HFBoards

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

If Ballard still owned the Leafs....

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
02-09-2005, 09:06 PM
  #26
Leaf Army
Registered User
 
Leaf Army's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Leaf Nation
Posts: 8,398
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by mooseOAK
The way it has been managed. A new CBA is unlikely to change that.
Exactly.

That's why I brought up this thread. If Ballard still owned the Leafs, we'd probably be in the same position.

We'd be a relatively small market, with a low payroll a bad team and Ballard would likely be the first owner to stand up and say we need a new system.

We need progressive thinking owners leading the way. Not backwards thinking ones.

Quote:
Originally Posted by mooseOAK
You can't have it both ways. Calgary and Edmonton can't compete financially so by your measure they are bad markets, and their problems are definitely caused by the old CBA.
There are three major factors affecting Calgary and Edmonton that have nothing to do with the CBA.

1. The Canadian dollar. I know it's getting stronger, but it still puts Canadian teams at a disadvantage right off the bat.

2. Population. Even though hockey is the number one sport in Alberta, they still don't have the population base to create a huge market. Compare the populations of Alberta (two teams) and Ohio (one team) and you'll see the problem this creates.

3. Ownership. There are very few Wal-Mart, Disney, AOL, Comcast etc... type corporations in Canada to pour money into teams. As a result, Edmonton has an ownership team of something like 30 separate individuals. And I believe Calgary's in a similar situation. Even the Canadiens are owned by an American.

The American NHL owners should recognize they need these teams in Canada and have some sort of significant support system for them in order to level the playing field.

Unlike what Bettman will try and have you believe, that has nothing to do with the CBA.

Quote:
Originally Posted by mooseOAK
Who decides what is a bad market anyway?
A bad market is one that can't support a hockey team.

Leaf Army is offline  
Old
02-09-2005, 10:00 PM
  #27
leaflover
New hope
 
leaflover's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: beautiful B.C
Country: Canada
Posts: 10,910
vCash: 4100
Hey you guys leave wirtz alone.The hawks are the only team in a longer cup drought than us,and as long as wirtz is there they will remain that way.

leaflover is offline  
Old
02-10-2005, 07:06 AM
  #28
richardn
Registered User
 
richardn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Sault Ste. Marie
Country: Canada
Posts: 7,900
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Leaf Army
Exactly.

That's why I brought up this thread. If Ballard still owned the Leafs, we'd probably be in the same position.

We'd be a relatively small market, with a low payroll a bad team and Ballard would likely be the first owner to stand up and say we need a new system.

We need progressive thinking owners leading the way. Not backwards thinking ones.



There are three major factors affecting Calgary and Edmonton that have nothing to do with the CBA.

1. The Canadian dollar. I know it's getting stronger, but it still puts Canadian teams at a disadvantage right off the bat.

2. Population. Even though hockey is the number one sport in Alberta, they still don't have the population base to create a huge market. Compare the populations of Alberta (two teams) and Ohio (one team) and you'll see the problem this creates.

3. Ownership. There are very few Wal-Mart, Disney, AOL, Comcast etc... type corporations in Canada to pour money into teams. As a result, Edmonton has an ownership team of something like 30 separate individuals. And I believe Calgary's in a similar situation. Even the Canadiens are owned by an American.

The American NHL owners should recognize they need these teams in Canada and have some sort of significant support system for them in order to level the playing field.

Unlike what Bettman will try and have you believe, that has nothing to do with the CBA.



A bad market is one that can't support a hockey team.
Bettman sais with this proposal he wants to make it so that all 30 teams survive and have equal chances to suceed. I think he should put something in the new contract that would share revenue's with the Canadian teams that would balance out the difference in the Canadian and US dollar. The owners want to fix their over spending problems by using the players as scape goats. They really should be considering large revenue sharing amung ownersif they want a healthy 30 team league.

richardn is offline  
Old
02-10-2005, 09:43 AM
  #29
mooseOAK*
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 42,437
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Leaf Army
Exactly.

That's why I brought up this thread. If Ballard still owned the Leafs, we'd probably be in the same position.

We'd be a relatively small market, with a low payroll a bad team and Ballard would likely be the first owner to stand up and say we need a new system.

We need progressive thinking owners leading the way. Not backwards thinking ones.
I can agree with that except for the small market part, the Leafs would still be the biggest market in the league.
Quote:
A bad market is one that can't support a hockey team.
If that is defined as a team that can't compete financially on an ongoing basis when the salary structure is being set by the highest revenue teams then that means half the teams in the league are in a bad market. A cap will turn them into better markets, maybe even good ones.

mooseOAK* is offline  
Old
02-10-2005, 10:21 AM
  #30
Leaf Army
Registered User
 
Leaf Army's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Leaf Nation
Posts: 8,398
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by mooseOAK
I can agree with that except for the small market part, the Leafs would still be the biggest market in the league.
Small market is an ambiguous term.

I hear people refer to the Panthers as a "small market" team all the time. But in reality Miami is a huge market.

So what's the difference?

Quote:
Originally Posted by mooseOAK
If that is defined as a team that can't compete financially on an ongoing basis when the salary structure is being set by the highest revenue teams then that means half the teams in the league are in a bad market.
Having the low revenue (ie less successful) teams set the standard for the rest of the league is dangerous.

You say the salary structure is being set by the highest revenue teams. Well how do you think they got to be the highest revenue teams? Luck? No.

The high revenue teams got to where they are because they have great ownership, great management and they're in a market that can support hockey.

The owners should be looking at themselves in the mirror.

Quote:
Originally Posted by mooseOAK
A cap will turn them into better markets, maybe even good ones.
It won't turn them into better markets. That's one of Bettman's myths.

What it will do is allow poorly managed, non-progressive teams to remain poorly managed and non-progressive.

And like I said- that's very dangerous for the future of the NHL in the United States when you consider how poor management is killing once strong markets like Chicago and Boston.

Would a cap help these owners? Sure. They'd love to cap every players salary at $100,000 a year. That would be great for them.

Leaf Army is offline  
Old
02-10-2005, 10:22 AM
  #31
Mess
Global Moderator
 
Mess's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Country: Canada
Posts: 60,060
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by mooseOAK
I can agree with that except for the small market part, the Leafs would still be the biggest market in the league..
With Boston and Chicago very close behind and that is the point that Leaf Army is making that Big Market owners are acting like small market teams in the current NHL ,and that is worse IMO then a team that can't do better then it currently is like Edmonton .. Who have maxed out filling the Seats and Ticket prices and still can only have a 32 million dollar payroll to break even ..


Quote:
Originally Posted by mooseOAK
If that is defined as a team that can't compete financially on an ongoing basis when the salary structure is being set by the highest revenue teams then that means half the teams in the league are in a bad market. A cap will turn them into better markets, maybe even good ones.
You often see things as too Black or White IMO .. Sure capping the top teams or big market spending does control the top range .. but the bottom range is what we are talking about ... If Bettman's Robin Hood plan of robbing from the rich and giving to the poor via Revenue sharing was not factored in to any small or non-hockey market discussion what would be the test of a small market team??

Could a team survive without assistance from others financially is that true test IMO .. If Bettman sets the range at say 32 - 42 million .. I would not be concerned about the 42 figure as that is a non issue .. the $32 mil is the deciding factor ..

In fact I believe that the minimum range is more important then the max amount for the betterment of the Game .. Parity is the issue here .. Sure spending freely should be stopped but having teams with 16 - 22 million dollar payrolls is what is hurting the entertainment level of the NHL more .. What is the reason that these teams have this low payrolls .. Even if the Big Market teams have 65 million there really is no reason that ALL MARKETS should not have 32-35 million regardless ..Lots of UFA to go around to top up these teams ..


Last edited by Mess: 02-10-2005 at 10:44 AM.
Mess is offline  
Old
02-10-2005, 10:35 AM
  #32
mooseOAK*
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 42,437
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Leaf Army
Small market is an ambiguous term.

I hear people refer to the Panthers as a "small market" team all the time. But in reality Miami is a huge market.

So what's the difference?
Do I really need to explain why Toronto is a large hockey market and Miami isn't?
Quote:
Having the low revenue (ie less successful) teams set the standard for the rest of the league is dangerous.

You say the salary structure is being set by the highest revenue teams. Well how do you think they got to be the highest revenue teams? Luck? No.

The high revenue teams got to where they are because they have great ownership, great management and they're in a market that can support hockey.

The owners should be looking at themselves in the mirror.
The New York Rangers aren't a well managed team. The Leafs don't need to be a well managed team and they would still lead the league in revenues. On the other hand the Oilers appear to be a very well managed team but they are slowly dying and they seem to have ownership that is very dedicated to the community.
Quote:
It won't turn them into better markets. That's one of Bettman's myths.

What it will do is allow poorly managed, non-progressive teams to remain poorly managed and non-progressive.

And like I said- that's very dangerous for the future of the NHL in the United States when you consider how poor management is killing once strong markets like Chicago and Boston.

Would a cap help these owners? Sure. They'd love to cap every players salary at $100,000 a year. That would be great for them.
That's ridiculous. With the current system well managed, progressive teams are in serious trouble because they can't compete with poorly managed high revenue teams.

Since when is only about Chicago and Boston?

mooseOAK* is offline  
Old
02-10-2005, 10:49 AM
  #33
Leaf Army
Registered User
 
Leaf Army's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Leaf Nation
Posts: 8,398
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by mooseOAK
Do I really need to explain why Toronto is a large hockey market and Miami isn't?
Yes.

Quote:
Originally Posted by mooseOAK
The New York Rangers aren't a well managed team.
Yes they are.

You're just looking at the hockey side of things. I'm talking about managed from a business standpoint. And yes, often they can be related, but they're not the same thing.

The Rangers are obviously in a great market, but they've also got great ownership. The owners of the team also own the cable network which broadcasts their games. That's a good situation to be in.

Quote:
Originally Posted by mooseOAK
The Leafs don't need to be a well managed team and they would still lead the league in revenues.
The Leafs wouldn't have nearly the revenues they do now if Ballard still owned the team. Not even close.

The owners of the Leafs have turned them into a huge entertainment corporation. They've got a great new arena, they've got their own television network, they ice a competitive team that fans can actually get excited about, their games are actually shown on TV (unlike Chicago's) etc...

Times change. Change occurs in all industries. These are the types of things owners are going to have to do to keep up if they want to move the game forward.

Owners like Jacobs and Wirtz want to kick back and wish for a time machine to take them back to 1975. Won't happen.

Quote:
Originally Posted by mooseOAK
On the other hand the Oilers appear to be a very well managed team but they are slowly dying and they seem to have ownership that is very dedicated to the community.
I've already listed reasons why teams like he Oilers and Flames have unique problems that need to be dealt with seperately from a new CBA.

Quote:
Originally Posted by mooseOAK
That's ridiculous. With the current system well managed, progressive teams are in serious trouble because they can't compete with poorly managed high revenue teams.
Examples?

Quote:
Originally Posted by mooseOAK
Since when is only about Chicago and Boston?
No different than you and Bettman trying to portray it as only about Edmonton and Calgary.

I choose Chicago and Boston because both of their owners are part of that "Group of 8" and they're a perfect example of what I'm talking about.

Leaf Army is offline  
Old
02-10-2005, 10:57 AM
  #34
Verbal Kint*
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: The Bunny Vatican
Country: Canada
Posts: 20,132
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by TrueBlue
If Ballard was still owned the Leafs, Sundin would not be captain. That's a given.
So you support raising him from the dead?

Verbal Kint* is offline  
Old
02-10-2005, 11:09 AM
  #35
mooseOAK*
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 42,437
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Leaf Army
Yes.

Okay, same reason the the Raptors and Blue Jays are small market teams.

Yes they are.

You're just looking at the hockey side of things. I'm talking about managed from a business standpoint. And yes, often they can be related, but they're not the same thing.

The Rangers are obviously in a great market, but they've also got great ownership. The owners of the team also own the cable network which broadcasts their games. That's a good situation to be in.
It doesn't matter how well managed 80% of the teams are, they will never have the revenue that the Rangers have. On the other had it doesn't matter how poorly managed the Rangers are they will still be raking in tons of money. That's your problem there.


Quote:
The Leafs wouldn't have nearly the revenues they do now if Ballard still owned the team. Not even close.

The owners of the Leafs have turned them into a huge entertainment corporation. They've got a great new arena, they've got their own television network, they ice a competitive team that fans can actually get excited about, their games are actually shown on TV (unlike Chicago's) etc...

Times change. Change occurs in all industries. These are the types of things owners are going to have to do to keep up if they want to move the game forward.

Owners like Jacobs and Wirtz want to kick back and wish for a time machine to take them back to 1975. Won't happen.
Again, it isn't about those two, it's about most of the teams in the league.
Quote:
I've already listed reasons why teams like he Oilers and Flames have unique problems that need to be dealt with seperately from a new CBA.
I saw your reasons, in the end they are in the same boat as the rest of the teams that need a new CBA.
Quote:
Examples?
To repeat myself: Rangers on one side, Oilers on the other.
Quote:
No different than you and Bettman trying to portray it as only about Edmonton and Calgary.

I choose Chicago and Boston because both of their owners are part of that "Group of 8" and they're a perfect example of what I'm talking about.
I guess you don't know that this "Group of 8" was made up by a columnist. He also labeled teams like the Kings, Stars, and Red Wings as teams that don't want cost certainty when they have come out and said that they do.

mooseOAK* is offline  
Old
02-10-2005, 11:29 AM
  #36
Leaf Army
Registered User
 
Leaf Army's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Leaf Nation
Posts: 8,398
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by mooseOAK
Okay, same reason the the Raptors and Blue Jays are small market teams.
The Blue Jays were a large market team. They used to have the largest payroll in all of MLB.

What changed? Did Toronto all of a sudden shrink?

Quote:
Originally Posted by mooseOAK
It doesn't matter how well managed 80% of the teams are, they will never have the revenue that the Rangers have. On the other had it doesn't matter how poorly managed the Rangers are they will still be raking in tons of money. That's your problem there.
I've said all along that being in the right market was almost as important as anything else.

The fact that the Rangers are in New York is good for the NHL.

Quote:
Originally Posted by mooseOAK
I saw your reasons, in the end they are in the same boat as the rest of the teams that need a new CBA.
How so? None of the reasons I posted had anything to do with a CBA.

Quote:
Originally Posted by mooseOAK
To repeat myself: Rangers on one side, Oilers on the other.
I want an example of two American teams.

Quote:
Originally Posted by mooseOAK
I guess you don't know that this "Group of 8" was made up by a columnist. He also labeled teams like the Kings, Stars, and Red Wings as teams that don't want cost certainty when they have come out and said that they do.
I'm not talking about whether they want cost certainty. Every team in the league does. They'd be stupid not to. In fact I'm not neccessarily arguing against a cap. I think if it's done right, a cap could work.

Back to my Detroit/ Chicago examples. Both teams are original six teams with strong traditions and both are in large markets

Detroit was not very good in the 80's. But Illitch put money into the team, he assembled great players, and he hired the best coach of all time. He's transformed Detroit into "Hockeytown USA".

Chicago went to the finals in the early 90's. The fans then had to watch as ownership let players like Belfour, Roenick and Chelios leave largely over money and go on to have many great years with other teams. Ownership is a joke, they go through coaches and GMs like crazy and they have trouble putting a competitive team on the ice.

As a result, fans slowly start to not come to games. Ownerships answer? Yank the home games off TV of course. That'll show those ungrateful fans.

Do you not see how backwards this is?

My concern is that Bettman's plans will allow owners to continue running their teams in this fashion. And that's unnacceptable. More than anything this is what will kill hockey in the States. The NHL will get left behind in the dust back in the stone ages.

During this whole lockout, people have painted the large market teams as evil and blamed them for causing this situation.

But honest question. Who has done more to grow hockey in the States? Illitch or Wirtz?

Leaf Army is offline  
Old
02-10-2005, 11:43 AM
  #37
mooseOAK*
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 42,437
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Leaf Army
The Blue Jays were a large market team. They used to have the largest payroll in all of MLB.

What changed? Did Toronto all of a sudden shrink?
No, they couldn't compete financially as salaries started escalating, so now they are looking up at the teams that actually are large market.


Quote:
I want an example of two American teams.
What's the difference? San Jose is a well managed team but they can't compete with the high revenue teams. Transport their management to Phoenix, Buffalo, Carolina, wherever and the situation will be exactly the same.
Quote:
I'm not talking about whether they want cost certainty. Every team in the league does. They'd be stupid not to. In fact I'm not neccessarily arguing against a cap. I think if it's done right, a cap could work.

Back to my Detroit/ Chicago examples. Both teams are original six teams with strong traditions and both are in large markets

Detroit was not very good in the 80's. But Illitch put money into the team, he assembled great players, and he hired the best coach of all time. He's transformed Detroit into "Hockeytown USA".

Chicago went to the finals in the early 90's. The fans then had to watch as ownership let players like Belfour, Roenick and Chelios leave largely over money and go on to have many great years with other teams. Ownership is a joke, they go through coaches and GMs like crazy and they have trouble putting a competitive team on the ice.

As a result, fans slowly start to not come to games. Ownerships answer? Yank the home games off TV of course. That'll show those ungrateful fans.

Do you not see how backwards this is?

My concern is that Bettman's plans will allow owners to continue running their teams in this fashion. And that's unnacceptable. More than anything this is what will kill hockey in the States. The NHL will get left behind in the dust back in the stone ages.

During this whole lockout, people have painted the large market teams as evil and blamed them for causing this situation.

But honest question. Who has done more to grow hockey in the States? Illitch or Wirtz?
Again, there will always be good owners and bad owners. They can't stop having a cost certainty system that helps most of the teams stay alive just because Jacobs and Wirtz are around.

mooseOAK* is offline  
Old
02-10-2005, 12:05 PM
  #38
Leaf Army
Registered User
 
Leaf Army's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Leaf Nation
Posts: 8,398
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by mooseOAK
No, they couldn't compete financially as salaries started escalating, so now they are looking up at the teams that actually are large market.
That doesn't make sense. Are you trying to say that high salaries and the distinction between small and large market teams is a new phenomenon in MLB ?

There were large and small market teams back then. And the Blue Jays were a large market team- no question about it.

They acquired expensive big name guys like David Cone, Dave Stewart, Dave Winfield, Paul Molitor, Jack Morris etc... Their organization, management and ownership was the envy of MLB.

The big problem with the Blue Jays is that they eventually got an absentee owner who didn't give a damn about the team. The on-field product declined, the stadium was not properly cared for and the fans started staying away. Plus they were one of the very few teams in MLB who didn't own and have control over their stadium.

Now they've got new owners who a) own the cable company that broadcasts their games and b) bought their stadium and c) are slowly improving the on-field product.

Now this year, the Blue Jays just increased their budget by about $20 million per year. Did their market just grow substantially? No, they're just better managed now.

Quote:
Originally Posted by mooseOAK
What's the difference? San Jose is a well managed team but they can't compete with the high revenue teams. Transport their management to Phoenix, Buffalo, Carolina, wherever and the situation will be exactly the same.
In Phoenix and Carolina you've just named two teams that are in poor markets.

I would like to see a new CBA that can give teams like San Jose a little push- no question. I'm not advocating the status quo.

But what Bettman wants is much too drastic.

Quote:
Originally Posted by mooseOAK
Again, there will always be good owners and bad owners. They can't stop having a cost certainty system that helps most of the teams stay alive just because Jacobs and Wirtz are around.
But this goes back to my original point.

Teams are not just handed success by virtue of their market. If Ballard was still around, the Leafs wouldn't be nearly as successful as they are now.

Conversely, if Illitch owned the Blackhawks and Wirtz owned the Red Wings, maybe Chicago would be "Hockey City USA" and the NHL would be suffering in Detroit.

No CBA can change that.

Leaf Army is offline  
Old
02-10-2005, 12:20 PM
  #39
mooseOAK*
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 42,437
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Leaf Army
That doesn't make sense. Are you trying to say that high salaries and the distinction between small and large market teams is a new phenomenon in MLB ?
Yes, 10 years ago the Yankees payroll wasn't four times that of the Blue Jays, the Red Sox three times.

Then the Blue Jays had a chance, $20 million in extra salary means that they spent more money but they still don't have a chance.


Quote:
In Phoenix and Carolina you've just named two teams that are in poor markets.

I would like to see a new CBA that can give teams like San Jose a little push- no question. I'm not advocating the status quo.

But what Bettman wants is much too drastic.
What makes San Jose a better market than Phoenix or Carolina?
Quote:
But this goes back to my original point.

Teams are not just handed success by virtue of their market. If Ballard was still around, the Leafs wouldn't be nearly as successful as they are now.

Conversely, if Illitch owned the Blackhawks and Wirtz owned the Red Wings, maybe Chicago would be "Hockey City USA" and the NHL would be suffering in Detroit.

No CBA can change that.
That's what i have been trying to say. Mismanaged teams will still be mismanaged teams. Well managed teams will benefit the most from a new CBA because they will have a better chance of keeping the players that they scout and develop.

mooseOAK* is offline  
Old
02-10-2005, 07:01 PM
  #40
Leaf Army
Registered User
 
Leaf Army's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Leaf Nation
Posts: 8,398
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by mooseOAK
Yes, 10 years ago the Yankees payroll wasn't four times that of the Blue Jays, the Red Sox three times.

Then the Blue Jays had a chance, $20 million in extra salary means that they spent more money but they still don't have a chance.
Whether or not you think the Blue Jays can compete this year is besides the point. The Yankees spent over $100 million more on player salaries than the Jays did last year. We don't have anything close to that in the NHL.

That being said, you originally brought up the Blue Jays because you seemed to be implying that they're a small market team and nothing can be done about it. But I showed you that they were indeed capable of being a large market and were for many years.

Quote:
Originally Posted by mooseOAK
What makes San Jose a better market than Phoenix or Carolina?
I don't know.

Quote:
Originally Posted by mooseOAK
That's what i have been trying to say. Mismanaged teams will still be mismanaged teams. Well managed teams will benefit the most from a new CBA because they will have a better chance of keeping the players that they scout and develop.
Scout and develop prospects? You're still talking about management from a player development standpoint which I am not and never have been.

I'm talking about management from a business standpoint.

You seem to be buying right into Bettman's assurance that this lockout is about improving the game. Which it obviously is not.

Leaf Army is offline  
Old
02-11-2005, 10:35 AM
  #41
Mess
Global Moderator
 
Mess's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Country: Canada
Posts: 60,060
vCash: 500
Lockout will test depth of owners' pockets

ESPN's sports business writer

Even before the National Hockey League lockout began on Sept. 16, commissioner Gary Bettman and many team executives have maintained they will lose less money if they don't play at all in 2004-05 than they would playing under the old collective bargaining agreement.

But they'd still lose money.

Pile on the effects of the lockout -- a decline in season-ticket sales, the loss of advertising, not to mention fan apathy and potential attrition -- and the next question becomes: If the NHL doesn't play at all in 2004-05, and possibly into 2005-06, what will happen to those teams?

Ask sports industry bankers, economists and lawyers, and the answers can range greatly: From team bankruptcies to league-imposed contraction to perhaps nothing at all.


Read On: http://sports.espn.go.com/nhl/news/story?id=1981387

Mess is offline  
Old
02-11-2005, 10:47 AM
  #42
Poignant Discussion
I tell it like it is
 
Poignant Discussion's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Gatineau, QC
Country: Canada
Posts: 6,757
vCash: 1400
Send a message via MSN to Poignant Discussion Send a message via Yahoo to Poignant Discussion
Quote:
Originally Posted by Leaf Lander
if he still owned the leafs most of you would be fans of other teams and it would just be me and other leaf fans who are over 30 here chatting about them
Ain't that the truth. During the 80's it was so uncool to be a Leafs fan. Everyone wore Islander or Oilers jerseys. Of course I always wore the blue and white.


Hmmmm maybe we wouldn't be hated as much then though

Poignant Discussion is offline  
Old
02-11-2005, 03:23 PM
  #43
monkey_00*
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Country:
Posts: 5,022
vCash: 500
Top 10 things we'd see with the organization "IF" Harold Ballard was still alive:

1) The hockey club would still be playing out of Maple Leaf Gardens.
2) No NBA Raptors in Toronto.
3) Yolanda would have seats in the box beside Ballard where King Clancy use to sit.
4) Gord Stellick would still be the GM.
5) John Brophy would be the assistant GM.
6) Leafs scouting department would be based out of Belleville Ontario.
7) Russians would still be banned from playing for the Maple Leafs.
8) Leafs would still be NHL basement dwellers.
9) Leafs would still be playing out of the Western Conference.
10)Hamilton would have had an NHL team...his sons would be the owners & Alan Eagleson would be GM.

monkey_00* is offline  
Old
02-11-2005, 04:07 PM
  #44
Christ
Registered User
 
Christ's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Canada
Country: Canada
Posts: 10,746
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Master of Puppets
So you support raising him from the dead?
Personally, I would wage a war on Necromancers simply to prevent such an 'unholy' occurance...

Christ 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 10:14 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.