CH's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 1,242
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by YWGinYYZ View Post
This might shed some light on the matter of arena size: http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/loc...123679284.html

If creating demand can work for the Jets, I don't see why it can't work for a much larger market.
Maybe... but then alot of cities/franchises have wasted alot of $$$ building new arenas since the 90's - they should probably have only spent a fraction of the money to upgrade their existing venues.

Le CH is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-24-2012, 09:14 PM
  #381
LadyStanley
Elasmobranchology-go
 
LadyStanley's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: North of the Tank
Country: United States
Posts: 55,971
vCash: 500
drosennhl 11:15am via Twitter for iPhone Wang said they will share some business operations with the Nets but they will have a dedicated Islanders business staff.

LadyStanley is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-24-2012, 09:15 PM
  #382
Ogopogo*
 
Ogopogo*'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Edmonton
Country: Canada
Posts: 14,214
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by htpwn View Post
I still don't understand why a team in a market of 22 million should get revenue sharing.
Because revenue sharing isn't just something they do for a goof - it is to help teams that legitmately need assistance. It doesn't matter where a team is, revenue sharing it to help them survive.

Ogopogo* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-24-2012, 09:16 PM
  #383
YWGinYYZ
Global Moderator
Alien Hockey Wizard
 
YWGinYYZ's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Toronto
Country: Canada
Posts: 12,526
vCash: 200
Quote:
Originally Posted by Le CH View Post
Maybe... then alot of cities/franchises have wasted alot of $$$ building new arena's since the 90's - they should probably have only spent a fraction of the money to upgrade their existing venues.
I think it's more complex than that, and depends on the market. Being a fan of Le Canadiens, I'm sure you'd agree that they could add 2 to 3000 MORE seats in their arena, and that still wouldn't meet demand. If the Jets (or the Islanders, going forward) have demand that outstrips supply, then you're in a good spot keep prices on the high side of average and hopefully stay profitable.

Just my opinion, but I think that Barclays could work really well for the Islanders if handled correctly.

YWGinYYZ is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
10-24-2012, 09:22 PM
  #384
Saintpatrick
Registered User
 
Saintpatrick's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Montreal
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,456
vCash: 500
Don't think it matters where they move that organization as long as Wang is the owner that once great organization will still be bottom feeders.

Saintpatrick is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-24-2012, 09:31 PM
  #385
CHRDANHUTCH
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Auburn, Maine
Country: United States
Posts: 14,853
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to CHRDANHUTCH Send a message via MSN to CHRDANHUTCH Send a message via Yahoo to CHRDANHUTCH
Quote:
Originally Posted by Killion View Post
... its an absolute classic, beautifully designed. Washington tried to some extent to replicate it, as did Rochester of the AHL (and did a decent job of it) but that "Brooklyn" or even "New York" Americans is one Hell of a piece of fashion genius. Timeless. Bring it on I say.



... HUTCH, your going to have to translate this here post cuz I have no idea what point you are trying to make or what it is that Im "missing"?. I dont follow the NBA, not a BB fan at all, only reading shots in the press by members of the media & the Nets fan base targeting Brett Yormark... who's Twin Brother as you know is employed by the Florida Panthers in a similar capacity. Doing a Hell of a job btw. Papering the joint with sponsors. What are you saying, suggesting?

Killion:
LI LI
if u did some research, you'd know by now that even the NY Americans put a spell on the Rangers, as they were the original team @ MSG,AS THE Rangers weren't in existence until 1926-27, player shortages ended as did WW II halted the franchise in mismanagement, the NHL elected to not bring them back,and may have been the basis for the Islanders chant of 1940, which is why these two franchises have been rivals since '72, Red Dutton proclaimed the following:"The Rangers will never win a Stanley Cup in my lifetime", WHICH was true after the folding in '42....

as for the Nets, they began as the NY Americans, however, the Knicks blocked their initial attempt, as the NY Americans in the 69th Regiment Armory,they settled n Teanneck, NJ, 1 GM then was moved to LI Arena (Commack, NY); THT gm was forfeited to the Americans 2-0, as the Kentucky Colonels deemed that arena unsafe... the Nets nickname has been seen since 1968... the late Roy Boe bought team, and drafted Lew Alcindor(aka Kareem Abdul Jabbar), but he went to Milwaukee, then moved to the Island Garden(Hempstead, LI), ADDED Rick Barry in 1970, Erving arrived in '73 until the end of the ABA in '76.....

the Nets then were forced to pay 4.8 M to reenter the Knicks territory, Erving was shipped to Philly, to keep the Nets in NY,IN ESSENCE, IT was '77-78, and the 35 year streak w/ NJ Began, after a brief lawsuit that claimed NJ as Knicks territory, 1st, @ the Meadowlands, then the remaining time @ Prudential, coinciding w/this yr's opening @ Barclay's, ironically, against the Knicks (11/01)

CHRDANHUTCH is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-24-2012, 09:44 PM
  #386
Le CH
Registered User
 
Le CH's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 1,242
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by YWGinYYZ View Post
I think it's more complex than that, and depends on the market. Being a fan of Le Canadiens, I'm sure you'd agree that they could add 2 to 3000 MORE seats in their arena, and that still wouldn't meet demand. If the Jets (or the Islanders, going forward) have demand that outstrips supply, then you're in a good spot keep prices on the high side of average and hopefully stay profitable.

Just my opinion, but I think that Barclays could work really well for the Islanders if handled correctly.
I don't doubt that Barclays will/should do well for the Islanders its just that the optics of moving franchises to smaller venues when the other professional leagues are moving to larger arenas/stadiums doesn't give the impression that the NHL is growing vs other professional leagues in NA.

Anyways, its just my perception... probably an improvement for the NHL but just seems that the league isn't as well managed as the other professional NA leagues in terms of growing the brand.

Le CH is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-24-2012, 09:47 PM
  #387
Reed Solomon
GO ✈'s GO
 
Reed Solomon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Winnipeg, Man.
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,060
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tom Servo View Post
People complaining about seating capacity need to realize that the Islanders have one of the largest TV contracts in the league something Winnipeg doesn't have.
Are you seriously trying to imply that Winnipeg doesn't have a lucrative TV contract?

cause http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/spo...128867603.html

While the Islanders have a pretty great TV Contract, Winnipeg's TV contract with TSN is not too shabby either. I wonder which gets better ratings even. Remember, CBC pays $100 million a year for hockey to a population less than the state of California. NBC pays $200 million for the entire USA.

Anyways, either way, congrats to the Islanders. I really think Brooklyn Islanders doesn't sound that bad either. It also has the benefit of having the letter Y in there so that the logo doesn't have to change too much.

Reed Solomon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-24-2012, 09:50 PM
  #388
YWGinYYZ
Global Moderator
Alien Hockey Wizard
 
YWGinYYZ's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Toronto
Country: Canada
Posts: 12,526
vCash: 200
Quote:
Originally Posted by Le CH View Post
I don't doubt that Barclays will/should do well for the Islanders its just that the optics of moving franchises to smaller venues when the other professional leagues are moving to larger arenas/stadiums doesn't give the impression that the NHL is growing vs other professional leagues in NA.

Anyways, its just my perception... probably an improvement for the NHL but just seems that the league isn't as well managed as the other professional NA leagues in terms of growing the brand.
This is getting OT, but seating capacity is actually shrinking in the MLB, for example:



If Barclays can seat 14,500, and demand is there for 17,000, prices can be raised, and there will always be demand. If seating were 18,000 and demand were 17K, prices will inevitably drop, as supply exceeds demand. I really do think it can work, especially with the other modern amenities (skyboxes, etc) in that facility.

Just MO.

YWGinYYZ is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
10-24-2012, 09:57 PM
  #389
Le CH
Registered User
 
Le CH's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 1,242
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by YWGinYYZ View Post
This is getting OT, but seating capacity is actually shrinking in the MLB, for example:



If Barclays can seat 14,500, and demand is there for 17,000, prices can be raised, and there will always be demand. If seating were 18,000 and demand were 17K, prices will inevitably drop, as supply exceeds demand. I really do think it can work, especially with the other modern amenities (skyboxes, etc) in that facility.

Just MO.
Thats interesting... how about NFL, NBA? Maybe its a general trend for NA professional sports.

Le CH is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-24-2012, 10:17 PM
  #390
saskganesh
Registered User
 
saskganesh's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: the Annex
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,047
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Reed Solomon View Post
Are you seriously trying to imply that Winnipeg doesn't have a lucrative TV contract?

cause http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/spo...128867603.html

While the Islanders have a pretty great TV Contract, Winnipeg's TV contract with TSN is not too shabby either. I wonder which gets better ratings even. Remember, CBC pays $100 million a year for hockey to a population less than the state of California. NBC pays $200 million for the entire USA.
? The value of the TSN/Jets deal is undisclosed, but it's not near $20 million a year.

saskganesh is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-24-2012, 10:18 PM
  #391
Reed Solomon
GO ✈'s GO
 
Reed Solomon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Winnipeg, Man.
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,060
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Le CH View Post
Thats interesting... how about NFL, NBA? Maybe its a general trend for NA professional sports.
past a certain point, the cheap seats aren't very economical. one, often they're so far away you can't really see much and can't charge much for them, two, if they're unfilled then there is less demand for the more costly seats, three, costs more to maintain so you might not even be breaking even having to service those upper deck areas.. four, less seats means more people watching TV, and with HD and all that nowadays, some people prefer to just pay for the NHL or whatever package than go out.

Winnipeg has barely over 15K seats, but all of those seats have an excellent view of the ice (I've sat in all of the various sections), and are all expensive (Though really, nobody in Winnipeg finds the prices unreasonable).

Reed Solomon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-24-2012, 10:22 PM
  #392
Reed Solomon
GO ✈'s GO
 
Reed Solomon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Winnipeg, Man.
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,060
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by saskganesh View Post
? The value of the TSN/Jets deal is undisclosed, but it's not near $20 million a year.
We don't know. It's in the something millions anyways. Probably not $20 million, but the previous poster made it sound as if Winnipeg didn't even have a TV contract which was obviously incorrect. TSN is probably getting good value out of it though.

Reed Solomon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-24-2012, 10:37 PM
  #393
cptjeff
[insert joke here]
 
cptjeff's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Washington, DC.
Country: United States
Posts: 8,489
vCash: 501
Quote:
Originally Posted by YWGinYYZ View Post
This might shed some light on the matter of arena size: http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/loc...123679284.html

If creating demand can work for the Jets, I don't see why it can't work for a much larger market.
Quote:
Maybe... but then alot of cities/franchises have wasted alot of $$$ building new arenas since the 90's - they should probably have only spent a fraction of the money to upgrade their existing venues.
It's not about creating demand. It's about the fact that they'll be able to charge out the wazoo for suites and premier options- New York is a huge corporate center, and all of their sports teams benefit from that. Moving closer to the city itself should allow them to get a larger chunk of that money, and it helps to have the suites actually be a premium option rather than crappy little boxes shoved up at the top.

It's very possible this will stimulate demand, but the reason NVMC was such a problem for the islanders was their complete inability to reap any benefit from the revenue streams every other NHL team can enjoy. New arenas aren't just about creating a nice environment for the fans, they're about pampering sponsors.

cptjeff is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-24-2012, 10:48 PM
  #394
KevFu
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: New Orleans
Country: United States
Posts: 3,888
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Reed Solomon View Post
Are you seriously trying to imply that Winnipeg doesn't have a lucrative TV contract?

cause http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/spo...128867603.html

While the Islanders have a pretty great TV Contract, Winnipeg's TV contract with TSN is not too shabby either. I wonder which gets better ratings even. Remember, CBC pays $100 million a year for hockey to a population less than the state of California. NBC pays $200 million for the entire USA.
I don't think he was implying anything negative about the Jets and their TV deal. All teams get their cut of the national TV deals, but the Islanders TV contract is straight up absurd money. (for the level of their franchise).

You bring up "who gets better ratings" and that illustrates the point: The Islanders have been a crappy team for two decades and two years ago had a bigger TV deal than THE LOS ANGELES LAKERS. Here's the story:

Cablevision owns MSG Network (and the Rangers, Knicks and MSG the arena), and they have heavy competition as a cable provider in the NY area, especially on Long Island. So Cablevision bought SportsChannel to get the Islanders TV rights and have leverage over the other cable companies in carrying MSG and for customers picking their cable provider.

However, the Islanders had been with SportsChannel since the company was formed and their contract included an option for the Islanders to take 18.5% of the networks' revenues. MSG had to buy out that clause. And it cost them a ton.

Your link about the Jets TV deal doesn't give dollars, it just says it's worth "millions" to the Jets.

The Canadiens deal was worth $20 million a few years ago. Charles Wang paid $115 million just to GET THE TV CHECKS FROM MSG. The TEAM only cost him $75 million!

No one even knows the exact total of the Islanders TV deal except James Dolan and Charles Wang. All that was released was a starting number, a middle number and a final number. The LOW-END estimate is $333 million (that's assuming NYI gets the starting number UNTIL the middle number kicks in, then the middle number UNTIL the end number). A high-end estimate if the contract escalates gradually from one number to the next is in the $480 to $600 million range.

So there's no disrespect to the Jets to say "You don't have the lucrative TV deal the Islanders have."

The Leafs and Red Wings are probably the only team that have a larger TV deal (there's no sense for teams like NYR or PHI, who are owned by TV companies to pay "themselves" high rights fees, which count as HRR. The LA Dodgers have a $2 billion TV deal, paying them $100 million a season; the NY Mets owner owns a $1 billion TV NETWORK and gives "the Mets" $60 million a season).

The Canadiens and Islanders deals are about the same. The Canadiens -- 24 time Cup champs, and only major pro sports team in the market that loves hockey and the Habs more than anything -- have the same TV revenue as the Islanders, who are 8th most popular team in their market at best, in the #4 sport in the fans minds. That is silly money for the Islanders.

KevFu is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-24-2012, 10:59 PM
  #395
Islander102
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 1,247
vCash: 500
The thing about Barclays that people need to realize, is that while the hockey capacity is low (due to the bball configuration) the arena is still in the upper tier of the NHL in terms of suites, club seats, and amenities. Barclays Center has 104 suites, which is more than nearly any building in the league, outside of the real marquee teams, over 3,000 club seats, and a slew of clubs, restaurants, bars, stores ETC. And none of the suites or club seats were put on the end of the arena that will need to be retracted because of the basketball configuration.

So while capacity wise, Barclays center lines up with the smallest arenas in the league, in terms of big money amenities that really drive a franchise, it ranks on the same level as arenas like the ACC, Wells Fargo, TD Garden and post-renovation MSG. So where it really matters in terms of franchise viability, Barclays is absolutely a "big-time" arena.

In contrast to the MTS centre, which Barclays gets most compared to as a hockey venue;
MTS centre has 48 suites to Barclays Center's 104, and approx 1/3 of Barclay's Center's club seat total.

Islander102 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-24-2012, 11:33 PM
  #396
peter sullivan
Winnipeg
 
peter sullivan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 2,273
vCash: 500
so, the NHL will have three teams within a 13 mile radius, but a second team in toronto is not feasible.

peter sullivan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-24-2012, 11:38 PM
  #397
Brodie
watcher on the walls
 
Brodie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Michigan
Country: United Kingdom
Posts: 12,163
vCash: 500
This is huge for sponsorship purposes. If the Isles move draws even a fraction of the interest that the Nets move has then the league got a major win regardless of what the seating chart looks like. I've said it before, but I want to see billboards of Tavares in thick rimmed glasses and a scarf on Broadway.

re: logos and uniforms... obviously they need to change the map. Otherwise, I'd just add a shoulder patch that says BKLYN and call it a day.


Last edited by Brodie: 10-24-2012 at 11:43 PM.
Brodie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-24-2012, 11:59 PM
  #398
JetsFlyHigh
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Country: Canada
Posts: 683
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Islander102 View Post
The thing about Barclays that people need to realize, is that while the hockey capacity is low (due to the bball configuration) the arena is still in the upper tier of the NHL in terms of suites, club seats, and amenities. Barclays Center has 104 suites, which is more than nearly any building in the league, outside of the real marquee teams, over 3,000 club seats, and a slew of clubs, restaurants, bars, stores ETC. And none of the suites or club seats were put on the end of the arena that will need to be retracted because of the basketball configuration.

So while capacity wise, Barclays center lines up with the smallest arenas in the league, in terms of big money amenities that really drive a franchise, it ranks on the same level as arenas like the ACC, Wells Fargo, TD Garden and post-renovation MSG. So where it really matters in terms of franchise viability, Barclays is absolutely a "big-time" arena.

In contrast to the MTS centre, which Barclays gets most compared to as a hockey venue;
MTS centre has 48 suites to Barclays Center's 104, and approx 1/3 of Barclay's Center's club seat total
.
Atmosphere and home ice advantage tho.. Well thats all we have.

JetsFlyHigh is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-25-2012, 12:06 AM
  #399
Brooklyn Ranger
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Brooklyn, of course
Posts: 7,764
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by LEAFS FAN 4 EVER View Post
Brooklyn is a suburb of New York City just like Markham is a suburb of Toronto. So if Brooklyn can support the Islanders and the NHL is allowing this move, it might give some people the idea that the same thing could work in Markham.
Brooklyn is not a suburb--it's one of the 5 counties that make up New York City. The population of Brooklyn is close to 2.5 million people--which, if I'm not mistaken, is not fair away from the total population of the City of Toronto (not counting the suburbs of course).

Brooklyn Ranger is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-25-2012, 12:10 AM
  #400
JetsFlyHigh
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Country: Canada
Posts: 683
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by YWGinYYZ View Post
This might shed some light on the matter of arena size: http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/loc...123679284.html

If creating demand can work for the Jets, I don't see why it can't work for a much larger market.
That article makes sense. If the NYI become a better team, that would sell out more than NJD will, or even the Rangers. Its perfect for the size of the HOCKEY market, and we're not talking about the population in general.

JetsFlyHigh 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 04:16 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.