HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > NHL Western Conference > Pacific Division > Arizona Coyotes
Notices

Coyotes Ownership/Financial Situation #7

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
09-09-2009, 12:43 PM
  #51
TeamTippett
Formally TeamTurris
 
TeamTippett's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Phx
Country: United States
Posts: 5,325
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by JonnyC View Post
I thought modern ice hockey started in England, not Canada. I am not sure though.
I thought it was Holland all this time.

America invented Football, Baseball and Basketball perhaps we should take those back while were at it.

TeamTippett is offline  
Old
09-09-2009, 12:44 PM
  #52
Devils Advocate
mmmmmm....Crow.
 
Devils Advocate's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 3,682
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gump Hasek View Post
Greed is not the issue, the bankrupt team is, this is just a business after all.

Not all Canadians feel that way though. Some of us just view it as a business decision. One of viability, not greed, nor of patriotism.
and when I think of Canadians and hockey, the first thing I think of are 'business decisions'.

Devils Advocate is offline  
Old
09-09-2009, 12:47 PM
  #53
TeamTippett
Formally TeamTurris
 
TeamTippett's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Phx
Country: United States
Posts: 5,325
vCash: 500
And if this was truly about being a business decision, Mr Ballsilie would realize 29 other owners don't want to be in business with him and he should just move onto another venture. This who thing is about ego and obtaining an asset well below market value for a steal.

TeamTippett is offline  
Old
09-09-2009, 12:54 PM
  #54
Kaizen
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Prince George B.C.
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,118
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by TeamTurris View Post
I thought it was Holland all this time.

America invented Football, Baseball and Basketball perhaps we should take those back while were at it.
I believe basketball was a Canadian "invention" although the originator (Naismith or something along those lines) may have been residing in the States at the time.

Kaizen is offline  
Old
09-09-2009, 12:58 PM
  #55
He Lied to Mario
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 331
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by TeamTurris View Post
I thought it was Holland all this time.

America invented Football, Baseball and Basketball perhaps we should take those back while were at it.
Hockey, football and baseball all derived from British games. Although modern hockey was started in Canada. Modern football split off from rugby and started in the US and Canada in the late 1860's. Baseball was based on a British game called rounders. Basketball was invented by a Canadian James Naismith who was working at the YMCA in Springfield, Massachusetts and who never moved back to Canada. The story goes that Naismith was told by his boss to come up with a game for his track students. Of course Naismith came up with the peach basket. But it did take an American to figure out to put a hole in the basket.

He Lied to Mario is offline  
Old
09-09-2009, 01:12 PM
  #56
TeamTippett
Formally TeamTurris
 
TeamTippett's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Phx
Country: United States
Posts: 5,325
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by He Lied to Mario View Post
Hockey, football and baseball all derived from British games. Although modern hockey was started in Canada. Modern football split off from rugby and started in the US and Canada in the late 1860's. Baseball was based on a British game called rounders. Basketball was invented by a Canadian James Naismith who was working at the YMCA in Springfield, Massachusetts and who never moved back to Canada. The story goes that Naismith was told by his boss to come up with a game for his track students. Of course Naismith came up with the peach basket. But it did take an American to figure out to put a hole in the basket.
Jesus C####ST. Almost everything ultimately came from Europe, incl us US & CAN folks (unless your Native American) Jeeze, can we get OT?

TeamTippett is offline  
Old
09-09-2009, 01:27 PM
  #57
kdb209
Global Moderator
 
kdb209's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 12,392
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by bobbop View Post
Yes there is. If Balsillie is allowed to bid, I expect the NHL will immediately appeal and petition the 9th District Court of Appeals for a stay. This will delay the auction, possibly for a long time. There is no "emergency" track in Appeals Court that would force this to be heard on an accelerated basis.
I doubt that the NHL would ask, or that the Ninth Circuit would hear an appeal or issue a stay, before Judge Baum makes all his rulings (CoG damages, Moyes debt/equity, is JB a qualified bidder, etc) and the auction is completed. At that point (assuming JB is allowed to bid and wins), then the NHL will appeal to the Ninth Circuit, a stay will be issued, the sale does not proceed, and the Status Quo reigns for at least a year while the appeals process trudges along.

And just to give you an idea of the kind of timeline to expect for the appeals process - Consider the Al Davis timeline:

1981: 1st trial in US District Court - hung jury & mistrial

May 7, 1982: 2nd trial in US District Court - jury verdict for Davis. Immediate appeal to the Ninth Circuit, stay ordered pending appeal.

May 1983: Separate damages trial awarded Raiders & LA Coliseum Commission ~15M (trebled to $~45M). Separately appealed to Ninth Circuit.

April 7, 1983: Appeal of trial verdict argued to US 9th Circuit Court of Appeals

February 28, 1984: 9th Circuit ruling upholding trial courts ruling and enjoining the NFL from preventing the Raiders from relocating in Los Angeles.

Later 1984: Appeal to the US Supreme Court - not accepted.

October 5, 1984: Appeals of damages verdict argued to US 9th Circuit Court of Appeals

June 16, 1986: Ninth Circuit ruling (Raiders II) throwing out damages and recognizing the NFL's rights to ownership of LA market.


Last edited by kdb209: 09-09-2009 at 01:51 PM.
kdb209 is online now  
Old
09-09-2009, 01:35 PM
  #58
zyllyx
STH Hipster
 
zyllyx's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Peoria
Country: United States
Posts: 3,224
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by TeamTurris View Post
America invented Football, Baseball and Basketball perhaps we should take those back while were at it.
Football is a rugby derivative and baseball has roots in cricket.

I really wonder why anyone has to be so proprietary over a sport that they get angry when other people play and enjoy it. Admitting - and even celebrating - that hockey is Canada's game should be the modus operandi of any fan of the game... but saying one person, market, or even nation shouldn't have access to it is ludicrous and, worse, reeks of blatant insecurity. It's as if some Canadians think the United States is going to steal their game from them, which is equally stupid.

zyllyx is offline  
Old
09-09-2009, 02:02 PM
  #59
Ilya Kovalchoke*
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: New Jersey
Country: Russian Federation
Posts: 769
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by zyllyx View Post
Football is a rugby derivative and baseball has roots in cricket.

I really wonder why anyone has to be so proprietary over a sport that they get angry when other people play and enjoy it. Admitting - and even celebrating - that hockey is Canada's game should be the modus operandi of any fan of the game... but saying one person, market, or even nation shouldn't have access to it is ludicrous and, worse, reeks of blatant insecurity. It's as if some Canadians think the United States is going to steal their game from them, which is equally stupid.
I dont know who is saying that there shouldnt be teams in the US because their obviously should. What most of us are saying is that hockey is not relevant in Phoenix and likely has no future in Phoenix, the experiment has been a collosal failure and it is time to move on.

It is just very frustrating for Canadians that Bettman did not do anywhere near this much to help Winnipeg or Quebec City and that whenever teams are relocated or new teams are added to the league they rarely ever end up in Canada where it is pretty clear that fan support usually wont be an issue.

Expanding the reach of the game is important but far too many of these experimental franchises have been added before the rest of them became stable and have had time to create a fanbase. Now what we have is all of these teams on life support dragging down league revenues. It wouldnt be a big deal to have on or two of these Florida or Atlanta or Phoenix or Tampa or Nashville franchises in the league at once, but having all at once bleeding money is not good for the league and its getting more difficult for other teams to support them.

Edit: And btw I still dont think that JB will win or should win this auction, although the NHLs bid sucks big time (they can still move the team next year).

Ilya Kovalchoke* is offline  
Old
09-09-2009, 02:20 PM
  #60
CHRDANHUTCH
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Auburn, Maine
Country: United States
Posts: 14,853
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to CHRDANHUTCH Send a message via MSN to CHRDANHUTCH Send a message via Yahoo to CHRDANHUTCH
Quote:
Originally Posted by Percyswan View Post
I dont know who is saying that there shouldnt be teams in the US because their obviously should. What most of us are saying is that hockey is not relevant in Phoenix and likely has no future in Phoenix, the experiment has been a collosal failure and it is time to move on.

It is just very frustrating for Canadians that Bettman did not do anywhere near this much to help Winnipeg or Quebec City and that whenever teams are relocated or new teams are added to the league they rarely ever end up in Canada where it is pretty clear that fan support usually wont be an issue.

Expanding the reach of the game is important but far too many of these experimental franchises have been added before the rest of them became stable and have had time to create a fanbase. Now what we have is all of these teams on life support dragging down league revenues. It wouldnt be a big deal to have on or two of these Florida or Atlanta or Phoenix or Tampa or Nashville franchises in the league at once, but having all at once bleeding money is not good for the league and its getting more difficult for other teams to support them.

Edit: And btw I still dont think that JB will win or should win this auction, although the NHLs bid sucks big time (they can still move the team next year).
why should Bettman been the one to save the Jets/Coyotes in 1996? different circumstances, different era----it was unlikely to think the Jets/Coyotes would be in Winnipeg today? same goes for Quebec and Hartford.

CHRDANHUTCH is offline  
Old
09-09-2009, 02:23 PM
  #61
zyllyx
STH Hipster
 
zyllyx's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Peoria
Country: United States
Posts: 3,224
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Percyswan View Post
I dont know who is saying that there shouldnt be teams in the US because their obviously should. What most of us are saying is that hockey is not relevant in Phoenix and likely has no future in Phoenix, the experiment has been a collosal failure and it is time to move on.
And most of you would be wrong, because you look at the market and the franchise as if they were one and the same. Ask someone from San Jose if they think their market is a failure because of the disaster that was the Oakland Seals.

You guys seem to think that onion gum ought to sell just as well as Doublemint simply because they're in the same bright green package.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Percyswan View Post
It is just very frustrating for Canadians that Bettman did not do anywhere near this much to help Winnipeg or Quebec City and that whenever teams are relocated or new teams are added to the league they rarely ever end up in Canada where it is pretty clear that fan support usually wont be an issue.
I understand that frustration, but Winnipeg and Quebec City are different situations than Phoenix. Had Moyes decided to move the Coyotes on his own to Hamilton, you wouldn't have seen or heard a peep from the league, IMO.

As for teams in Canada, I understand your desire for more NHL teams up there. In fact, I sat down the other day and drew up a scenario where the NHL's presence would be augmented by six new teams and I was struggling to find places to put them. The issue is, how many cities would be big enough to support a pro franchise? Hamilton, sure. Quebec City? Okay. K-W, London, possibly. But then after that you're down into cities that even many of your fellow countrymen agree wouldn't be able to support a franchise (Winnipeg, Halifax, Saskatoon) because of their size and lack of corporate support.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Percyswan View Post
Expanding the reach of the game is important but far too many of these experimental franchises have been added before the rest of them became stable and have had time to create a fanbase.
I won't disagree there. And I also think, if we could revise history, the best plan for Phoenix would have been to establish an AHL franchise here first with ties to an NHL club, let the hockey culture get established, and then eventually award a franchise. What we've had to do is establish a hockey culture AFTER a team has arrived first, and considering that that team is a bottom-feeder it's not surprising that the hockey culture has failed to take a strong enough root.

I don't have a problem with you being skeptical about Phoenix given the circumstances, but I DO have a problem with you writing off the market entirely.

zyllyx is offline  
Old
09-09-2009, 02:40 PM
  #62
Ilya Kovalchoke*
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: New Jersey
Country: Russian Federation
Posts: 769
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by zyllyx View Post
And most of you would be wrong, because you look at the market and the franchise as if they were one and the same. Ask someone from San Jose if they think their market is a failure because of the disaster that was the Oakland Seals.

You guys seem to think that onion gum ought to sell just as well as Doublemint simply because they're in the same bright green package.



I understand that frustration, but Winnipeg and Quebec City are different situations than Phoenix. Had Moyes decided to move the Coyotes on his own to Hamilton, you wouldn't have seen or heard a peep from the league, IMO.

As for teams in Canada, I understand your desire for more NHL teams up there. In fact, I sat down the other day and drew up a scenario where the NHL's presence would be augmented by six new teams and I was struggling to find places to put them. The issue is, how many cities would be big enough to support a pro franchise? Hamilton, sure. Quebec City? Okay. K-W, London, possibly. But then after that you're down into cities that even many of your fellow countrymen agree wouldn't be able to support a franchise (Winnipeg, Halifax, Saskatoon) because of their size and lack of corporate support.



I won't disagree there. And I also think, if we could revise history, the best plan for Phoenix would have been to establish an AHL franchise here first with ties to an NHL club, let the hockey culture get established, and then eventually award a franchise. What we've had to do is establish a hockey culture AFTER a team has arrived first, and considering that that team is a bottom-feeder it's not surprising that the hockey culture has failed to take a strong enough root.

I don't have a problem with you being skeptical about Phoenix given the circumstances, but I DO have a problem with you writing off the market entirely.
Exactly the NHL has been doing this backwards, I think you are absolutly correct you have to test the market first and generate some interest in the sport before you put an NHL team in a place that is unfamilar with the sport, and an AHL team may be a great way to do that. I also think it important for the NHL to establish hockey at the grassroots level in places they may consider moving a team to one day, how often do you hear that the NHL is interested in Kansas city? But how often do you hear about the NHL helping to establish junior hockey programs in the city? I think the NHL needs to be much more strategic at establishing NHL franchises.

I understand what you are saying about writting off the market because we havent had a chance to see the team win yet but it certainly isnt a given that winning will turn the franchise around. I just think that some of these teams are going to have to move or else league revenues will continue to fall and the chances of a lockout will increase, it is completely the NHLs fault for expanding too fast not really the fans fault, expecting people who have not been exposed to a sport to immediatley embrace it is foolish.

Canada certainly cant support a lot of teams but there are still some markets that should have already been exploited.

Ilya Kovalchoke* is offline  
Old
09-09-2009, 02:45 PM
  #63
CHRDANHUTCH
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Auburn, Maine
Country: United States
Posts: 14,853
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to CHRDANHUTCH Send a message via MSN to CHRDANHUTCH Send a message via Yahoo to CHRDANHUTCH
Quote:
Originally Posted by Percyswan View Post
Exactly the NHL has been doing this backwards, I think you are absolutly correct you have to test the market first and generate some interest in the sport before you put an NHL team in a place that is unfamilar with the sport, and an AHL team may be a great way to do that. I also think it important for the NHL to establish hockey at the grassroots level in places they may consider moving a team to one day, how often do you hear that the NHL is interested in Kansas city? But how often do you hear about the NHL helping to establish junior hockey programs in the city? I think the NHL needs to be much more strategic at establishing NHL franchises.

I understand what you are saying about writting off the market because we havent had a chance to see the team win yet but it certainly isnt a given that winning will turn the franchise around. I just think that some of these teams are going to have to move or else league revenues will continue to fall and the chances of a lockout will increase, it is completely the NHLs fault for expanding too fast not really the fans fault, expecting people who have not been exposed to a sport to immediatley embrace it is foolish.

Canada certainly cant support a lot of teams but there are still some markets that should have already been exploited.
then what exactly is/WAS the Phoenix Road Runners, Percy? the AHL has no interest in AZ

CHRDANHUTCH is offline  
Old
09-09-2009, 02:49 PM
  #64
zyllyx
STH Hipster
 
zyllyx's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Peoria
Country: United States
Posts: 3,224
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Percyswan View Post
Exactly the NHL has been doing this backwards, I think you are absolutly correct you have to test the market first and generate some interest in the sport before you put an NHL team in a place that is unfamilar with the sport, and an AHL team may be a great way to do that. I also think it important for the NHL to establish hockey at the grassroots level in places they may consider moving a team to one day, how often do you hear that the NHL is interested in Kansas city? But how often do you hear about the NHL helping to establish junior hockey programs in the city? I think the NHL needs to be much more strategic at establishing NHL franchises.
I think with Kansas City it's an issue that there's been a team there before (Scouts) and there's an arena. But I agree that they need to judge the local hockey culture first before even considering a place for relocation or expansion. Arizona's hockey culture is still wet behind the ears but it's leaps and bounds better and more widespread than it was in 1996. I don't know if KC even HAS a hockey culture after the Scouts left town.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Percyswan View Post
I understand what you are saying about writting off the market because we havent had a chance to see the team win yet but it certainly isnt a given that winning will turn the franchise around.
I'm on record as saying that if the market has a good team that's reasonably well-run and has success on the ice and still can't draw the fans, then it should lose the team with no objections from the locals. But thus far, even after 13 years we haven't had the chance to put it to the test.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Percyswan View Post
Canada certainly cant support a lot of teams but there are still some markets that should have already been exploited.
Agreed. I think another team in S. Ontario (or maybe even two if the issue of territory could be worked out) is a no-brainer. My sentimental side would love to see the Jets back in Winnipeg even though it's not likely to happen without significant increases in corporate support. And I think that a team in Saskatchewan could work even though everyone tells me that Saskatoon isn't a big enough city.

I guess what I'm saying is that I'm on your side in virtually everything except for the whole idea of taking my team away from me stuff...

zyllyx is offline  
Old
09-09-2009, 02:50 PM
  #65
zz
HFBoards Sponsor
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 5,661
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Percyswan View Post
I understand what you are saying about writting off the market because we havent had a chance to see the team win yet but it certainly isnt a given that winning will turn the franchise around.
The other 3 major sports in town (Cards, Suns, D-Backs) saw their attendance vary by a huge margin based on whether or not they had a winning product.

Every other sunbelt NHL team has had success when they made the playoffs - LA, San Jose, Anaheim, Dallas, Colorado, Tampa Bay, Hurricanes.

So let me flip the question. Explain to me why you think winning might not turn the franchise around?

zz is offline  
Old
09-09-2009, 02:52 PM
  #66
rt
Usually Incorrect
 
rt's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Rarely Sober
Country: United States
Posts: 41,461
vCash: 500
What should we expect tomorrow? Balsillie gets the team, more and more **** drags on and on for months and months, then he gets the team taken away, sues the NHL, everything gets dragged on for more and more months? Something fun like that?

rt is offline  
Old
09-09-2009, 02:56 PM
  #67
Ilya Kovalchoke*
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: New Jersey
Country: Russian Federation
Posts: 769
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by zz View Post
The other 3 major sports in town (Cards, Suns, D-Backs) saw their attendance vary by a huge margin based on whether or not they had a winning product.

Every other sunbelt NHL team has had success when they made the playoffs - LA, San Jose, Anaheim, Dallas, Colorado, Tampa Bay, Hurricanes.

So let me flip the question. Explain to me why you think winning might not turn the franchise around?
Its entirely possible people still might not care about hockey we just dont know at this point.

Ilya Kovalchoke* is offline  
Old
09-09-2009, 02:58 PM
  #68
zyllyx
STH Hipster
 
zyllyx's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Peoria
Country: United States
Posts: 3,224
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by zz View Post
The other 3 major sports in town (Cards, Suns, D-Backs) saw their attendance vary by a huge margin based on whether or not they had a winning product.

Every other sunbelt NHL team has had success when they made the playoffs - LA, San Jose, Anaheim, Dallas, Colorado, Tampa Bay, Hurricanes.

So let me flip the question. Explain to me why you think winning might not turn the franchise around?
I think his point - and the point of many of his countrymen - is that ANY city can be a "playoff" city. That does not make a city a viable market, though. I agree with that to a certain extent - you can't support a franchise if the only time people show up en masse is in the post-season.

In the Coyotes' case, though, I think the circumstances are that the team needs a season or two to prove to the fans that they are not primed for an annual epic collapse into lottery territory before the CORE fanbase - the ones who show up regularly regardless of the team's record - grows to be an average of 14,000 or better. The tendency to attend even when the team is a constant bottom-feeder is based on generational loyalty that takes DECADES to build, so it's not surprising that we don't have that here in Phoenix.

zyllyx is offline  
Old
09-09-2009, 03:04 PM
  #69
bobbop
Henrik's Pop
 
bobbop's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Suburban Phoenix
Country: United States
Posts: 4,818
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Percyswan View Post
Exactly the NHL has been doing this backwards, I think you are absolutly correct you have to test the market first and generate some interest in the sport before you put an NHL team in a place that is unfamilar with the sport, and an AHL team may be a great way to do that. I also think it important for the NHL to establish hockey at the grassroots level in places they may consider moving a team to one day, how often do you hear that the NHL is interested in Kansas city? But how often do you hear about the NHL helping to establish junior hockey programs in the city? I think the NHL needs to be much more strategic at establishing NHL franchises.

I understand what you are saying about writting off the market because we havent had a chance to see the team win yet but it certainly isnt a given that winning will turn the franchise around. I just think that some of these teams are going to have to move or else league revenues will continue to fall and the chances of a lockout will increase, it is completely the NHLs fault for expanding too fast not really the fans fault, expecting people who have not been exposed to a sport to immediatley embrace it is foolish.

Canada certainly cant support a lot of teams but there are still some markets that should have already been exploited.
Recognizing hockey interest is important but it can be difficult to measure. Philadelphia, Washington, Nashville and Tampa/St. Pete all had franchises in the Eastern Hockey League that failed long before the NHL expanded to those cities. Kansas City had at least three minor league teams fail before the Scouts, who lasted all of two years.

Phoenix, on the other hand, had a relatively good minor league history along with a WHA franchise. The WHA team never drew enough to make ends meet (small building hurt) but I remember minor league crowds in the 5,000-6,000 range as early as the 1970's. In fact, I seem to remember that the Roadrunners outdrew the Suns during some early seasons at Veterans Coliseum.

There's another part of this no one seems to talk about. Adding Hamilton does nothing for the NHL's footprint. It fact, you could argue that it creates a negative because nobody in New York, Chicago or Los Angeles is going to be excited about going to see Hamilton. Sure ticket revenue would be better in Hamilton, but it brings in no incremental hockey fans. Phoenix is just shy of being a Top 10 TV market in the US and is projected to be the 4th largest market in the country in the next 25 years. That kind of circulation is hard to ignore.

The poster who said this is little more than a business deal for Balsillie is spot on. He wants to buy a distressed asset and and move it to a place where it would generate far more revenue. If I followed the same logic, I could buy the McDonald's here in Goodyear and pick up and move it to Times Square. Unfortunately that why there are laws, franchise agreements and league constitutions to keep things in order.

bobbop is offline  
Old
09-09-2009, 03:04 PM
  #70
TeamTippett
Formally TeamTurris
 
TeamTippett's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Phx
Country: United States
Posts: 5,325
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by rt View Post
What should we expect tomorrow? Balsillie gets the team, more and more **** drags on and on for months and months, then he gets the team taken away, sues the NHL, everything gets dragged on for more and more months? Something fun like that?
prob nothing tomorrow rather Fri

TeamTippett is offline  
Old
09-09-2009, 03:07 PM
  #71
zz
HFBoards Sponsor
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 5,661
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Percyswan View Post
Its entirely possible people still might not care about hockey we just dont know at this point.
You're right, it's always possible. However, that hasn't happened in any other american city other than NJ. History shows if the team wins, people show up. I'm not sure what would make Phoenix different than any of the other metropolitan areas I listed.

zz is offline  
Old
09-09-2009, 03:12 PM
  #72
Ilya Kovalchoke*
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: New Jersey
Country: Russian Federation
Posts: 769
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by zz View Post
You're right, it's always possible. However, that hasn't happened in any other american city other than NJ. History shows if the team wins, people show up. I'm not sure what would make Phoenix different than any of the other metropolitan areas I listed.
Oh no they will likely get decent-good ticket sales after a few playoff seasons but will they bring in enough fans (like you guys) who will support the team when they might not make the playoffs or have a bad year.

Ilya Kovalchoke* is offline  
Old
09-09-2009, 03:15 PM
  #73
zz
HFBoards Sponsor
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 5,661
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by zyllyx View Post
The tendency to attend even when the team is a constant bottom-feeder is based on generational loyalty that takes DECADES to build, so it's not surprising that we don't have that here in Phoenix.
Relying on generational loyalty is just not a viable business model. It's like creating a shoe brand with a cool logo but a terrible, uncomfortable product, and saying "You'll see, in 50 years, our logo will be so popular every high school kid will want to wear it". That's just stupid.

Starting a sports franchise is not that different from starting any other business. Either you have something better than your competition (a winning product), or you die. But you need to win a lot of battles before you can start relying on brand loyalty.

zz is offline  
Old
09-09-2009, 03:24 PM
  #74
rt
Usually Incorrect
 
rt's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Rarely Sober
Country: United States
Posts: 41,461
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by TeamTurris View Post
prob nothing tomorrow rather Fri
What the hell is the plan, here, anyway? I mean, what does this "auction" consist of?

rt is offline  
Old
09-09-2009, 03:27 PM
  #75
rt
Usually Incorrect
 
rt's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Rarely Sober
Country: United States
Posts: 41,461
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by zz View Post
Relying on generational loyalty is just not a viable business model. It's like creating a shoe brand with a cool logo but a terrible, uncomfortable product, and saying "You'll see, in 50 years, our logo will be so popular every high school kid will want to wear it". That's just stupid.

Starting a sports franchise is not that different from starting any other business. Either you have something better than your competition (a winning product), or you die. But you need to win a lot of battles before you can start relying on brand loyalty.
No, I think think thirteen years of god-awful to mediocre hockey should suffice. There is no possible way this market could ever succeed. It's not a true hockey town like Dallas or Anaheim. I think the last thirteen years are enough to prove that.

Are these guys north of the border being so insanely myopic on purpose? I really think they are.

rt is offline  
Closed Thread

Forum Jump


Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 01:04 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.