HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > NHL Eastern Conference > Atlantic Division > Boston Bruins
Mobile Hockey's Future Become a Sponsor Site Rules Support Forum vBookie Page 2
Notices

2012 CBA/Lockout talk Part VII..Will a deal get done..

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
01-02-2013, 09:28 AM
  #676
Dom - OHL
http://ohlwriters.co
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Stratford, Ontario
Country: Canada
Posts: 9,360
vCash: 500
Send a message via MSN to Dom - OHL
Quote:
Originally Posted by ODAAT View Post
Ottawa only has about 300,000 more residents there, Winnipeg, if not mistaken about 650,000, there are cases where small market teams make it if that market has a strong hockey following. The arguement can be made that there`s a few bigger market teams who struggle too.

I`m not too familiar with the hockey landscape in the US but..
The strong fanbase and hockey following isn't enough though Andrew. They absolutely have to have a strong corporate base willing to buy luxury boxes ( big money there that isnt all counted as HRR) and strong local television.

Just filling the arena isn't enough for the NHL anymore.

Dom - OHL is offline  
Old
01-02-2013, 09:29 AM
  #677
Roll 4 Lines
Gitchyasum!
 
Roll 4 Lines's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Bear Country
Country: United States
Posts: 5,860
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by WhamBamCam8 View Post
The only reason we are still without our beloved sport is because bettman is a petulant whiny baby. I hate fehr but he is hardly an idiot. He knows how far he can go if the players want to play this year. I also think the owners have had this 48 game plan as the only one they wanted. The savings on travel alone will make sure they minimize many of their losses.
Quote:
Originally Posted by RussellmaniaKW View Post
It makes sense from a financial standpoint as it means that more teams will get to benefit from the extra playoff revenue. I don't necessarily like what it means to the sport itself but it's a move I can definitely understand in a league where teams are losing money.
I'm confused.

The owners would benefit from a shorter schedule, yet they'd benefit from more playoff revenue?

Isn't it the owners who always push for a longer schedule? Isn't the reason the league has grown from 50 game seasons to 82 game seasons because the owners make more money when there are more games?

And, if in fact the owners did want a shorter schedule, wouldn't the players jump at it? Wouldn't they prefer fewer games as long as their salaries remain the same?

Roll 4 Lines is offline  
Old
01-02-2013, 09:31 AM
  #678
EverettMike
Registered User
 
EverettMike's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Everett, MA
Country: United States
Posts: 22,760
vCash: 500
If the league is considering a permanent switch to a 7-10, 8-9 play-in, then they should cut the season down to 75 games.

The regular season would instantly become more important and exciting.

Also, the division winners should get 5 home games in the first round.

EverettMike is offline  
Old
01-02-2013, 09:31 AM
  #679
BlackNgold 84
Known Kellyist
 
BlackNgold 84's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Massachusetts
Country: United States
Posts: 2,484
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by OrrOverGretzky View Post
Easily. I remember first breaking the news three years ago about a new arena in Toronto and when it finally became public they said there was no interest in a 2nd team. However, think about this: The Leafs have 18,000 people on a wait list for season tickets. Over and above the price of the tickets is a $20,000 licensing fee that you pay once.

Now, I'm not going to even try and guess at how many would jump ship. But I know a lot of people in Southwestern Ontario that make the trip to Buffalo for NHL hockey simple because they cant get tickets for the Leafs.

And to me Quebec is much like Toronto, no brainers. Not to mention the deal with CBC expires after next season (I believe) and there is sure to be a huge bidding war between CBC and TSN (with CTV involved as both are owned by Bell). Not to mention the local deals with Toronto between Sportsnet and TSN. This is why Bell (TSN) and Rogers (Sportsnet) bought the Leafs. There's going to be big money thrown around and with more Canadian teams - even better.

As for Vegas, I don't know enough about the situation there to make an informed comment. Seattle makes a lot of sense because there's could be an instant rivalry with Vancouver. And Like Ontario fans do to Buffalo, British Columbia fans who can't get Canuck tickets will do the same for Seattle.
Would there be that many fans to jump ship in the toronto area? I see the maple leafs fans as a pretty loyal lot.. I still think another hockey market in canada would be better than the southwest/sun belt area. Quebec city as you said is a no-brainer. I'd just hope the bruins would play them right after they play the habs so bruins fans can do a trip from montreal-quebec city or vice versa.

BlackNgold 84 is offline  
Old
01-02-2013, 09:36 AM
  #680
GloryDaze4877
Stone Clode 3:17
 
GloryDaze4877's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: The Sticks (West MA)
Country: United States
Posts: 23,881
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by BlackNgold 84 View Post
I think more people see Seattle as a major city than portland oregon. I'll admit i just threw in a small city that although has done good for the trailblazers don't think it would be a good hockey market. Glorydaze did bring up a good point. Besides the trailblazers and college sports there wouldn't be too much opposition.
I was only basing it on the fact that the Winterhawks supposedly do very well there, and that the area also supports Tri-City and Spokane WHL teams as well.

The Portland-Vancouver (US) metro area has a population of roughly 750k, but I am not sure how rabid the hockey fans are? Couldn't be worse than Phoenix

GloryDaze4877 is offline  
Old
01-02-2013, 09:42 AM
  #681
RussellmaniaKW
Registered User
 
RussellmaniaKW's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 6,935
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Roll 4 Lines View Post
I'm confused.

The owners would benefit from a shorter schedule, yet they'd benefit from more playoff revenue?

Isn't it the owners who always push for a longer schedule? Isn't the reason the league has grown from 50 game seasons to 82 game seasons because the owners make more money when there are more games?

And, if in fact the owners did want a shorter schedule, wouldn't the players jump at it? Wouldn't they prefer fewer games as long as their salaries remain the same?
Well I don't know why you're quoting 2 different posters as if it's one guy contradicting himself, but if we say for the sake of argument that the short season was orchestrated by the owners as a cost-cutting measure you have to realize that in doing so they have reduced the amount of salary they'll have to pay out (since the players won't get paid for a full season) and they've cut out the least profitable portion of the season where the NHL is competing with Baseball, Football, Basketball, etc. This plan would let non-profitable teams get a break from some of their expenses for the first half of the season and then attempt to come back strong and possibly get into the playoffs where it's almost guaranteed extra revenue (and the players don't get paid extra for the playoffs as far as i know, so operating costs are not drastically increased)

RussellmaniaKW is offline  
Old
01-02-2013, 09:42 AM
  #682
Dom - OHL
http://ohlwriters.co
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Stratford, Ontario
Country: Canada
Posts: 9,360
vCash: 500
Send a message via MSN to Dom - OHL
Quote:
Originally Posted by BlackNgold 84 View Post
Would there be that many fans to jump ship in the toronto area? I see the maple leafs fans as a pretty loyal lot.. I still think another hockey market in canada would be better than the southwest/sun belt area. Quebec city as you said is a no-brainer. I'd just hope the bruins would play them right after they play the habs so bruins fans can do a trip from montreal-quebec city or vice versa.
Yes. 25% of Canada's population, or almost 10 million people live within 160 KM (less than 100 miles) from Toronto. Not all are Leaf fans and I'm sure they'd have no problem filling the arena. New York has that same number of people (?) and the Islanders, (when they actually had a team ) had no problem drawing fans. So I'm sure in hockey mad Toronto, they could as well.

But more importantly, the corporate support is there and television is there. TSN is expected to go heavily after CBC for the Canadian rights. Sportsnet, with all its regional channels, will go after the regional rights. Absolutely no problems there that I can see

Dom - OHL is offline  
Old
01-02-2013, 09:46 AM
  #683
ReggieMoto
Registered User
 
ReggieMoto's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Manchester, NH
Country: United States
Posts: 4,477
vCash: 500
Send a message via Yahoo to ReggieMoto
Quote:
Originally Posted by Roll 4 Lines View Post
The owners would benefit from a shorter schedule, yet they'd benefit from more playoff revenue?
The owners have to pay the players their contracted rate during the regular season. During the post season all monies taken in by the teams go into the individual owners' pockets. So it doesn't matter how long the regular season is; however, it does matter how long a team stays in the playoffs during the post season.

ReggieMoto is offline  
Old
01-02-2013, 10:11 AM
  #684
Spooner st
Registered User
 
Spooner st's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,499
vCash: 500
DarrenDreger: My sense (even on Disclaimer Day)..might be a twist or turn ahead. Pension issues to be resolved, but optimism for deal is still strong.#TSN

From Pierre LeBrun: Players remain sour over pension snag with league... Need to be resolved for any deal to get done #TSN #NHL

Spooner st is offline  
Old
01-02-2013, 10:20 AM
  #685
MioneRask134
Registered User
 
MioneRask134's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Hogwarts-617
Country: United States
Posts: 11,291
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by BlackNgold 84 View Post
I think more people see Seattle as a major city than portland oregon. I'll admit i just threw in a small city that although has done good for the trailblazers don't think it would be a good hockey market. Glorydaze did bring up a good point. Besides the trailblazers and college sports there wouldn't be too much opposition.
I have a cousin who lives out in Seattle, and the kid has been dying for a hockey team there. I really think the people would support it. They don't have much. The Seahawks are bringing the people together. I can only imagine how nuts they'd go for a hockey team.

MioneRask134 is offline  
Old
01-02-2013, 10:21 AM
  #686
Donnie Shulzhoffer
Registered User
 
Donnie Shulzhoffer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Foxboro, MA
Country: United States
Posts: 4,103
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mione134 View Post
I have a cousin who lives out in Seattle, and the kid has been dying for a hockey team there. I really think the people would support it. They don't have much. The Seahawks are bringing the people together. I can only imagine how nuts they'd go for a hockey team.
I am not so sure of that. Remember they just recently lost a NBA franchise.

Donnie Shulzhoffer is offline  
Old
01-02-2013, 10:23 AM
  #687
Roll 4 Lines
Gitchyasum!
 
Roll 4 Lines's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Bear Country
Country: United States
Posts: 5,860
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by RussellmaniaKW View Post
Well I don't know why you're quoting 2 different posters as if it's one guy contradicting himself, but if we say for the sake of argument that the short season was orchestrated by the owners as a cost-cutting measure you have to realize that in doing so they have reduced the amount of salary they'll have to pay out (since the players won't get paid for a full season) and they've cut out the least profitable portion of the season where the NHL is competing with Baseball, Football, Basketball, etc. This plan would let non-profitable teams get a break from some of their expenses for the first half of the season and then attempt to come back strong and possibly get into the playoffs where it's almost guaranteed extra revenue (and the players don't get paid extra for the playoffs as far as i know, so operating costs are not drastically increased)
Didn't mean to suggest it was one person contradicting himself, but you clarified things nicely...thanks!

Roll 4 Lines is offline  
Old
01-02-2013, 10:25 AM
  #688
Roll 4 Lines
Gitchyasum!
 
Roll 4 Lines's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Bear Country
Country: United States
Posts: 5,860
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by ReggieMoto View Post
The owners have to pay the players their contracted rate during the regular season. During the post season all monies taken in by the teams go into the individual owners' pockets. So it doesn't matter how long the regular season is; however, it does matter how long a team stays in the playoffs during the post season.
Right. I knew that, but wasn't thinking of it...need more coffee!

Roll 4 Lines is offline  
Old
01-02-2013, 10:29 AM
  #689
BlackNgold 84
Known Kellyist
 
BlackNgold 84's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Massachusetts
Country: United States
Posts: 2,484
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by GloryDaze4877 View Post
I was only basing it on the fact that the Winterhawks supposedly do very well there, and that the area also supports Tri-City and Spokane WHL teams as well.

The Portland-Vancouver (US) metro area has a population of roughly 750k, but I am not sure how rabid the hockey fans are? Couldn't be worse than Phoenix
That is very true.. i think most markets besides the florida markets would be better than phoneix. But if they put a team in that region I just see them putting a team in seattle. Who knows thought right now its just rumor.

BlackNgold 84 is offline  
Old
01-02-2013, 10:30 AM
  #690
JoeIsAStud
HFBoards Sponsor
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 4,996
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Donnie Shulzhoffer View Post
I am not so sure of that. Remember they just recently lost a NBA franchise.
Well that was supposedly more of an arena issue than anything else.

They are working on a new 490 million dollar arena proposal out there, which would help, but they will probably need at least one team committed to play there before they start to build.

JoeIsAStud is offline  
Old
01-02-2013, 10:30 AM
  #691
MioneRask134
Registered User
 
MioneRask134's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Hogwarts-617
Country: United States
Posts: 11,291
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Donnie Shulzhoffer View Post
I am not so sure of that. Remember they just recently lost a NBA franchise.
They still protest about that daily haha. I think people would be surprised at how many people love hockey up there. Most resort to going up to Vancouver and cheering for those nimrods. My cousin has been converting friends to the Bruins way for years.

MioneRask134 is offline  
Old
01-02-2013, 10:33 AM
  #692
ODAAT
Registered User
 
ODAAT's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Halifax
Country: Canada
Posts: 29,478
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by OrrOverGretzky View Post
The strong fanbase and hockey following isn't enough though Andrew. They absolutely have to have a strong corporate base willing to buy luxury boxes ( big money there that isnt all counted as HRR) and strong local television.

Just filling the arena isn't enough for the NHL anymore.
For sure. I am guessing that the NHL was convinced that this Corporate backing was in place when the Thrashers were moved there??

ODAAT is offline  
Old
01-02-2013, 10:34 AM
  #693
Kaoz*
Ima Krejciist.
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Nova Scotia
Country: Canada
Posts: 28,635
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by OrrOverGretzky View Post
Easily. I remember first breaking the news three years ago about a new arena in Toronto and when it finally became public they said there was no interest in a 2nd team. However, think about this: The Leafs have 18,000 people on a wait list for season tickets. Over and above the price of the tickets is a $20,000 licensing fee that you pay once.

Now, I'm not going to even try and guess at how many would jump ship. But I know a lot of people in Southwestern Ontario that make the trip to Buffalo for NHL hockey simple because they cant get tickets for the Leafs.

And to me Quebec is much like Toronto, no brainers. Not to mention the deal with CBC expires after next season (I believe) and there is sure to be a huge bidding war between CBC and TSN (with CTV involved as both are owned by Bell). Not to mention the local deals with Toronto between Sportsnet and TSN. This is why Bell (TSN) and Rogers (Sportsnet) bought the Leafs. There's going to be big money thrown around and with more Canadian teams - even better.

As for Vegas, I don't know enough about the situation there to make an informed comment. Seattle makes a lot of sense because there's could be an instant rivalry with Vancouver. And Like Ontario fans do to Buffalo, British Columbia fans who can't get Canuck tickets will do the same for Seattle.
I completely agree with Seattle. Your reasoning is very very sound, it's prime for an NHL infusion. Quebec as well, there's simply been too much publicity to deny the city a franchise. That and the addition of a team in Quebec makes the NHL more accessible to the Maritimes and Northern Quebec. That last team though...

I guess the question is how does the NHL value new vs. existing fans. A fan who jumps ship from one team to another is a fan already investing money in the game. You'll get new revenue in terms of that teams gate receipts and a potential increase in broadcasting revenues in Canada but you lose out on the opportunity to grow the sport and add completely new fans and potentially gain with the far more lucrative American broadcasting rights. If you add Quebec, that would make two new Canadian franchises since the negotiation of the last deal which might already be enough to set off just such a bidding war.

Then there's a question of funding. I believe a proposal was put forth in Las Vegas that would see any new arena funded by an imposed tax hike on local business within 3 miles of the new location. Tax payer liability is minimal in such an endeavor. Markham's arena proposal is losing some support for just that reason I believe?

The NHL has held on to Phoenix so stubbornly I'd be surprised to see them give up what little ground they've gained now. Support for the NHL team is suffering but support for the actual sport is growing astronomically. I think moving the team will become the only option soon enough (if it isn't already) because of the ownership fiasco's they've suffered, but would be surprised if they moved them right out of the southern states.

Kaoz* is offline  
Old
01-02-2013, 10:55 AM
  #694
Alberta_OReilly_Fan
Bruin fan since 1975
 
Alberta_OReilly_Fan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Edmonton Canada
Country: Canada
Posts: 5,145
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by ReggieMoto View Post
The owners have to pay the players their contracted rate during the regular season. During the post season all monies taken in by the teams go into the individual owners' pockets. So it doesn't matter how long the regular season is; however, it does matter how long a team stays in the playoffs during the post season.
this is kind of a misconception everyone tosses out.

in reality the money from playoffs is considered hrr. it gets split according to the cba to both owners and players

even though the players technically have no individual benefit from the playoffs... as a collective union they do get their share of playoff money. it makes up the short fall that the regular season doesnt cover.. and if theres extra then it gets handed out too.

Alberta_OReilly_Fan is offline  
Old
01-02-2013, 11:08 AM
  #695
MTaylorJ1
Registered User
 
MTaylorJ1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 5,150
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kaoz View Post
I completely agree with Seattle. Your reasoning is very very sound, it's prime for an NHL infusion. Quebec as well, there's simply been too much publicity to deny the city a franchise. That and the addition of a team in Quebec makes the NHL more accessible to the Maritimes and Northern Quebec. That last team though...

I guess the question is how does the NHL value new vs. existing fans. A fan who jumps ship from one team to another is a fan already investing money in the game. You'll get new revenue in terms of that teams gate receipts and a potential increase in broadcasting revenues in Canada but you lose out on the opportunity to grow the sport and add completely new fans and potentially gain with the far more lucrative American broadcasting rights. If you add Quebec, that would make two new Canadian franchises since the negotiation of the last deal which might already be enough to set off just such a bidding war.

Then there's a question of funding. I believe a proposal was put forth in Las Vegas that would see any new arena funded by an imposed tax hike on local business within 3 miles of the new location. Tax payer liability is minimal in such an endeavor. Markham's arena proposal is losing some support for just that reason I believe?

The NHL has held on to Phoenix so stubbornly I'd be surprised to see them give up what little ground they've gained now. Support for the NHL team is suffering but support for the actual sport is growing astronomically. I think moving the team will become the only option soon enough (if it isn't already) because of the ownership fiasco's they've suffered, but would be surprised if they moved them right out of the southern states.
I'd actually make the argument that if you were looking to place teams in S. Ontario, Quebec City, and Seattle, that as a league you'd be best off moving the Coyotes to Seattle, because they're established, and have a better chance for immediate success, which when delving into a new market, is probably a good idea. Just have a feeling that S. Ontario and QC would stick with a struggling expansion team a bit longer.

In some ways I think the NHL missed their window with Seattle though. The NBA will be back in short order (which helps fulfill the arena requirement) and Seattle is one of the few American cities with which the MLS franchise can be considered a major team. A team in Seattle is competing with 4 other professional teams (Seahawks, NBA, Mariners, Sounders) plus UW for the entertainment dollar. Not the easiest of propositions if the team struggles at the start (like Columbus, Atlanta did)

MTaylorJ1 is offline  
Old
01-02-2013, 11:24 AM
  #696
GordonHowe
Registered User
 
GordonHowe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Dorchester, MA
Country: United States
Posts: 3,229
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by EverettMike View Post
If the league is considering a permanent switch to a 7-10, 8-9 play-in, then they should cut the season down to 75 games.

The regular season would instantly become more important and exciting.

Also, the division winners should get 5 home games in the first round.
Before my time (early '70s) but I believe there used to be a 60 game schedule. 82 is way too many. Don't know how the players do it.

GordonHowe is offline  
Old
01-02-2013, 11:35 AM
  #697
GordonHowe
Registered User
 
GordonHowe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Dorchester, MA
Country: United States
Posts: 3,229
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by EverettMike View Post
If the league is considering a permanent switch to a 7-10, 8-9 play-in, then they should cut the season down to 75 games.

The regular season would instantly become more important and exciting.

Also, the division winners should get 5 home games in the first round.
Doubtless you own a copy, but if not, your favorite scout penned a memoir (with "As Told To" help), entitled "The Bird." I had no idea he coached the Stars.

GordonHowe is offline  
Old
01-02-2013, 11:44 AM
  #698
Kaoz*
Ima Krejciist.
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Nova Scotia
Country: Canada
Posts: 28,635
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by MTaylorJ1 View Post
I'd actually make the argument that if you were looking to place teams in S. Ontario, Quebec City, and Seattle, that as a league you'd be best off moving the Coyotes to Seattle, because they're established, and have a better chance for immediate success, which when delving into a new market, is probably a good idea. Just have a feeling that S. Ontario and QC would stick with a struggling expansion team a bit longer.

In some ways I think the NHL missed their window with Seattle though. The NBA will be back in short order (which helps fulfill the arena requirement) and Seattle is one of the few American cities with which the MLS franchise can be considered a major team. A team in Seattle is competing with 4 other professional teams (Seahawks, NBA, Mariners, Sounders) plus UW for the entertainment dollar. Not the easiest of propositions if the team struggles at the start (like Columbus, Atlanta did)
Very good point. It would be interesting to see how they managed it but an established franchise in a non traditional market would no doubt be preferable. Is Seattle "non-traditional" enough for that to apply though? With just an NBA team they will get 120 million worth of city funding for the new arena. With an NHL and NBA team they'll get 200 million. An extra 80 million could provide a lot of motivation.

I know Las Vegas was clamoring for a major sports franchise as well, but there are no doubt quite a few other issues they'd neeed to consider. UNLV has a major sports complex project (60,000 seat capacity) further along in the planning stages that could see an MLS team there which may fulfill that requirement. Wouldn't be any good for hockey though. If that gets the go ahead I'd think that would cause major issues for any other such arena development in the city? Then there is the legalized gambling thing, not to mention the question of whether or not the city would even support the NHL. The ECHL Wranglers manage to average 5,000 a game though and NHL preseason games there tend to sell out so you never know.

Both Seattle and Las Vegas seem to already have NHL approved owners willing to take the plunge, so maybe that helps as well.

Or maybe we end up with the Las Vegas Coyotes and Seattle Oilers as well as two new teams in Toronto and Quebec...

Kaoz* is offline  
Old
01-02-2013, 11:46 AM
  #699
RussellmaniaKW
Registered User
 
RussellmaniaKW's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 6,935
vCash: 500
so if they get a deal done who else is pretty much ready to just forgive all and get back on the bandwagon? I'm so ready for some NHL hockey that if they can come to a deal without costing the whole season I'm willing to pretend this didn't happen. It's another story if they lose the whole season, but I'm soooo ready for hockey to start.

RussellmaniaKW is offline  
Old
01-02-2013, 11:49 AM
  #700
Greyhounds
Registered User
 
Greyhounds's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Nashua
Country: United States
Posts: 11,064
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by OrrOverGretzky View Post
Easily. I remember first breaking the news three years ago about a new arena in Toronto and when it finally became public they said there was no interest in a 2nd team. However, think about this: The Leafs have 18,000 people on a wait list for season tickets. Over and above the price of the tickets is a $20,000 licensing fee that you pay once.

Now, I'm not going to even try and guess at how many would jump ship. But I know a lot of people in Southwestern Ontario that make the trip to Buffalo for NHL hockey simple because they cant get tickets for the Leafs.

And to me Quebec is much like Toronto, no brainers. Not to mention the deal with CBC expires after next season (I believe) and there is sure to be a huge bidding war between CBC and TSN (with CTV involved as both are owned by Bell). Not to mention the local deals with Toronto between Sportsnet and TSN. This is why Bell (TSN) and Rogers (Sportsnet) bought the Leafs. There's going to be big money thrown around and with more Canadian teams - even better.

As for Vegas, I don't know enough about the situation there to make an informed comment. Seattle makes a lot of sense because there's could be an instant rivalry with Vancouver. And Like Ontario fans do to Buffalo, British Columbia fans who can't get Canuck tickets will do the same for Seattle.
It seems to me that hockey has always failed in Toronto, with the exception of the Leafs. I guess the question is whether Toronto is a Leafs-only community, or NHL-only community. If it's the former, another team in TO could be a huge disaster. If it's the latter, it could be a blazing success, but it might (or might not) severely dent the value of the Leafs franchise.

Greyhounds 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 06:00 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.