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.

1997 expansion approval

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
12-27-2012, 12:17 PM
  #151
MoreOrr
B4
 
MoreOrr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Mexico
Country: Canada
Posts: 18,250
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Riptide View Post
Unfair point. You absolutely need to consider regional rivalries. The Penguins need to be in the same division as New York and Philly. New Jersey and the Islanders need to be in the same division as the Rangers. Ottawa and Boston needs to be in the same division as Montreal and Toronto. Now you have Buffalo, Winnipeg, Tampa, Florida, Washington & Carolina that you need to pigeon hole somewhere.

It's too easy to slam how the NHL's done it without actually coming up with a solution.
How so? Why do the Penguins need to be in a particular grouping, when teams like Dallas have been in with the California teams now far too long. Don't tell me that Dallas "needs" to be in that alignment; or that Minnesota "needs" to be with Vancouver and the Alberta teams; or that Washington needs to be with the Florida teams...
If those alignments didn't need to be, for the sake of those teams, then you damn well know that it was for the sake of other teams being in a specific alignment. And if Dallas doesn't "need" to be in the Pacific, but is nevertheless, then Pittsburgh, or whichever team, can be aligned however, and not based on some phony "need" to be.

And on a similar front... Why do Toronto and Montreal "need" to be in the same Division? They hadn't been for quite some time in the past.

And as for the longevity of alignment pairings... Boston and Buffalo have been in the same Division longer than any other pair of teams in the League. But does that mean they "need" to be?

There were plenty of solutions, if you chuck out this "need" mentality or not simply apply it to the already established teams but also to teams that could use perhaps a little help to get better established. It's just that there's a group of stubborn ole boys club owners who can't be flexible enough to find good solutions for all. In fact, if they're equally as inflexible when trying to create a viable CBA, then perhaps that's a huge part of why these issues never get resolved.


Last edited by MoreOrr: 12-27-2012 at 12:26 PM.
MoreOrr is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-27-2012, 12:19 PM
  #152
Riptide
Moderator
 
Riptide's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Yukon
Country: Canada
Posts: 8,747
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Holdurbreathe View Post
This is the exact reason I cannot find favor for the owners at all in this dispute.

Every CBA since Bettman, its the same thing about the economics, the health of all franchises, etc, etc.

Yet the second the CBA is ratified, its every owner for themselves regardless of the impact on the game or the league.
When you're on the same team off the ice, yet absolute competitors on the ice, how do you solve that? Do you allow the commissioners office to veto trades/signings that are good for individual teams, yet bad for the league as a whole?

In some regard the owners need to step up and put some value on the health of the league. And to an extent they're trying to level the playing field in that regard (contract limits/variance) that diminishes the advantage some clubs have over others - economically anyway.

__________________
"Itís not as if Donald Fehr was lying to us, several players said. Rather, itís as if he has been economical with information, these players believe, not sharing facts these players consider to be vital."
Riptide is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-27-2012, 12:22 PM
  #153
KingsFan7824
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Posts: 3,944
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Riptide View Post
Unfair point. You absolutely need to consider regional rivalries. The Penguins need to be in the same division as New York and Philly. New Jersey and the Islanders need to be in the same division as the Rangers. Ottawa and Boston needs to be in the same division as Montreal and Toronto. Now you have Buffalo, Winnipeg, Tampa, Florida, Washington & Carolina that you need to pigeon hole somewhere.

It's too easy to slam how the NHL's done it without actually coming up with a solution.
NYR, NYI, NJ, Phi, Pit, Was, TB, Fla
Bos, Mtl, Ott, Tor, Buf, Clb, Car

That may have felt a little more right than what they did.

If there's one thing more complicated than NHL labor issues, it's NHL realignment.

KingsFan7824 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-27-2012, 12:28 PM
  #154
MoreOrr
B4
 
MoreOrr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Mexico
Country: Canada
Posts: 18,250
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by KingsFan7824 View Post
NYR, NYI, NJ, Phi, Pit, Was, TB, Fla
Bos, Mtl, Ott, Tor, Buf, Clb, Car

That may have felt a little more right than what they did.

If there's one thing more complicated than NHL labor issues, it's NHL realignment.
Still not the greatest alignment in the world, but nevertheless, just like that you posted something a millions times better than what the owners did a year ago.

MoreOrr is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-27-2012, 12:28 PM
  #155
Riptide
Moderator
 
Riptide's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Yukon
Country: Canada
Posts: 8,747
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mayor Bee View Post
Simply on the bolded part, name these teams. I'm curious to know what winning teams still have no following.
I seem to recall hearing that Tampa despite playing in the Stanley Cup Finals wasn't sold out. And that they were giving away 1 vehicle each home game in an attempt to boost ticket sales.

Not knocking the team, just stating what I remember.

Riptide is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-27-2012, 12:35 PM
  #156
Riptide
Moderator
 
Riptide's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Yukon
Country: Canada
Posts: 8,747
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by skydog71 View Post
Here's an interesting thought... if you contracted a rich team like Toronto ($200 million/year revenue according to Forbes), the salary cap would drop by $200 million * 0.57 / 31 = $3.68 million per team. This move would push 3 teams that are currently losing money (Capitals, Sharks, Predators) into the black.

If you also contracted the Rangers & Canadiens ($368 million/year in revenue), the cap would drop another $368 million * 0.57 / 29 = $7.23 million per team. This would make the Wild, Ducks, Sabres, Hurricanes & Blues profitable.

So we've basically saved 8 franchises by eliminating the 3 richest franchises. That's kind of messed up when you think about it.

Forbes NHL valuations: http://www.forbes.com/nhl-valuations/list/
This happens when you have a cap that's based on total league economics that include the outliers. Those three teams account for something like 18% of league revenues.

Riptide is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-27-2012, 12:37 PM
  #157
Mayor Bee
\/me_____you\/
 
Mayor Bee's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 14,425
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Melrose Munch View Post
Columbus has Detroit nearby and Pittsburgh 2 hours away. Hartford has in a rich area. Columbus has the history but not money like the northeast
3 hours to Detroit, 3 1/2 to Pittsburgh. Both assume no breaks, regular speed, and no accidents.

Quote:
Originally Posted by TTOMO View Post
If there was never a team in Hartford in the first place, would someone nowadays think of putting a new one there? I think not.
Imagine if Birmingham had entered the NHL and then gone away instead of Hartford...how many people would be actively clamoring for a new Bulls?

Mayor Bee is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-27-2012, 12:42 PM
  #158
MoreOrr
B4
 
MoreOrr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Mexico
Country: Canada
Posts: 18,250
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Riptide View Post
This happens when you have a cap that's based on total league economics that include the outliers. Those three teams account for something like 18% of league revenues.
It's more than 18%, isn't it. But yes, that's a huge part of the problem... Salaries based on revenue averages which are pushed too high due to the profit margins of 3 teams at the top of the League. Those 3 teams ultimately make the cost of competing in this League too expensive for more than 1/2 of the teams that ended up in the Red for the 2011-12 Season.

At least if we're talking profit margin, it must be much more than 18%.

MoreOrr is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-27-2012, 12:43 PM
  #159
Riptide
Moderator
 
Riptide's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Yukon
Country: Canada
Posts: 8,747
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gnashville View Post
the 1985 NY Rangers made the playoffs with a 26-44-10 record
the 2012 LA Kings finished the regular season with a 40-27-6-9 record
You see the diff??
LA was also the 8th seed team in the west with that record.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fugu View Post
I guess if you keep repeating it, it's going to stick with somebody at some point.

The main problem the league has is the revenue disparity. Maybe he should try to fix that instead.


On the point of Gary growing revenues.... did he 'grow' revenues or did they grow because the league grew by 9 teams?
Revenues grew by 50% in the last CBA with 30 teams. You can't blame that on the Canadian dollar (at least not all - or even most of it), or on expansion teams.

However to have money to share, they need to be have the profits there to share. That means the player costs need to come down.

Riptide is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-27-2012, 12:48 PM
  #160
MoreOrr
B4
 
MoreOrr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Mexico
Country: Canada
Posts: 18,250
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Riptide View Post
LA was also the 8th seed team in the west with that record.


Revenues grew by 50% in the last CBA with 30 teams. You can't blame that on the Canadian dollar (at least not all - or even most of it), or on expansion teams.

However to have money to share, they need to be have the profits there to share. That means the player costs need to come down.
The Canadian $ can't be blamed for being on par with the US$.

MoreOrr is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-27-2012, 12:48 PM
  #161
Mayor Bee
\/me_____you\/
 
Mayor Bee's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 14,425
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Riptide View Post
I seem to recall hearing that Tampa despite playing in the Stanley Cup Finals wasn't sold out. And that they were giving away 1 vehicle each home game in an attempt to boost ticket sales.

Not knocking the team, just stating what I remember.
Tampa's attendance in 2003-04 was 90.9%, and the two following years (with a lockout in between) were 103.8% and 100.6%. Lacking game-by-game attendance for 2003-04, I would assume the following happened:
- Tampa was awful in the early 2000s (true)
- They had a big year in 2002-03, with 93 points and a playoff spot (true)
- The attendance didn't jump in 2003-04 to a full sellout because, with the one big year after a string of bad ones, people were taking a wait-and-see attitude rather than committing to a product that might plummet the next year (speculative on my part, but reasonable). The attendance in 2002-03 was 83.7%, which was the latest in a series of year-to-year improvements (that being the 5th of 7 years, culminating in the 103.8% year.)

However, you do mention two things that have happened.
- Not selling out in a Stanley Cup year. The following teams have done that since 1990: Pittsburgh (both years), NY Rangers, New Jersey (all three years), Colorado (1995-96), Detroit (1996-97 and 2007-08), Dallas, Carolina, Anaheim. In the case of Colorado and Dallas, the percentage was so high that it was basically a season sellout (99.7 and 99.9%, respectively).

Teams that did not sell out in a SCF year...Minnesota in 1990-91 is the gold standard by which all others are measured. In a 15,000-seat arena, the North Stars averaged 7,838 for a paltry 52.25% average.

- Giving away a car every night to boost sales. That was Detroit in the early 1980s. Considering the quality of car that was being made at that time, I think the actual promotion could have been "One lucky fan will win a new car, everyone else will get two."

Mayor Bee is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-27-2012, 12:53 PM
  #162
KingsFan7824
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Posts: 3,944
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by MoreOrr View Post
Still not the greatest alignment in the world, but nevertheless, just like that you posted something a millions times better than what the owners did a year ago.
I believe we both blame the Big 10 in the NHL for that. Or like the Big 6, and then a few teams lucky enough to be in the same general area.

KingsFan7824 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-27-2012, 12:59 PM
  #163
buketdude
Registered User
 
buketdude's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Connecticut
Country: United States
Posts: 236
vCash: 500
Although I believe the Whalers never should have left and would love for them to return it will just never happen. The reasons include a very fractured fan base, lack of owners and arena, and a State Government run by people from wealthy Fairfield County (next to NY) who never came to Whaler games or care at all.

buketdude is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-27-2012, 01:01 PM
  #164
Doctor No
Retired
 
Doctor No's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 23,393
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by MoreOrr View Post
The Canadian $ can't be blamed for being on par with the US$.
Perhaps a better term would have been "accounted for" instead of "blamed for", but other than that, you're arguing semantics.

Doctor No is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-27-2012, 01:05 PM
  #165
Riptide
Moderator
 
Riptide's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Yukon
Country: Canada
Posts: 8,747
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by MoreOrr View Post
How so? Why do the Penguins need to be in a particular grouping, when teams like Dallas have been in with the California teams now far too long. Don't tell me that Dallas "needs" to be in that alignment; or that Minnesota "needs" to be with Vancouver and the Alberta teams; or that Washington needs to be with the Florida teams...
If those alignments didn't need to be, for the sake of those teams, then you damn well know that it was for the sake of other teams being in a specific alignment. And if Dallas doesn't "need" to be in the Pacific, but is nevertheless, then Pittsburgh, or whichever team, can be aligned however, and not based on some phony "need" to be.

And as for the longevity of alignment pairings... Boston and Buffalo have been in the same Division longer than any other pair of teams in the League. But does that mean they "need" to be?

There were plenty of solutions, if you chuck out this "need" mentality or not simply apply it to the already established teams but also to teams that could use perhaps a little help to get better established. It's just that there's a group of stubborn ole boys club owners who can't be flexible enough to find good solutions for all. In fact, if they're equally as inflexible when trying to create a viable CBA, then perhaps that's a huge part of why these issues never get resolved.
Those long time rivalries are good for the game. As a fan, if there was ever a home and home series I'd travel to watch, it would be Pittsburgh/Philly, or perhaps Pittsburgh/Washington. But Pens/Philly would be my first choice.

Even watching Toronto/Montreal and Toronto/Ottawa last year in Toronto was amazing (the only games I've managed to see live while I was in Toronto last year). Watching a live game (and spending a boat load in the arena - food/drinks) between two rival teams (especially when both are semi talented), is a hell of a lot better than watching two talented teams who have zero history. Have seen Calgary/Phoenix in Calgary and Edmonton/Nashville in Edmonton. Both were duds. Kind of expected it in Edmonton's case, as it was 3-4 years ago and they were not a good team. However by comparison watched Vancouver/Chicago and Vancouver/Buffalo in 09 and the Van/Chicago game was 100 times better than the Van/Buffalo game - despite the fact that the Van/Buffalo game was a 2-3 game and the Chicago game was a 5-1 blowout. My point is the quality of the fan's experience isn't solely limited to the product on the ice, but the atmosphere of the arena/fans as well. Rogers Place was electric during both games, but the Chicago game was something else.

Pens/LA, sure not a bad game. But neither do they have the animosity and hatred built up by history. Toronto/Montreal have the advantage of being the two biggest Canadian teams. They could probably survive in any setup, but them playing eachother (as a fan) holds a LOT more appeal than seeing Toronto play Dallas or Florida.

Quote:
Originally Posted by MoreOrr View Post
It's more than 18%, isn't it. But yes, that's a huge part of the problem... Salaries based on revenue averages which are pushed too high due to the profit margins of 3 teams at the top of the League. Those 3 teams ultimately make the cost of competing in this League too expensive for more than 1/2 of the teams that ended up in the Red for the 2011-12 Season.

At least if we're talking profit margin, it must be much more than 18%.
Talking total revenue (~570m out of 3.3B), not profits. I think profits it was something like 85%.


Last edited by Riptide: 12-27-2012 at 01:11 PM.
Riptide is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-27-2012, 02:37 PM
  #166
Fugu
Administrator
HFBoards
 
Fugu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Pac NW
Country:
Posts: 29,672
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Riptide View Post
Unfair point. You absolutely need to consider regional rivalries. The Penguins need to be in the same division as New York and Philly. New Jersey and the Islanders need to be in the same division as the Rangers. Ottawa and Boston needs to be in the same division as Montreal and Toronto. Now you have Buffalo, Winnipeg, Tampa, Florida, Washington & Carolina that you need to pigeon hole somewhere.

It's too easy to slam how the NHL's done it without actually coming up with a solution.

Not really. Detroit and Toronto were HUGE rivals. Detroit and Pittsburgh could have built up a greater rivalry after back to back Cup finals. Detroit and Colorado had a legendary rivalry for years.

I believe Boston and Vacouver hate each other with a greater passion than any of their intra-division "rivalries". I think trying to group teams due to their perceived rivalries is the wrong way to go about it because rivalries indeed shift over time. Alignment shouldn't shift that often unless you have something forcing it like a relocation or expansion. My two cents.

Fugu is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
12-27-2012, 03:14 PM
  #167
MoreOrr
B4
 
MoreOrr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Mexico
Country: Canada
Posts: 18,250
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Taco MacArthur View Post
Perhaps a better term would have been "accounted for" instead of "blamed for", but other than that, you're arguing semantics.
No, I'm saying that I don't accept the argument that the Canadian $ should somehow rightfully be significantly lower than the US$ in order for US-based NHL teams to be financially Ok. The League should take the economic realities of all 30 teams equally into consideration when formulating economic policies; it doesn't matter if a few Canadian teams are thriving, or few US teams, or a mix of both. What matters is how the majority of teams are doing. Now, if the dollar value on one side of the border or the other was significantly lower, as it had been for the Can$, then the League needs to consider whether or not it can afford to maintain those economically disadvantaged markets. But again, if the dollars are essentially on par, I don't considered that to mean US markets are somehow disadvantaged... ********!

MoreOrr is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-27-2012, 03:33 PM
  #168
MoreOrr
B4
 
MoreOrr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Mexico
Country: Canada
Posts: 18,250
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Riptide View Post
Those long time rivalries are good for the game. As a fan, if there was ever a home and home series I'd travel to watch, it would be Pittsburgh/Philly, or perhaps Pittsburgh/Washington. But Pens/Philly would be my first choice.
Good for the game or good for the fans of those teams, who are accustomed to those rivalries? I say it's time to put those fans to the test and see if all they are are fans of rivalries or fans of hockey. In many instances, it's certain teams that fans everywhere would like to see their team competing with; but Columbus fans, for instance, don't get much opportunity to see the Blue Jackets play their closest geographic opponent, Pittsburgh, not even if Columbus were to be put in the East because the Blue Jackets would almost certainly be slotted into the Southeast.

Or take Vancouver; if it's supposed to be such a strong market, then give the Canucks the Pacific and we'll see if the fans still attend as many games. And then Dallas can have an alignment which not only makes more sense to the Stars fans but also doesn't mean games being televised late at night.

The League did a great job of growing itself, IMO, but it has certainly put or allowed many franchises to be in a situation of swim or drown, with no lifejacket.... 'Here, here's a franchise for your city, but it's not our problem how poorly the ownership manages the franchise, and you take whatever alignment grouping we feel like fitting you into, because we're not disrupting established teams.'


Last edited by MoreOrr: 12-27-2012 at 03:41 PM.
MoreOrr is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-27-2012, 03:40 PM
  #169
MoreOrr
B4
 
MoreOrr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Mexico
Country: Canada
Posts: 18,250
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fugu View Post
Not really. Detroit and Toronto were HUGE rivals. Detroit and Pittsburgh could have built up a greater rivalry after back to back Cup finals. Detroit and Colorado had a legendary rivalry for years.

I believe Boston and Vacouver hate each other with a greater passion than any of their intra-division "rivalries". I think trying to group teams due to their perceived rivalries is the wrong way to go about it because rivalries indeed shift over time. Alignment shouldn't shift that often unless you have something forcing it like a relocation or expansion. My two cents.
Exactly, Fugu,... opportunities have existed and will continue to pop up in order to take advantage of new rivalry potentials.

It's one thing if the NHL was a significantly large League to begin with, as the NFL or MLB, where there have been only a few new teams over the past few decades. But the NHL has a huge number of relatively "new" teams, many of them doing somewhat OK but not really that great in comparison... But alignments have been created to favor the few, not the majority. Luckily a majority do fall comfortably into the group where they are, but others aren't so lucky.

MoreOrr is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-27-2012, 03:58 PM
  #170
stan the caddy
Registered User
 
stan the caddy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 1,646
vCash: 500
Both the NHL and NHLPA have benefitted from expansion; more jobs and better brand visibility.

If the PA really needs someone to blame, blame the NFL and NBA for taking a hit. It's hard to justify why the NHLPA deserves a larger slice of the pie than those guys.

stan the caddy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-27-2012, 04:28 PM
  #171
RedWingsNow*
SaskatoonDeathSquad
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Ann Arbor
Country: Canada
Posts: 23,356
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Riptide View Post
When you're on the same team off the ice, yet absolute competitors on the ice, how do you solve that?
By remembering, if you wish to, that you're a business first and sticking with the principles of business.

If you're a sports mogul first, fine. Lose money if you wish. Make unwise expenditures.

This is all about priorities. Some owners view this as a long term investment. Some owners view this as a toy. Some view as both. Some view it as part of a bigger business strategy.

If the owner of the Wild decides he wants to win a cup before he dies...why not allow him every opportunity to do so?

RedWingsNow* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-27-2012, 04:29 PM
  #172
Melrose Munch
Registered User
 
Melrose Munch's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 14,295
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mayor Bee View Post
3 hours to Detroit, 3 1/2 to Pittsburgh. Both assume no breaks, regular speed, and no accidents.



Imagine if Birmingham had entered the NHL and then gone away instead of Hartford...how many people would be actively clamoring for a new Bulls?
Touche about Birmingham. And yes I admit Hartford is closer to NY and Boston. 2.5 hours each way. 90 min to Providence as well.

Melrose Munch is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-27-2012, 04:31 PM
  #173
Melrose Munch
Registered User
 
Melrose Munch's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 14,295
vCash: 500
And if want to talk about rivalries, let's talk about how Montreal-Toronto was supposed to be a special game 2x a year ruined by the Leafs going east. Now it's just another game. I wish Toronto was out west. Toronto v Chicago and Toronto Dallas in the mid 90s were also rivalries.

Melrose Munch is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-27-2012, 04:32 PM
  #174
RedWingsNow*
SaskatoonDeathSquad
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Ann Arbor
Country: Canada
Posts: 23,356
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by KingsFan7824 View Post
NYR, NYI, NJ, Phi, Pit, Was, TB, Fla
Bos, Mtl, Ott, Tor, Buf, Clb, Car

That may have felt a little more right than what they did.

If there's one thing more complicated than NHL labor issues, it's NHL realignment.
Nonsense.

Detroit fans loved their Toronto rivalry, but we had to give that up.
If Philly still had Pittsburgh, they could live without the Rangers.

You can't tailor-make the league for everyone.

RedWingsNow* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-27-2012, 04:53 PM
  #175
MoreOrr
B4
 
MoreOrr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Mexico
Country: Canada
Posts: 18,250
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Melrose Munch View Post
And if want to talk about rivalries, let's talk about how Montreal-Toronto was supposed to be a special game 2x a year ruined by the Leafs going east. Now it's just another game. I wish Toronto was out west. Toronto v Chicago and Toronto Dallas in the mid 90s were also rivalries.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Captain Bob View Post
Nonsense.

Detroit fans loved their Toronto rivalry, but we had to give that up.
If Philly still had Pittsburgh, they could live without the Rangers.

You can't tailor-make the league for everyone.
What's up with you two? I've been arguing and debating with both of you for weeks, and now suddenly on the topic of alignment we have areas of agreement.

MoreOrr 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 09:12 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.