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, NHL revenues, relocation and expansion.

Ville de Québec Part VII: Si J'avais les ailes d'un ange

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
11-06-2012, 02:28 PM
  #126
powerstuck
User Registered
 
powerstuck's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Quebec City
Country: Serbia
Posts: 2,863
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by CerebralGenesis View Post
Move Phoenix to Seattle

Expand to QBC and Houston. Donezo
I don't know how much can I trust Gary to promise us an expansion team.

Seems to me he said that since the ''Winnipeg mistake'' has been corrected, next one would be Quebec. That one is still go come. I honestly would like to see Quebec be the next option for NHL, if there is a relo, then move a team to Qc, if it's expansion, expand to Quebec. But move a team to elsewhere and expand later to Qc...that still puts us behind, very very behind.

powerstuck is offline  
Old
11-06-2012, 02:43 PM
  #127
sipowicz
The Original
 
sipowicz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Winnipeg
Country: Canada
Posts: 8,179
vCash: 50
Only little Gary's ego seems to be holding back the move of the floundering Coyotes to the best open hockey market in North America: Quebec City, PQ

sipowicz is offline  
Old
11-06-2012, 02:48 PM
  #128
CerebralGenesis
Registered User
 
CerebralGenesis's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 24,015
vCash: 500
If they follow through with their 32 team plan they have to do one or the other. And I am proposing PHX to Seattle because it fits the alignment a lot easier than another team out east. I wasn't aware Gary made a promise or owed QBC the next team, although I could be mistaken.

CerebralGenesis is offline  
Old
11-06-2012, 03:01 PM
  #129
powerstuck
User Registered
 
powerstuck's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Quebec City
Country: Serbia
Posts: 2,863
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by CerebralGenesis View Post
If they follow through with their 32 team plan they have to do one or the other. And I am proposing PHX to Seattle because it fits the alignment a lot easier than another team out east. I wasn't aware Gary made a promise or owed QBC the next team, although I could be mistaken.
The fact is, when and if the expansion becomes a reality, you will probably have 4-5 candidates (NHL would like it that way anyway) and only 2 open teams.

Tho, I don't think Phoenix to Seattle settles alignment issues. Winnipeg is still 400 miles further away from Montreal than is Chicago, who is a Western Conference team.

powerstuck is offline  
Old
11-06-2012, 03:29 PM
  #130
Puckschmuck*
Doan Shall Be Boo'ed
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Winnipeg
Country: Canada
Posts: 5,937
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by powerstuck View Post
Winnipeg is still 400 miles further away from Montreal than is Chicago, who is a Western Conference team.
Sorry to nitpick, but Winnipeg and Montreal are basically the same distance from Chicago; a 12 hour drive.

Puckschmuck* is offline  
Old
11-06-2012, 03:58 PM
  #131
No Fun Shogun
Global Moderator
34-38-61-10-13-15
 
No Fun Shogun's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Shogunate of Nofunia
Country: Fiji
Posts: 35,161
vCash: 5113
Quote:
Originally Posted by CerebralGenesis View Post
If they follow through with their 32 team plan they have to do one or the other. And I am proposing PHX to Seattle because it fits the alignment a lot easier than another team out east. I wasn't aware Gary made a promise or owed QBC the next team, although I could be mistaken.
For all the legitimate criticisms about the proposed realignment that the league suggested earlier in the year, one of its main strengths was how incredibly easy it would be for future realignments in the event of a relocation or expansion.

Phoenix moves to Quebec City? No problem, the Northeast & Florida Division gets 8 teams and the Pacific shrinks to 7.

That happens and the NHL expands by two.... to Seattle and Houston? No biggie, Seattle to the Pacific, Houston to the Central, and Columbus to the Atlantic.

Or expand to Seattle and Portland if Paul Allen wants in? Again, not a big deal. Seattle and Portland to the Pacific, Colorado to the Central, and Columbus still to the Atlantic.

Pretty much the only model that was remotely tricky would've been if the eastern time zone picked up two teams in any way, and I'm not seeing any Eastern U.S. markets being anywhere near likely to get a team and opposition from the Leafs and possibly the Sabres strong enough to prevent a move to Markham or Hamilton anyway for the foreseeable future.

No Fun Shogun is offline  
Old
11-06-2012, 04:59 PM
  #132
rojac
HFBoards Sponsor
 
rojac's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Waterloo, ON
Posts: 7,551
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Puckschmuck View Post
Sorry to nitpick, but Winnipeg and Montreal are basically the same distance from Chicago; a 12 hour drive.
But that isn't what he said. He was saying that Winnipeg to Montreal was 400 miles further than Chicago to Montreal.

rojac is offline  
Old
11-06-2012, 05:12 PM
  #133
DyerMaker66
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 7,246
vCash: 425
Quote:
Originally Posted by rojac View Post
But that isn't what he said. He was saying that Winnipeg to Montreal was 400 miles further than Chicago to Montreal.
I misread that as well.

DyerMaker66 is offline  
Old
11-06-2012, 06:23 PM
  #134
powerstuck
User Registered
 
powerstuck's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Quebec City
Country: Serbia
Posts: 2,863
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Puckschmuck View Post
Sorry to nitpick, but Winnipeg and Montreal are basically the same distance from Chicago; a 12 hour drive.
Well, a quick Google Maps distance Montréal, QC to Winnipeg, MB says : 2 270 km, 27 h

And Montréal, QC to Chicago, Illinois : 1 368 km, 14 h 47 min

Also, in my original post I was speaking by aerial transportation, thus much less miles to travel (Teams use planes as much as know anyway).

Quote:
Originally Posted by rojac View Post
But that isn't what he said. He was saying that Winnipeg to Montreal was 400 miles further than Chicago to Montreal.
And yes, Chicago is actually 746 miles (1200 km) (by air) from Montreal and Winnipeg is 1133 miles (1825 km) from the same Montreal. I rounded it up, by no matter how you look at it, the flight from Montreal to Winnipeg will be roughly 400 miles longer than to Chicago.


Last edited by powerstuck: 11-06-2012 at 06:28 PM.
powerstuck is offline  
Old
11-06-2012, 08:13 PM
  #135
Kimota
Three Bananas
 
Kimota's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: La Vieille Capitale
Country: France
Posts: 23,022
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Buck Aki Berg View Post
...but determining the shortlist of relocation candidates based solely on latitude is smart?
Whatever make you sleep at night, champ!

Kimota is offline  
Old
11-06-2012, 08:17 PM
  #136
Kimota
Three Bananas
 
Kimota's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: La Vieille Capitale
Country: France
Posts: 23,022
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dojji View Post
Moving into Houston MAKES the league more healthy than it is now, especially if it's a struggling team moving. And if a Houston rival increases fan interest in Dallas as I think it might it improves it even more.

You seem to have this prejudice that a team in Houston would be some kind of charity case. Not unless it's HORRIBLY mismanaged. That is a major league market, and I have no doubt at all it could pull its weight in a bad year.
But the southern market is struggling as Hell as far as hockey and you want to move another team there? Dallas is not mismanaged and nobody goes to the games!

Kimota is offline  
Old
11-06-2012, 08:19 PM
  #137
Kimota
Three Bananas
 
Kimota's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: La Vieille Capitale
Country: France
Posts: 23,022
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Acesolid View Post
I agree that a team in Houston would be great. It's a good sports market.

BUT, there is no interrested owner! That's the problem!

What the NHL team needs is:

-A good enough market

-A good arena

-A GREAT owner the other owners want to do business with and play golf with and etc....

That's why Balsilie failed.
And while it's a good sports market, it may not be a good hockey market.

Kimota is offline  
Old
11-06-2012, 08:38 PM
  #138
KevFu
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: New Orleans
Country: United States
Posts: 4,459
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by powerstuck View Post
I don't know how much can I trust Gary to promise us an expansion team.

Seems to me he said that since the ''Winnipeg mistake'' has been corrected, next one would be Quebec. That one is still go come. I honestly would like to see Quebec be the next option for NHL, if there is a relo, then move a team to Qc, if it's expansion, expand to Quebec. But move a team to elsewhere and expand later to Qc...that still puts us behind, very very behind.
I think Bettman is totally on board with that logic. BTW, look at the four expansion markets Bettman presided over, and the ATL/WIN situation (he had nothing to do with):
Minnesota - Wild to replace the lost North Stars.
Atlanta - Thrashers to replace the lost Flames.
Columbus - Blue Jackets, since the Whalers did not move there, even though it appeared likely.
Nashville - Predators, since the Devils did not move there, even though it appeared likely.

That bodes well for Quebec. When the PHX Bankruptcy happened, he said "if they go anywhere it should be Winnipeg." One of the execs for the NHL (a WIN native) said that the QUE, WIN, HART, MIN relocations were a huge regret for Bettman. I think you can trust him to deliver on an expansion team… if the arena gets built. That's the common denominator.

Quote:
Originally Posted by sipowicz View Post
Only little Gary's ego seems to be holding back the move of the floundering Coyotes to the best open hockey market in North America: Quebec City, PQ
That has nothing to do with his ego. It has everything to do with league by-laws (maintaining power) and the FUTURE ARENA EFFORTS for the league.

Look at what Bettman has fought for:
-- Getting free buildings for the owner (QUE, HART, MIN, WIN; ATL, NASH, CBJ, MIN; PIT, NYI.
-- Threatening to, but not wanting teams to relocate (PIT, NYI, NASH, PHX) to get those arenas built.
-- League control of their by-laws in PHX.
-- Preserving the concept of "If you build it, they will come."

EDM and CAL are next. Don't be surprised when there's a "Well, our first choice is to keep the Oilers/Flames in Edmonton/Calgary, but they need a new venue" quote. But the most important part of this is "If you build it, they will come." It's in the best interest of his owners.

The best way to get cities to keep ponying up for taxpayer-funded arenas? Don't let a city that built one lose their team.
Atlanta was free to move to Winnipeg because it was the building's owner who didn't want the team.
Phoenix was not free to move to Hamilton because it threw a monkey wrench into the league's ability to control sales and get other markets future arenas at the taxpayer expense.

Whether or not it appears this way, the fight to keep the Coyotes in Phoenix ABSOLUTELY helps the efforts of Quebec getting a team. There's no way cities build arenas if the NHL has a reputation of letting teams waltz out of 10-year old arenas.

You build it, you've got the team for the 30-year lease. Once that lease is up? We go back to "our first choice is to keep the ______ in _______, but the city has to step up."

That's not ego. That's protecting the owner's interests.

KevFu is offline  
Old
11-06-2012, 08:50 PM
  #139
KevFu
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: New Orleans
Country: United States
Posts: 4,459
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kimota View Post
But the southern market is struggling as Hell as far as hockey and you want to move another team there? Dallas is not mismanaged and nobody goes to the games!
?

Dallas was not mismanaged… for 16 years.

First 16 years: 98.3% of their tickets sold
Last 4 years: 86.6% of their tickets sold

First 16 years: Top 10 in revenues most years, Valued by Forbes as the #4 franchise in the sport in 2006.
Last 4 years: $18 million decline in revenue, $43 million decline in franchise value, down to #12 now.

Everything in Dallas was rock-steady and peachy until 2009. What happened in 2009?
Tom Hicks bought Liverpool. Spread himself too thin, and all the debt he leveraged came due. Hicks’s company defaulted on $525-million in bank loans backed by the Stars and a 50-percent interest in the American Airlines Center. Both the Stars and the Texas Rangers (which he also owned) were put into bankruptcy.

That's some pretty big mismanagement.

KevFu is offline  
Old
11-06-2012, 09:09 PM
  #140
blues10
Registered User
 
blues10's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Canada
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,667
vCash: 500
I posted this in a jersey thread elsewhere but I am the proud new owner of a used Nords jersey. Time will tell how this plays out.




blues10 is offline  
Old
11-06-2012, 10:12 PM
  #141
Stanley Cup
Bettman's ice bucket
 
Stanley Cup's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Quebec City
Country: Martinique
Posts: 2,220
vCash: 50
Minou 69 LOL

Stanley Cup is online now  
Old
11-07-2012, 07:27 AM
  #142
powerstuck
User Registered
 
powerstuck's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Quebec City
Country: Serbia
Posts: 2,863
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by blues10 View Post
I posted this in a jersey thread elsewhere but I am the proud new owner of a used Nords jersey. Time will tell how this plays out.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stanley Cup View Post
Minou 69 LOL
Guess who wore it before :


powerstuck is offline  
Old
11-07-2012, 11:11 AM
  #143
No Fun Shogun
Global Moderator
34-38-61-10-13-15
 
No Fun Shogun's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Shogunate of Nofunia
Country: Fiji
Posts: 35,161
vCash: 5113
Quote:
Originally Posted by KevFu View Post
?

Dallas was not mismanaged… for 16 years.

First 16 years: 98.3% of their tickets sold
Last 4 years: 86.6% of their tickets sold

First 16 years: Top 10 in revenues most years, Valued by Forbes as the #4 franchise in the sport in 2006.
Last 4 years: $18 million decline in revenue, $43 million decline in franchise value, down to #12 now.

Everything in Dallas was rock-steady and peachy until 2009. What happened in 2009?
Tom Hicks bought Liverpool. Spread himself too thin, and all the debt he leveraged came due. Hicks’s company defaulted on $525-million in bank loans backed by the Stars and a 50-percent interest in the American Airlines Center. Both the Stars and the Texas Rangers (which he also owned) were put into bankruptcy.

That's some pretty big mismanagement.
Can this be autoposted in topics whenever someone brings up Dallas as a relocation candidate?

No Fun Shogun is offline  
Old
11-07-2012, 11:34 AM
  #144
Dojji*
Fight the Hate
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Country: United States
Posts: 16,821
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kimota View Post
But the southern market is struggling as Hell as far as hockey and you want to move another team there? Dallas is not mismanaged and nobody goes to the games!
You don't know what you're talking about

1: Not every southern team is struggling.

2: The common thread among those markets that are, is weak ownership and fans with good reason to wonder whether the team is worth sinking money into if it might move.

3: Dallas is in no danger of relocating despite being mismanaged and having a real problem with their ownership at the moment.

4: Any Canadian team would be in the same boat Dallas is now with the possible exception of the Leafs and Habs. I know for a fact that the Bruins -- an established team in a very good hockey market -- had real trouble drawing fans when disgust with Jacobs reached its peak in the wake of the Thornton trade. Fortunately, Chiarelli turned things around brilliantly and got the Bruins back to their rightful place.

5: If you want to help Dallas? Expand or relocate into Houston. Nothing helps a team when it's down like a nice rivalry to look forward to. As a fan of a team that has been both bad and rudderless, I know that even in those situations a rivalry game can be fun, especially if you pull off a win.

If fans don't want to sink a ton into the team, but might want to watch one or two games, and there's a rival around, guess which games those will be. It will get people to buy tickets to go to a game when they might have hesitated and decided to keep their money. And rivalry games build hockey addicts, because hockey is the best rivalry sport in the world.

Once Southern teams start building real rivalries, it's going to become a lot easier to get Southern fans out to games. Houston expansion helps that process.

Dojji* is offline  
Old
11-07-2012, 02:00 PM
  #145
KevFu
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: New Orleans
Country: United States
Posts: 4,459
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dojji View Post
5: If you want to help Dallas? Expand or relocate into Houston. Nothing helps a team when it's down like a nice rivalry to look forward to. As a fan of a team that has been both bad and rudderless, I know that even in those situations a rivalry game can be fun, especially if you pull off a win.

If fans don't want to sink a ton into the team, but might want to watch one or two games, and there's a rival around, guess which games those will be. It will get people to buy tickets to go to a game when they might have hesitated and decided to keep their money. And rivalry games build hockey addicts, because hockey is the best rivalry sport in the world.

Once Southern teams start building real rivalries, it's going to become a lot easier to get Southern fans out to games. Houston expansion helps that process.
I think adding Houston would be good for Dallas and the league, and the growth of hockey in the state of Texas (which has 14 million TV viewers).

But you bring up the "start building real rivalries" and that struck me. I've been a pretty big defender of all markets currently in the game; but I think the NHL went backwards with their expansion plan in that regard.

The NHL should have had isolated teams assimilate into the league and THEN given them rivals (Dallas getting Houston after 20 years is a good way to go, rather than doing TB-FLA a year apart).


Although, I do not think Houston should be ahead of QUE on the depth chart. If Houston gets QUE into the league, I'm all for it. Take the NHL's four-conference alignment, put Quebec into the Adams, Houston in the Norris and slide CBJ into the Patrick (with PIT).


Last edited by KevFu: 11-07-2012 at 02:23 PM.
KevFu is offline  
Old
11-07-2012, 06:33 PM
  #146
Kimota
Three Bananas
 
Kimota's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: La Vieille Capitale
Country: France
Posts: 23,022
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by KevFu View Post
?

Dallas was not mismanaged… for 16 years.

First 16 years: 98.3% of their tickets sold
Last 4 years: 86.6% of their tickets sold

First 16 years: Top 10 in revenues most years, Valued by Forbes as the #4 franchise in the sport in 2006.
Last 4 years: $18 million decline in revenue, $43 million decline in franchise value, down to #12 now.

Everything in Dallas was rock-steady and peachy until 2009. What happened in 2009?
Tom Hicks bought Liverpool. Spread himself too thin, and all the debt he leveraged came due. Hicks’s company defaulted on $525-million in bank loans backed by the Stars and a 50-percent interest in the American Airlines Center. Both the Stars and the Texas Rangers (which he also owned) were put into bankruptcy.

That's some pretty big mismanagement.
I'm talking about the team that's on the ice. I'm looking at the comparison with my Habs for example. Habs have been struggling on the ice like crazy but Dallas has always been competitive, putting a solid team on the ice.

Kimota is offline  
Old
11-07-2012, 06:46 PM
  #147
Kimota
Three Bananas
 
Kimota's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: La Vieille Capitale
Country: France
Posts: 23,022
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dojji View Post
You don't know what you're talking about

1: Not every southern team is struggling.
Not only they are all struggling but other non-southern markets are struggling too. Anaheim is losing 30 million per year. Even San Jose lose a lot of money. Even with winning teams.

Quote:
2: The common thread among those markets that are, is weak ownership and fans with good reason to wonder whether the team is worth sinking money into if it might move.
I don't deny that. But Nashville and Carolina for example seem to be stable in that departement yet the market does not go overboard to support these teams. Where's the corporate element?

Quote:
3: Dallas is in no danger of relocating despite being mismanaged and having a real problem with their ownership at the moment.
Never said they were. Gary is fighting for Phoenix like a dog, I don't think he would let a team with cups leaving.

Quote:
4: Any Canadian team would be in the same boat Dallas is now with the possible exception of the Leafs and Habs. I know for a fact that the Bruins -- an established team in a very good hockey market -- had real trouble drawing fans when disgust with Jacobs reached its peak in the wake of the Thornton trade. Fortunately, Chiarelli turned things around brilliantly and got the Bruins back to their rightful place.
Canadian teams being in the same boat, you mean by that producing winning teams? Dallas have had pretty solid teams, always making the playoffs for years while the Leafs and Habs sucks yet they fill the place.


Quote:
5: If you want to help Dallas? Expand or relocate into Houston. Nothing helps a team when it's down like a nice rivalry to look forward to. As a fan of a team that has been both bad and rudderless, I know that even in those situations a rivalry game can be fun, especially if you pull off a win.

If fans don't want to sink a ton into the team, but might want to watch one or two games, and there's a rival around, guess which games those will be. It will get people to buy tickets to go to a game when they might have hesitated and decided to keep their money. And rivalry games build hockey addicts, because hockey is the best rivalry sport in the world.

Once Southern teams start building real rivalries, it's going to become a lot easier to get Southern fans out to games. Houston expansion helps that process.
Don't you realise how unreal this sounds? Put a team to a place near Dallas just to help Dallas? How about throwing money away for free? We don't even know if Houston would be a good place for hockey and secondly they may not even create a rivalry with Dallas. If Dallas can't help themselves, nothing will change their fortune. Get Dallas healthy first and then maybe the league could think about other possibilities.

Kimota is offline  
Old
11-07-2012, 08:29 PM
  #148
KevFu
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: New Orleans
Country: United States
Posts: 4,459
vCash: 500
There's a difference between "Struggling financially because you've got a bad product people are interest in" and "having a profit/loss slightly negative because you spent a lot on players with a contending team."

Most owners don't have a problem with "make a profit while the team is young, cheap and competing for spots 6-9; lose your profits but break even because you built around those guys and now were comfortably in the playoffs and a pretty good team; lose money because you added some contracts to be a Cup contender."

The profit from season tickets in the first year of rebuilding off-sets it. It's the cyclical nature of sports. Boston, New Jersey, Philly, Chicago, and now San Jose have all done that.

KevFu is offline  
Old
11-07-2012, 09:41 PM
  #149
Dojji*
Fight the Hate
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Country: United States
Posts: 16,821
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by KevFu View Post
I think adding Houston would be good for Dallas and the league, and the growth of hockey in the state of Texas (which has 14 million TV viewers).

But you bring up the "start building real rivalries" and that struck me. I've been a pretty big defender of all markets currently in the game; but I think the NHL went backwards with their expansion plan in that regard.

The NHL should have had isolated teams assimilate into the league and THEN given them rivals (Dallas getting Houston after 20 years is a good way to go, rather than doing TB-FLA a year apart).


Although, I do not think Houston should be ahead of QUE on the depth chart. If Houston gets QUE into the league, I'm all for it. Take the NHL's four-conference alignment, put Quebec into the Adams, Houston in the Norris and slide CBJ into the Patrick (with PIT).
I think both Houston and Seattle are interesting targets for exactly that reason. Seattle creates a regional rivalry with Vancouver, Houston with Dallas. These rivalries will help stabilize the new markets and give them a quick identity in the league that will help market them.

I think Houston is better in that sense than Quebec, and Seattle is a push. Quebec may renew a rivalry with the Habs, but the Habs don't need the help, so it doesn't help two franchises like Houston and Seattle do.

I prefer Houston to Seattle these days because Vancouver doesn't need THAT much help either -- although a real bitter rivalry to harden their fans and get them into something closer to what East Coast hockey looks like would probably do that franchise some good for reasons other than gate revenue. Houston could be the making of the Stars as well as the Houston franchise. And unlike many of the other contenders they already have a viable venue at hand -- the one the Houston Rockets use.

Dojji* is offline  
Old
11-07-2012, 10:25 PM
  #150
rt
Usually Incorrect
 
rt's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Rarely Sober
Country: United States
Posts: 47,623
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by KevFu View Post
There's a difference between "Struggling financially because you've got a bad product people are interest in" and "having a profit/loss slightly negative because you spent a lot on players with a contending team."

Most owners don't have a problem with "make a profit while the team is young, cheap and competing for spots 6-9; lose your profits but break even because you built around those guys and now were comfortably in the playoffs and a pretty good team; lose money because you added some contracts to be a Cup contender."

The profit from season tickets in the first year of rebuilding off-sets it. It's the cyclical nature of sports. Boston, New Jersey, Philly, Chicago, and now San Jose have all done that.
Lost me at Chicago and San Jose.

__________________
This poster should not be taken seriously under any circumstances.
rt 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 12:07 AM.

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

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. ©2015 All Rights Reserved.