HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > General Hockey Discussion > The Business of Hockey
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.

If you were GOD which team would u eliminate?

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
09-23-2004, 04:59 PM
  #151
HellsBells
Registered User
 
HellsBells's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: PEI
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,544
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by x-bob
I bet they still wouldn't be able to get past the 1st round
:lol

Burn !!

HellsBells is offline  
Old
09-23-2004, 05:42 PM
  #152
DownFromNJ
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 2,536
vCash: 500
Quote:
Winnipeg was a fine franchise until the WHA merged with the NHL, and it has the fan base. With a new CBA, franchises in Hamilton, Winnipeg and Quebec would work. With much lower salaries, profit sharing, and a league that isn't drowning in debit, it will work. You may not know the city of Winnipeg, but I sure as hell do, and we got shafted by the Jets last owner and we got shafted by the league. I'm not even a Jets fan to begin with, but this city misses that team and they deserve it a whole flipping lot more than half the cities in the United States. Half the small prairie hick towns (don't mean to offend anyone) deserve a team more than Phoenix, Carolina, or where ever the heck the Panthers play.
Winnipeg doesn't "deserve" anything. Winnipeg failed as a franchise. Thats why they were moved. If they were to move back, they would need to pay 300+ million dollars for a new Arena. That isn't going t happen anytime soon.



Quote:

I'm not a he thank you very much. And I'm sorry if I think the state of Florida needs 2 NHL teams when teams in Canada get shafted again and again. I'm only saying this will happen if the new CBA will support small market teams.
Florida's population is 17 million people. Canada's is 32 million. Ameican teams need to sell 70% of the tickets that a Canadian team needs to sell.

I don't care if Canada gets "shafted". Its bad for business and therefore bad for the NHL to have more franchises in Canada. Until Canada's economy improves significantly, American franchises are simply superior.

Theres room for growth in Carolina, Phoenix, Nashville, etc. Franchises in Edmonton or Calgary (or Winnipeg or Hamilton) aren't going to get any better. Same for Buffalo and the Isles.

DownFromNJ is offline  
Old
09-23-2004, 05:51 PM
  #153
looooob
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 1,886
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by DownFromNJ
Winnipeg doesn't "deserve" anything. Winnipeg failed as a franchise. Thats why they were moved. If they were to move back, they would need to pay 300+ million dollars for a new Arena. That isn't going t happen anytime soon.





Florida's population is 17 million people. Canada's is 32 million. Ameican teams need to sell 70% of the tickets that a Canadian team needs to sell.

I don't care if Canada gets "shafted". Its bad for business and therefore bad for the NHL to have more franchises in Canada. Until Canada's economy improves significantly, American franchises are simply superior.

Theres room for growth in Carolina, Phoenix, Nashville, etc. Franchises in Edmonton or Calgary (or Winnipeg or Hamilton) aren't going to get any better. Same for Buffalo and the Isles.
first of all I don't wish for anyone to be contracted so I will try not to offend anyone, but why is there room for growth in Carolina, Phoenix and Nashville but not Calgary?

I would imagine Calgary had a better year in terms of profit in 03-04 than they did in 02-03 (the year you gave data for , which happened to be Calgary's 7th straight year out of the playoffs). wouldn't on ice product have something to do with it? I'm not understanding why Calgary needs to go right now

looooob is offline  
Old
09-23-2004, 10:16 PM
  #154
barrytrotzsneck
Retired Global Mod
 
barrytrotzsneck's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Nashville, TN
Country: United States
Posts: 31,004
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by looooob
first of all I don't wish for anyone to be contracted so I will try not to offend anyone, but why is there room for growth in Carolina, Phoenix and Nashville but not Calgary?

I would imagine Calgary had a better year in terms of profit in 03-04 than they did in 02-03 (the year you gave data for , which happened to be Calgary's 7th straight year out of the playoffs). wouldn't on ice product have something to do with it? I'm not understanding why Calgary needs to go right now
i agree with you, and personally don't think ANY teams should be contracted. It's just a few clowns who think all of hockey's problems coincide with expansion. shrug.

__________________
www.thepredatorial.com

barrytrotzsneck is offline  
Old
09-23-2004, 10:31 PM
  #155
Hemskyfanboy83
Registered User
 
Hemskyfanboy83's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 6,463
vCash: 500
i find it funny how ppl are going by revenues when they should be going by attendence and how popular the sport is in that city which rules out all canadian teams being contracted. If a team gets 5-10 thousand ppl to their games i am sry they deserve to be contracted. I don't care if they make a profit the city doesn't deserve a hockey team. U guys want a valid arguement it would make for more entertaining hockey. U guys are just mad cuz we are mentioning ur teams that get about 10 thosand ppl so u come up with dumb remarks like i would contract every person who wants a team to be contracted

Hemskyfanboy83 is offline  
Old
09-23-2004, 10:32 PM
  #156
Cawz
Registered User
 
Cawz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Oiler fan in Calgary
Country: Canada
Posts: 10,752
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by DownFromNJ
Florida's population is 17 million people. Canada's is 32 million. Ameican teams need to sell 70% of the tickets that a Canadian team needs to sell.

I don't care if Canada gets "shafted". Its bad for business and therefore bad for the NHL to have more franchises in Canada. Until Canada's economy improves significantly, American franchises are simply superior.

Theres room for growth in Carolina, Phoenix, Nashville, etc. Franchises in Edmonton or Calgary (or Winnipeg or Hamilton) aren't going to get any better. Same for Buffalo and the Isles.
Until Canadas economy improves? I think you need to get a little more informed about the world before you post.

Quote:
Originally Posted by nomorekids
i agree with you, and personally don't think ANY teams should be contracted. It's just a few clowns who think all of hockey's problems coincide with expansion. shrug.
Exactly. Its such a small minded approach to the problems.

Cawz is offline  
Old
09-23-2004, 10:35 PM
  #157
barrytrotzsneck
Retired Global Mod
 
barrytrotzsneck's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Nashville, TN
Country: United States
Posts: 31,004
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by oilerlova
i find it funny how ppl are going by revenues when they should be going by attendence and how popular the sport is in that city which rules out all canadian teams being contracted. If a team gets 5-10 thousand ppl to their games i am sry they deserve to be contracted. I don't care if they make a profit the city doesn't deserve a hockey team. U guys want a valid arguement it would make for more entertaining hockey. U guys are just mad cuz we are mentioning ur teams that get about 10 thosand ppl so u come up with dumb remarks like i would contract every person who wants a team to be contracted

okay, how about this:

I believe everyone who can't be bothered to type out monosyllabic, three letter words should be contracted.

Better?

barrytrotzsneck is offline  
Old
09-23-2004, 10:39 PM
  #158
Hemskyfanboy83
Registered User
 
Hemskyfanboy83's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 6,463
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by nomorekids
okay, how about this:

I believe everyone who can't be bothered to type out monosyllabic, three letter words should be contracted.

Better?
what is the matter u can't come up with a decent post proving a point why a team or 2 shouldn't be contracted so you (notice how i spelled it) come up with that

Hemskyfanboy83 is offline  
Old
09-23-2004, 10:45 PM
  #159
barrytrotzsneck
Retired Global Mod
 
barrytrotzsneck's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Nashville, TN
Country: United States
Posts: 31,004
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by oilerlova
what is the matter u can't come up with a decent post proving a point why a team or 2 shouldn't be contracted so you (notice how i spelled it) come up with that

I don't need to, because any rational person knows that contraction would be a step backwards. And where are you getting your information? Revenues "shouldn't matter?" Only attendance should? That's called "cut to fit," in relation to your objectives. Hockey is a business...so not only do revenues "matter," they're EVERYTHING. If an owner is making money off of 14,000 a night...it doesn't matter to him how he gets it. Similarly, if a team sells out every night and is losing millions of dollars(as in the case of a couple of the Canadian teams,) then there's a problem. At the bottom of this, though, is the fact that neither the owners nor the players would support contraction. It would do nothing to improve the game, and wouldn only stunt the growth. You're quick to judge some of these teams as "failures," by the way. How can you gauge the success or failure of a team in such a short period of time? A period of time in which the on-ice product was mostly bad? Of course teams in new, non-traditional markets will struggle with attendance..when they're LOSING...but...as I mentioned earlier..so did the Red Wings. So did the Canucks. So did the Flames. When teams like Nashville, Columbus and Atlanta are putting out perennial contenders(which, through excellent drafting, all three likely will, eventually) THEN you can judge...if the attendance still isn't good. Give these markets a chance before you want them whisked back to a city that had poor attendance to start with(Winnipeg). Besides, the whole face of the situation will change if and WHEN this lockout is over and a more favorable CBA is in place.

barrytrotzsneck is offline  
Old
09-23-2004, 10:52 PM
  #160
Hockeyfan02
Registered User
 
Hockeyfan02's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Pistivity
Country: United States
Posts: 13,745
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by oilerlova
i find it funny how ppl are going by revenues when they should be going by attendence and how popular the sport is in that city which rules out all canadian teams being contracted. If a team gets 5-10 thousand ppl to their games i am sry they deserve to be contracted. I don't care if they make a profit the city doesn't deserve a hockey team. U guys want a valid arguement it would make for more entertaining hockey. U guys are just mad cuz we are mentioning ur teams that get about 10 thosand ppl so u come up with dumb remarks like i would contract every person who wants a team to be contracted
I find it funny how you think a city with a team that makes a profit shouldnt have a hockey team. I'm taking a guess here that you would like me saying the Oilers should be contracted because they are at the bottom in terms of revenue as much as I like someone like you saying the Lightning should be contracted because Florida shouldnt have two hockey teams. Some people think contraction is the solution to the league, but in reality it isnt.

Hockeyfan02 is offline  
Old
09-23-2004, 10:57 PM
  #161
Zetterberg4Captain*
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Saskatoon
Country: Canada
Posts: 6,165
vCash: 500
New Jersey

Zetterberg4Captain* is offline  
Old
09-23-2004, 11:08 PM
  #162
Hemskyfanboy83
Registered User
 
Hemskyfanboy83's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 6,463
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hockeyfan02
I find it funny how you think a city with a team that makes a profit shouldnt have a hockey team. I'm taking a guess here that you would like me saying the Oilers should be contracted because they are at the bottom in terms of revenue as much as I like someone like you saying the Lightning should be contracted because Florida shouldnt have two hockey teams. Some people think contraction is the solution to the league, but in reality it isnt.
it has nothing to do with revenue in my mind as that will all change after the cba but the fact is y shouldn't we contract some teams i haven't given any names as i don't want to waste my time doing research but since u brought edmonton into this i will bring tampa into it. I remember during the finals they went on the streets before the game o it was madness there wasn't one tampa jersey where as in calgary ppl were going crazy that is the difference. Now Tampa might make more money becasue of tv contracts etc but u can't tell me that things like that don't matter. I mean a city that deserves a hockey team should be more excited then that when their team is a cup contender

Hemskyfanboy83 is offline  
Old
09-23-2004, 11:10 PM
  #163
Hemskyfanboy83
Registered User
 
Hemskyfanboy83's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 6,463
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by nomorekids
I don't need to, because any rational person knows that contraction would be a step backwards. And where are you getting your information? Revenues "shouldn't matter?" Only attendance should? That's called "cut to fit," in relation to your objectives. Hockey is a business...so not only do revenues "matter," they're EVERYTHING. If an owner is making money off of 14,000 a night...it doesn't matter to him how he gets it. Similarly, if a team sells out every night and is losing millions of dollars(as in the case of a couple of the Canadian teams,) then there's a problem. At the bottom of this, though, is the fact that neither the owners nor the players would support contraction. It would do nothing to improve the game, and wouldn only stunt the growth. You're quick to judge some of these teams as "failures," by the way. How can you gauge the success or failure of a team in such a short period of time? A period of time in which the on-ice product was mostly bad? Of course teams in new, non-traditional markets will struggle with attendance..when they're LOSING...but...as I mentioned earlier..so did the Red Wings. So did the Canucks. So did the Flames. When teams like Nashville, Columbus and Atlanta are putting out perennial contenders(which, through excellent drafting, all three likely will, eventually) THEN you can judge...if the attendance still isn't good. Give these markets a chance before you want them whisked back to a city that had poor attendance to start with(Winnipeg). Besides, the whole face of the situation will change if and WHEN this lockout is over and a more favorable CBA is in place.

yes such a bad idea i mean what was i thinking obviously i would rather see talent spread out all over the place and teams trapping like there is no tommorow. Why would i want to watch entertaining hockey with that being said i am sure there are 2 teams that could be contracted

Hemskyfanboy83 is offline  
Old
09-23-2004, 11:12 PM
  #164
me2
Seahawks 43
 
me2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Broncos 8
Country: Wallis & Futuna
Posts: 17,344
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by nomorekids
i agree with you, and personally don't think ANY teams should be contracted. It's just a few clowns who think all of hockey's problems coincide with expansion. shrug.
A lot of hockey's problem do come from expansion (talent dilution which leading to player shortages which leads to salary increases at the top end which then flow down).

The trap existed before these teams. Not many of the expansion teams trap. The trap is arguably more popular with the playoff clubs than the ones at the bottom. If there is a problem with the NHL its that many of the big clubs aren't offensive minded enough.

Altanta, Columbus, Nashville aren't trap dominated team (Minny is) but that is 1 out of 4. Going back before that Ducks trap, but Tampa & Florida don't trap (or if Florida does it needs help ).



A lot of hockey's problem do come from expansion (talent dilution which leading to player shortages which leads to salary increases at the top end which then flow down). That doesn't mean the expansion teams should be held responsible, punished or contracted. While they may have contributed to player shortage they weren't the ones forking over the big salaries. Most of them don't trap.


Last edited by me2: 09-23-2004 at 11:16 PM.
me2 is offline  
Old
09-23-2004, 11:16 PM
  #165
Hemskyfanboy83
Registered User
 
Hemskyfanboy83's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 6,463
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by me2
A lot of hockey's problem do come from expansion (talent dilution which leading to player shortages which leads to salary increases at the top end which then flow down).

The trap existed before these teams. Not many of the expansion teams trap. The trap is arguably more popular with the playoff clubs than the ones at the bottom. If there is a problem with the NHL its that many of the big clubs aren't offensive minded enough.

Altanta, Columbus, Nashville aren't trap dominated team (Minny is) but that is 1 out of 4. Going back before that Ducks trap, but Tampa & Florida don't trap (or if Florida does it needs help ).



A lot of hockey's problem do come from expansion (talent dilution which leading to player shortages which leads to salary increases at the top end which then flow down). That doesn't mean the expansion teams should be held responsible, punished or contracted. While they may have contributed to player shortage they weren't the ones forking over the big salaries.

very true and i haven't given names of what teams to contract but i do think lets say CBJ is contracted if nash goes to a trapping team they might become a bit more offensive minded. I am not picking on them i just used them as an example

Hemskyfanboy83 is offline  
Old
09-23-2004, 11:19 PM
  #166
barrytrotzsneck
Retired Global Mod
 
barrytrotzsneck's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Nashville, TN
Country: United States
Posts: 31,004
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by me2
A lot of hockey's problem do come from expansion (talent dilution which leading to player shortages which leads to salary increases at the top end which then flow down).

The trap existed before these teams. Not many of the expansion teams trap. The trap is arguably more popular with the playoff clubs than the ones at the bottom. If there is a problem with the NHL its that many of the big clubs aren't offensive minded enough.

Altanta, Columbus, Nashville aren't trap dominated team (Minny is) but that is 1 out of 4. Going back before that Ducks trap, but Tampa & Florida don't trap (or if Florida does it needs help ).



A lot of hockey's problem do come from expansion (talent dilution which leading to player shortages which leads to salary increases at the top end which then flow down). That doesn't mean the expansion teams should be held responsible, punished or contracted. While they may have contributed to player shortage they weren't the ones forking over the big salaries. Most of them don't trap.
I think the "talent dilution" is one of the biggest myths in hockey, though. There are fourth liners today who would have DOMINATED the NHL of the seventies. You have to realize that there was a necessary increase in teams do the huge influx of European players. 20 years ago, it wasn't an issue, because 95 percent of the players were all from Canada...but slowly, Russians were allowed in...more and more Finns surfaced, and Swedes followed. Now, you're seeing Latvians, Belarussians, Norwegians, Austrians and even Germans. There's more teams but there's also more deserving players. The question is: was the talent level higher back then...or did it just seem that way because there were less "superstars," making those that WERE super-talented stand out more?

barrytrotzsneck is offline  
Old
09-23-2004, 11:21 PM
  #167
barrytrotzsneck
Retired Global Mod
 
barrytrotzsneck's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Nashville, TN
Country: United States
Posts: 31,004
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by oilerlova
yes such a bad idea i mean what was i thinking obviously i would rather see talent spread out all over the place and teams trapping like there is no tommorow. Why would i want to watch entertaining hockey with that being said i am sure there are 2 teams that could be contracted

The trap predates expansion, buddy. Jacques Lemaire would have been a coach regardless of whether there was 20 or 30 teams. The only difference would have been that he would have had even more skilled trappers, making his teams even more annoying to play against. Don't blame the trap on the amount of teams...blame it on its effectiveness.

barrytrotzsneck is offline  
Old
09-23-2004, 11:25 PM
  #168
Sotnos
Registered User
 
Sotnos's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Not here
Posts: 10,900
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by oilerlova
it has nothing to do with revenue in my mind as that will all change after the cba but the fact is y shouldn't we contract some teams i haven't given any names as i don't want to waste my time doing research but since u brought edmonton into this i will bring tampa into it. I remember during the finals they went on the streets before the game o it was madness there wasn't one tampa jersey where as in calgary ppl were going crazy that is the difference. Now Tampa might make more money becasue of tv contracts etc but u can't tell me that things like that don't matter. I mean a city that deserves a hockey team should be more excited then that when their team is a cup contender
Huh? So money doesn't matter, what the streets looks like in some news clip matters? OK

Do I need to find pictures for you of the 10,000+ people sitting outside the St. Pete Times Forum watching the game on the side of a fricken' parking garage in 90F temperatures because they couldn't get tickets, or is your memory not quite that short? You do know that Tampa set attendance records for the Finals, right? But forget all that money coming in, the streets weren't full of Lightning jerseys when they shot this footage for a news show! Contract them!

What is this "deserves" business all about anyway, I've never gotten a good answer on that one.

Sotnos is offline  
Old
09-23-2004, 11:25 PM
  #169
thinkwild
Veni Vidi Toga
 
thinkwild's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Ottawa
Country: Canada
Posts: 8,266
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by nomorekids
I think the "talent dilution" is one of the biggest myths in hockey, though.
And I think nearly everyone in tune with the game now understands this.

thinkwild is offline  
Old
09-23-2004, 11:27 PM
  #170
barrytrotzsneck
Retired Global Mod
 
barrytrotzsneck's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Nashville, TN
Country: United States
Posts: 31,004
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sotnos
Huh? So money doesn't matter, what the streets looks like in some news clip matters? OK

Do I need to find pictures for you of the 10,000+ people sitting outside the St. Pete Times Forum watching the game on the side of a fricken' parking garage in 90F temperatures because they couldn't get tickets, or is your memory not quite that short? You do know that Tampa set attendance records for the Finals, right? But forget all that money coming in, the streets weren't full of Lightning jerseys when they shot this footage for a news show! Contract them!

What is this "deserves" business all about anyway, I've never gotten a good answer on that one.

Maybe he thinks there's too many teams because the Oilers can't mediocre their way into the playoffs, anymore? :lol

barrytrotzsneck is offline  
Old
09-23-2004, 11:41 PM
  #171
LadyJet26
GO JETS GO!!!
 
LadyJet26's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Winnipeg, MB
Country: Canada
Posts: 5,859
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by DownFromNJ
Winnipeg doesn't "deserve" anything. Winnipeg failed as a franchise. Thats why they were moved. If they were to move back, they would need to pay 300+ million dollars for a new Arena. That isn't going t happen anytime soon.
AGAIN, you know nothing. THERE IS A NEW ARENA! MTS Centre The reason they never built that one 10 years ago when it only cost half of what it does now is because the flipping city of Winnipeg offices are so flipping anal and the fact that there wasn't anywhere to put a new one. You have no flipping clue about what happened when the Jets left. NOTHING.

Quote:
Florida's population is 17 million people. Canada's is 32 million. Ameican teams need to sell 70% of the tickets that a Canadian team needs to sell.
and the fact that Canadians live and breathe hockey means what to you? Population doesn't mean squat when it comes to the Canadian winter national sport.



Quote:
I don't care if Canada gets "shafted". Its bad for business and therefore bad for the NHL to have more franchises in Canada. Until Canada's economy improves significantly, American franchises are simply superior.
apparently you didn't hear Bettman when he said that I forgot how much he said, but a certain amount of their decrease in debt came from the rising Canadian dollar alone. Last year it was suffering around 67 cents US, now it's at roughly 77 cents US. Oh and I think the idiots that closed the US border to live Canadian cattle because of ONE case of BSE (That's Mad Cow Disease), when in fact the case found here, the cow was from your country have something to do with the lousy economy. You do realize that has affected more then one business in this lovely country? Large animal vets, vet techs, vet assistants, farmers. And the little fact that our Prime Minister is more concerned about our health care not going americanized then about the economy.

Quote:
Theres room for growth in Carolina, Phoenix, Nashville, etc. Franchises in Edmonton or Calgary (or Winnipeg or Hamilton) aren't going to get any better. Same for Buffalo and the Isles.
Edmonton and Calgary both have fan bases, oh and look at that? Calgary made the finals last year

Again I say, you know nothing about the Canadian economy and you know nothing about the city I live in. Learn your flipping facts before you jump.

LadyJet26 is offline  
Old
09-24-2004, 12:15 AM
  #172
AVE MAN
Registered User
 
AVE MAN's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 1,176
vCash: 500
Eliminate all the american teams except for Detroit (hockey USA) and Boston (because Bobby Orr played there). Nobody cares about hockey in the U.S.
Bring the game back to where it was born, and where people actually know what icing means. Bring it back to the Country that doesn't need a glowing puck to follow the play.

For future NHL expansions there should be a rule,

No Tim Hortons Franchise...No Hockey Franchise

AVE MAN is offline  
Old
09-24-2004, 12:28 AM
  #173
LadyJet26
GO JETS GO!!!
 
LadyJet26's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Winnipeg, MB
Country: Canada
Posts: 5,859
vCash: 50
No American teams are good, just don't get why people keep saying that the NHL wouldn't work in Winnipeg.

LadyJet26 is offline  
Old
09-24-2004, 12:36 AM
  #174
Hockeyfan02
Registered User
 
Hockeyfan02's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Pistivity
Country: United States
Posts: 13,745
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by oilerlova
it has nothing to do with revenue in my mind as that will all change after the cba but the fact is y shouldn't we contract some teams i haven't given any names as i don't want to waste my time doing research but since u brought edmonton into this i will bring tampa into it. I remember during the finals they went on the streets before the game o it was madness there wasn't one tampa jersey where as in calgary ppl were going crazy that is the difference. Now Tampa might make more money becasue of tv contracts etc but u can't tell me that things like that don't matter. I mean a city that deserves a hockey team should be more excited then that when their team is a cup contender
Maybe it was your feed because what I saw during the finals and the conference finals for that matter were people sitting outside the arena to watch the games in 90 degree F heat. I do remember seeing Lightning jerseys in the streets and in that crowd. I didnt need a television feed to show that to me because I was actually at the majority of the playoff games. I dunno if a city is excited when it takes me almost 20 minutes to squeeze through people who are outside to watch the games on a big screen to be a part of the atmosphere (like some of my friends werea) just to get to the arena from a parking garage that is usually a half minute walk. I dont know maybe a tv feed showing Calgary fans in Tampa to a fan like yourself in Canada is a better indication of the excitement of a city than a person like me who actually lives in the city. I mean you can easily tell the excitement level from a tv feed than actually living in the city.......

Hockeyfan02 is offline  
Old
09-24-2004, 12:58 AM
  #175
barrytrotzsneck
Retired Global Mod
 
barrytrotzsneck's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Nashville, TN
Country: United States
Posts: 31,004
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by AVE MAN
Eliminate all the american teams except for Detroit (hockey USA) and Boston (because Bobby Orr played there). Nobody cares about hockey in the U.S.
Bring the game back to where it was born, and where people actually know what icing means. Bring it back to the Country that doesn't need a glowing puck to follow the play.

For future NHL expansions there should be a rule,

No Tim Hortons Franchise...No Hockey Franchise

haha, good luck trying to pay players in monopoly--er, canadian money.

barrytrotzsneck 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 10:12 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.