HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > General Hockey Discussion > The Business of Hockey
Mobile Hockey's Future Become a Sponsor Site Rules Support Forum vBookie Page 2
The Business of Hockey Discuss the financial and business aspects of the NHL. Topics may include the CBA, work stoppages, broadcast contracts, franchise sales, and NHL revenues.

Phoenix Bankruptcy Part XXI: 2009 -- A Sports Odyssey

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
09-29-2009, 06:20 AM
  #26
CGG
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: 416
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,274
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Crazy_Ike
Incorrect. The league's offer satisfies all legitimate creditors, Balsillie's offer does not
Wow, that's rich, jump all over me for being "deceptive" while simultaneously writing this gem. Yes or no - Moyes is still on the creditor list? Yes or no - the judge is the one who decides who is or isn't a legitimate creditor and he has yet to rule on that? Yes or no - if the NHL doesn't find a local buyer who somehow keeps the team in Phoenix long term at terms acceptable to the COG, Glenade is screwed and left with next to nothing?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Crazy_Ike
The truth is there is two bids out there who pulled out because of the restrictive nature of the bankruptcy proceedings coupled with an antagonistic seller attempting to destroy all bids but one (Moyes has filed an objection to every bid and bidder that has done anything in court not named Balsillie).

Both have indicated they will wait until after bankruptcy and negotiate directly with the league and the city without the disruptive interference of Moyes and Balsillie. They are not gone.
Again, someone who has a quest to present the truth to everyone is way off base here. Did you not see the part where neither "bidder" could reach a deal with Glendale? Both bidders have said they're still in it? Really? Do you honestly think they both have deals in their back pockets but Glendale chooses to wait until the bankruptcy concludes, risking the team gets sold to JB and moved or the NHL screws them over and sells the team to KC anyway?

I wonder if even you believe what you write sometimes.

CGG is offline  
Old
09-29-2009, 08:12 AM
  #27
Pinkfloyd
Registered User
 
Pinkfloyd's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Roseville
Country: United States
Posts: 32,783
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by CGG View Post
Wow, that's rich, jump all over me for being "deceptive" while simultaneously writing this gem. Yes or no - Moyes is still on the creditor list? Yes or no - the judge is the one who decides who is or isn't a legitimate creditor and he has yet to rule on that? Yes or no - if the NHL doesn't find a local buyer who somehow keeps the team in Phoenix long term at terms acceptable to the COG, Glenade is screwed and left with next to nothing?


Again, someone who has a quest to present the truth to everyone is way off base here. Did you not see the part where neither "bidder" could reach a deal with Glendale? Both bidders have said they're still in it? Really? Do you honestly think they both have deals in their back pockets but Glendale chooses to wait until the bankruptcy concludes, risking the team gets sold to JB and moved or the NHL screws them over and sells the team to KC anyway?

I wonder if even you believe what you write sometimes.
From my understanding, he hasn't ruled on Moyes' status but the NHL's offer did involve giving him 14 mil or something? I would say that would be similar to Balsillie's 50 million buyout he offered to the city. It's just a token offer.

As for the bidders, they couldn't get a bid done in time. The 'in time' part is crucial here. They had a date to get it done because of the auction. Whether or not they'll return after the proceedings are over, we will only know if the NHL wins. Anybody who believes these proceedings are not hindering potential buyers doesn't understand how it works. There were time-tables and a very limited window of opportunity to get a deal that is vitally important done plus a spurned owner affecting things publicly.

The city of Glendale would not back the NHL if they thought there was going to be nothing available after it's over. That would be foolish. They will take the offer that maintains the possibility of keeping its main tenant over guaranteed to lose it.

Pinkfloyd is offline  
Old
09-29-2009, 08:15 AM
  #28
Dalton
Registered User
 
Dalton's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Ho Chi Minh City
Country: Vietnam
Posts: 2,096
vCash: 500
Another rant as D-Day looms.

First - FUGU brilliant. That was pure gold. If we ever meet I'm buying you a beer just for that 1st post in this new thread.

Now my rant.

Can you imagine the US ratings for a Stanley Cup final in which a Hamilton team was competing in let alone favoured (sorry about the Canadian spelling) to win? A no name city in a foreign country? ESPN, NBC, whoever would pay how much for that? Sell how much in TV ads for that? Hamilton vs Saskatoon. ROTFLMAO. Yeah. That's all this is all about for Bettman. He's been doing that dance for a long time. In Bettman's mind only TO, Mont. and Vanc. could possibly have teams. Markets, fans contributions to the game, right to select where and who, all the rest of it is just one big shiny, multi-coloured (sorry about the Canadian spelling) cowpie.

In that context it becomes easy to understand Balsillies "Make it Seven" campaign and pro-Canada stance. Bettman's deceit and shrillness. It all makes sense when an attitude that's been around for years and often referred to in the media and the public over that time is taken into consideration.

One of the best Grey Cups I ever saw including the week leading up to it was the Cats vs the Riders at Ivor Wynne. A #1 song was about the contest. It was great. But hey I'm just a Canadian what do I count when a contract from ESPN et al is on the line. I only supply the league with most of it's players, expertise and management personnel, send my money to teams in money losing markets in the US, kept them afloat with TV contracts from the CBC and now other stations are involved. Supply one of the oldest most prestigious trophies in the history of mankind. Without me the NHL is toast. But clearly the potential marketing disaster of a Hamilton - Saskatoon Stanley Cup is way more important.

Thank you for your indulgence.


Last edited by Dalton: 09-29-2009 at 08:23 AM.
Dalton is offline  
Old
09-29-2009, 08:40 AM
  #29
PhoPhan
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 13,229
vCash: 500
Are you saying that moving a team from Phoenix to Hamilton would be worse for the league financially because of the television implications? Or are you suggesting that a Hamilton-Saskatoon finals really would be highly rated?

PhoPhan is offline  
Old
09-29-2009, 08:45 AM
  #30
mnwildfan79
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 625
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dalton View Post
post
The NHL is a business.

Bettman is trying to maximize profits for the owners.

Sorry to be the bearer of bad news.

mnwildfan79 is offline  
Old
09-29-2009, 08:49 AM
  #31
Dalton
Registered User
 
Dalton's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Ho Chi Minh City
Country: Vietnam
Posts: 2,096
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by PhoPhan View Post
Are you saying that moving a team from Phoenix to Hamilton would be worse for the league financially because of the television implications? Or are you suggesting that a Hamilton-Saskatoon finals really would be highly rated?
Yes.

Dalton is offline  
Old
09-29-2009, 08:59 AM
  #32
Dalton
Registered User
 
Dalton's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Ho Chi Minh City
Country: Vietnam
Posts: 2,096
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by mnwildfan79 View Post
The NHL is a business.

Bettman is trying to maximize profits for the owners.

Sorry to be the bearer of bad news.
It's possible that the bearer of bad news will be Balsillie for the foreseeable future.

BTW Putting a team in Hamilton vs Phoenix maximizes profits for the owners. But I think that in Bettman's mind teams in unknown cities in foreign countries jeopardize or is in fact responsible for the lack of his big money TV contract.

How many times has it been said over the years that a New York - LA final is where the money is in any US sport?


Last edited by Dalton: 09-29-2009 at 09:46 AM.
Dalton is offline  
Old
09-29-2009, 09:25 AM
  #33
HamiltonFan
bettman's a Weasel
 
HamiltonFan's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 249
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by nye View Post
Previous owners of the Leafs encouraged expansion efforts in Hamilton, for a price.

MLSE is not invulnerable. Sooner or later the fervour that Balsille has awoken will become focused on the group that controls the Leafs, the Ontario Teachers Pension Fund. They are vulnerable due to their need to own significant stakes in public companies.

Molsons was smacked once or twice by the public. Those cases resulted in additional teams being granted to Canadian cities through expansion. MLSE is not as vulnerable as a brewer, but they are still vulnerable.

The NHL will still need to be paid.

Are you saying that the best way to harm MLSE/Teachers is to boycott the largest companies in the teachers pension fund?

I think the most effective boycott would be to focus all efforts on MOLSON. Not only are they a major sponsor of hockey night in Canada, but they also own the Habs. One simple boycott with far reaching results, as you said it has worked in the past. I'd be willing to throw in a couple hundred bucks of my own money to help in an organized effort to hire people to picket (even do it myself) beer stores, or do whatever else it takes to implement an effective boycott of molson.

HamiltonFan is offline  
Old
09-29-2009, 10:11 AM
  #34
Hale Dawerchuk
Registered User
 
Hale Dawerchuk's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: YYZ
Country: Canada
Posts: 97
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by RR View Post
Umm, NHL opener Oct. 1; Coyotes start season Oct. 3 in LA; Oct. 10 at home. He didn't specify which "start of the season" he meant.
Of course, many fans insist the "real" season actually starts with the playoffs, so I'm guessing early April.

Hale Dawerchuk is offline  
Old
09-29-2009, 10:53 AM
  #35
GSC2k2*
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Hamilton, Ontario
Country: Canada
Posts: 7,384
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by HamiltonFan View Post
Are you saying that the best way to harm MLSE/Teachers is to boycott the largest companies in the teachers pension fund?

I think the most effective boycott would be to focus all efforts on MOLSON. Not only are they a major sponsor of hockey night in Canada, but they also own the Habs. One simple boycott with far reaching results, as you said it has worked in the past. I'd be willing to throw in a couple hundred bucks of my own money to help in an organized effort to hire people to picket (even do it myself) beer stores, or do whatever else it takes to implement an effective boycott of molson.
It might be more effective if Molson actually owned the Canadiens. They will not own the Canadiens. Three Molson brothers will be owing the Canadiens as a personal investment. It has nothing to do with Molson.

GSC2k2* is offline  
Old
09-29-2009, 10:54 AM
  #36
Fugu
Administrator
HFBoards
 
Fugu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Pac NW
Posts: 30,334
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fox X Mulder View Post
That's priceless
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dalton View Post
First - FUGU brilliant. That was pure gold. If we ever meet I'm buying you a beer just for that 1st post in this new thread.
Thank you. Arthur C. Clarke is one of my favorite authors, and I'm a huge science fiction (not fantasy) buff. As soon as we picked this title, I had images of the HAL/Dave conversations floating in the vacuum of my....errr.... imagination. The entire affair can only be attributable to human error.

I'll take the beer in Japan or Australia, only places I'll drink it. Anywhere else, a gin & tonic, please.

Quote:
Originally Posted by mnwildfan79 View Post
The NHL is a business.

Bettman is trying to maximize profits for the owners.


Sorry to be the bearer of bad news.
I would add that the maximization of profits or revenues (whatever the financial goal is for the owner) within their territory is under their own control, to a large extent. They can spend as they see fit, and reap the rewards or losses.

Bettman however is measured by, among his other duties as commissioner, the NHL's ability to garner national and international revenues, be that from TV, sponsorships, merchandising, digital media, etc. I think this is one reason it was important to the central function to gain control of team websites. These have both a local and a national/global reach. The league won this round in prying the local portion away in order to hopefully benefit from the potentially far more lucrative global reach. (I personally am dubious about this for much of the current generation given the NHL's tribal fan base.)

Fugu is offline  
Old
09-29-2009, 11:25 AM
  #37
Wetcoaster
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Out There
Posts: 54,910
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by HamiltonFan View Post
Are you saying that the best way to harm MLSE/Teachers is to boycott the largest companies in the teachers pension fund?

I think the most effective boycott would be to focus all efforts on MOLSON. Not only are they a major sponsor of hockey night in Canada, but they also own the Habs. One simple boycott with far reaching results, as you said it has worked in the past. I'd be willing to throw in a couple hundred bucks of my own money to help in an organized effort to hire people to picket (even do it myself) beer stores, or do whatever else it takes to implement an effective boycott of molson.
Such a boycott was done before when Vancouver was first spurned for an expansion team in 1967 and then the NHL blocked the relocation of the California Seals.

The boycott of Molson and Esso was quite effective. See:
http://hfboards.com/showthread.php?p...o#post21282208

Wetcoaster is offline  
Old
09-29-2009, 11:26 AM
  #38
HamiltonFan
bettman's a Weasel
 
HamiltonFan's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 249
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by GSC2k2 View Post
It might be more effective if Molson actually owned the Canadiens. They will not own the Canadiens. Three Molson brothers will be owing the Canadiens as a personal investment. It has nothing to do with Molson.
I don't think that technicality would reduce the effectiveness of a molson boycott at all. A molson boycott would be effective based on the lone rationale that they're a major sponsor of hockey night in Canada. The brothers recent acquisition of the Habs is a fortunate bonus, the timing couldn't have been better.
Can anyone think of a better product to boycott than molson?
Here's more info on molson boycotts:

http://www.oilersheritage.com/histor...r_fan_rag.html

Quote:
With word of the block, Oilers' fans mobilized immediately. Within days of the controversial NHL vote, protesters launched a call to boycott all Molson products. In Winnipeg, the Jets downplayed their current sponsorship deal with the brewery.

It was not long before Molson executives began to feel the power of the consumer. They realized that potential sales losses and ill will in the three sizable Canadian WHA markets could be irreversible if the Oilers, Jets and Nordiques were sent into oblivion. After some significant backroom prodding, the Canucks and Canadiens agreed to switch their votes. On March 22, the existing NHL teams made a new vote, and a merger was approved. The Leafs, Boston Bruins and Los Angeles Kings still made their own attempts to block the deal, but were unsuccessful. With a 14-3 majority, the NHL/WHA "expansion" plan was a go.

...


Last edited by HamiltonFan: 09-29-2009 at 12:32 PM. Reason: copyright
HamiltonFan is offline  
Old
09-29-2009, 11:35 AM
  #39
PeteZaTheHutt
 
PeteZaTheHutt's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 53
vCash: 500
Continuing with Fugu's movie theme:

Judge Baum: *Consider yourself in Contempt!*

Jim Balsillie: *Gary Bettman, did you order the Veto?*

Judge Baum: You *donít* have to answer that question!

Gary Bettman: I'll answer the question!

[to Balsillie]

Gary Bettman: You want answers?

Jim Balsillie: I think I'm entitled.

Gary Bettman: *You want answers?*

Jim Balsillie: *I want the truth!*

Gary Bettman: *You canít handle the truth!*

[pauses]

Gary Bettman: Son, we live in a league that has a commissioner, and that commissioner has to be guarded by lawyers with words. Whose gonna do it? You? You, Moyes? I have a greater responsibility than you could possibly fathom. You weep for Moyes, and you curse the NHL. You have that luxury. You have the luxury of not knowing what I know. That Moyes' bankruptcy, while tragic, probably saved the Coyotes. And my existence, while grotesque and incomprehensible to you, saves teams. You don't want the truth because deep down in places you don't talk about on your Blackberries, you want me as the commissioner, you need me as the commissioner. We use words like honor, code, loyalty. We use these words as the backbone of a life spent defending something. You use them as a punchline. I have neither the time nor the inclination to explain myself to a man who rises and sleeps under the blanket of the very league that I provide, and then questions the manner in which I provide it. I would rather you just said thank you, and went on your way, Otherwise, I suggest you pick up a team, and move it to Hamilton. Either way, I don't give a damn what you think you are entitled to.

Jim Balsillie: Did you order the Veto?

Gary Bettman: I did the job I...

Jim Balsillie: *Did you order the Veto?*

Gary Bettman: *Youíre Goddamned right I did!!!*

PeteZaTheHutt is offline  
Old
09-29-2009, 11:40 AM
  #40
King_Stannis
Registered User
 
King_Stannis's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Pennsylvania, USA
Country: United States
Posts: 769
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dalton View Post

In that context it becomes easy to understand Balsillies "Make it Seven" campaign and pro-Canada stance...
As has been pointed out numerous times, Balsillie is more Pro-Hamilton than Pro-Canada. I have a suspicion that if he hadn't rubbed people the wrong way and if wanted to move the team to Winnipeg instead of Hamilton, he probably could have done so.

King_Stannis is offline  
Old
09-29-2009, 12:26 PM
  #41
HamiltonFan
bettman's a Weasel
 
HamiltonFan's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 249
vCash: 500
I could be wrong, but I believe molson (the company) still owns 20% of the Montreal Canadiens. The Gillette sale to the molson brothers was for the other 80% of the team (plus the bell centre). In any case, we're splitting hairs.

HamiltonFan is offline  
Old
09-29-2009, 12:33 PM
  #42
Artyukhin*
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Country: Canada
Posts: 13,831
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by PeteZaTheHutt View Post
Continuing with Fugu's movie theme:

Judge Baum: *Consider yourself in Contempt!*

Jim Balsillie: *Gary Bettman, did you order the Veto?*

Judge Baum: You *donít* have to answer that question!

Gary Bettman: I'll answer the question!

[to Balsillie]

Gary Bettman: You want answers?

Jim Balsillie: I think I'm entitled.

Gary Bettman: *You want answers?*

Jim Balsillie: *I want the truth!*

Gary Bettman: *You canít handle the truth!*

[pauses]

Gary Bettman: Son, we live in a league that has a commissioner, and that commissioner has to be guarded by lawyers with words. Whose gonna do it? You? You, Moyes? I have a greater responsibility than you could possibly fathom. You weep for Moyes, and you curse the NHL. You have that luxury. You have the luxury of not knowing what I know. That Moyes' bankruptcy, while tragic, probably saved the Coyotes. And my existence, while grotesque and incomprehensible to you, saves teams. You don't want the truth because deep down in places you don't talk about on your Blackberries, you want me as the commissioner, you need me as the commissioner. We use words like honor, code, loyalty. We use these words as the backbone of a life spent defending something. You use them as a punchline. I have neither the time nor the inclination to explain myself to a man who rises and sleeps under the blanket of the very league that I provide, and then questions the manner in which I provide it. I would rather you just said thank you, and went on your way, Otherwise, I suggest you pick up a team, and move it to Hamilton. Either way, I don't give a damn what you think you are entitled to.

Jim Balsillie: Did you order the Veto?

Gary Bettman: I did the job I...

Jim Balsillie: *Did you order the Veto?*

Gary Bettman: *Youíre Goddamned right I did!!!*
be great a title, the day the judge makes his ruling ....especially if Jim wins

You Dropped A Bomb On Me....
www.youtube.com/watch?v=F5lIYpV8b54



"You dropped the Baum on me"

Artyukhin* is offline  
Old
09-29-2009, 12:33 PM
  #43
GSC2k2*
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Hamilton, Ontario
Country: Canada
Posts: 7,384
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by King_Stannis View Post
As has been pointed out numerous times, Balsillie is more Pro-Hamilton than Pro-Canada. I have a suspicion that if he hadn't rubbed people the wrong way and if wanted to move the team to Winnipeg instead of Hamilton, he probably could have done so.
Don't be so sure.

“I have dreamed of owning a team in many different places”.

- James Balsillie, August 26th, 2009.

So much for being dedicated to The Most Unserved Hockey Market.


Quote:
Originally Posted by PeteZaTheHutt View Post
[astoundingly original parody of Jack Nicholson courtroom scene in "A Few Good Men"]
Yawn.

Quote:
Originally Posted by HamiltonFan View Post
I could be wrong, but I believe molson (the company) still owns 20% of the Montreal Canadiens. The Gillette sale to the molson brothers was for the other 80% of the team (plus the bell centre). In any case, we're splitting hairs.
No no, that is a very fair point. I had forgotten about that, and focused instead on the idea of the Molsons personally owning the piece they just bought. My bad.

[Of course, that is not to say that boycotts of this sort would be effective. Citing alleged boycotts from 30 and 40 years ago, when companies like Molson were such fundamentally different entities, is not persuasive of the idea that something of that sort would work, to say nothing of the morality of punishing shareholders and workers for something that is not their fault.]


Last edited by GSC2k2*: 09-29-2009 at 12:41 PM.
GSC2k2* is offline  
Old
09-29-2009, 12:41 PM
  #44
KevFu
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: New Orleans
Country: United States
Posts: 3,926
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dalton View Post
It's possible that the bearer of bad news will be Balsillie for the foreseeable future.

BTW Putting a team in Hamilton vs Phoenix maximizes profits for the owners. But I think that in Bettman's mind teams in unknown cities in foreign countries jeopardize or is in fact responsible for the lack of his big money TV contract.

How many times has it been said over the years that a New York - LA final is where the money is in any US sport?
22-team NHL: $15 mil TV deal in the US.
30-team NHL: $72 mil TV deal in the US.

Versus would probably prefer the team in Phoenix, but we're talking a loss of 3.8 million people in terms of market size... and the number of people interested is significantly smaller.

The bigger issue for team placement WRT TV contract is how much the Canadian contract increases.

KevFu is offline  
Old
09-29-2009, 12:52 PM
  #45
KevFu
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: New Orleans
Country: United States
Posts: 3,926
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wetcoaster View Post
Such a boycott was done before when Vancouver was first spurned for an expansion team in 1967 and then the NHL blocked the relocation of the California Seals.

The boycott of Molson and Esso was quite effective. See:
http://hfboards.com/showthread.php?p...o#post21282208

It was quite effective because the people opposing the expansion felt the pinch. How is the NHL going to feel it if Canadian fans boycott... what exactly? Phoenix's sponsors? The NHL sponsors?

Budweiser is going to feel the pinch of 30 million Canadians drinking Molson? They already do. Canada exports nearly five times as much beer as they import.

The only boycott that would have a chance of working would be to boycott MLSE's sponsors, which I'm guessing also sponsor the other Canadian teams. And one of them, is Blackberry. Boycotting them wouldn't really help JB now would it

KevFu is offline  
Old
09-29-2009, 12:57 PM
  #46
DrVanntastic
Registered User
 
DrVanntastic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Wentzville, MO
Country: United States
Posts: 1,879
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by KevFu View Post
Pssst, even the outdoor games are played on artificial ice.
Not to mention that ice can be made at outdoor temps above 50 degrees.

DrVanntastic is offline  
Old
09-29-2009, 01:13 PM
  #47
CGG
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: 416
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,274
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by HamiltonFan View Post
I don't think that technicality would reduce the effectiveness of a molson boycott at all. A molson boycott would be effective based on the lone rationale that they're a major sponsor of hockey night in Canada. The brothers recent acquisition of the Habs is a fortunate bonus, the timing couldn't have been better.
Can anyone think of a better product to boycott than molson?
Here's more info on molson boycotts:

http://www.oilersheritage.com/histor...r_fan_rag.html
Labatt sponsors HNIC, not Molson.

CGG is offline  
Old
09-29-2009, 01:16 PM
  #48
XX
SOS
 
XX's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: 48th State
Country: United States
Posts: 27,720
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Noteman View Post
Not to mention that ice can be made at outdoor temps above 50 degrees.
It would be easier to maintain the ice in the winter here in Phoenix than it would be in Buffalo, for example. The temperature stays steady and that is the most important thing.

XX is offline  
Old
09-29-2009, 01:23 PM
  #49
Jaym3000
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 400
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by GSC2k2 View Post
It might be more effective if Molson actually owned the Canadiens. They will not own the Canadiens. Three Molson brothers will be owing the Canadiens as a personal investment. It has nothing to do with Molson.
I for one feel that if GC says DON'T boycott Molson - then I will strongly encourage all those in favour of another team in S Ontario to BOYCOTT MOLSON!

Jaym3000 is offline  
Old
09-29-2009, 01:24 PM
  #50
Jaym3000
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 400
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by CGG View Post
Labatt sponsors HNIC, not Molson.
Labatt also sponsors Makeitseven.ca

Jaym3000 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 09:40 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.