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.

NHL Hockey Coming Back to Hartford?

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
04-19-2010, 11:24 AM
  #51
kdb209
Global Moderator
 
kdb209's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 12,453
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by edog37 View Post
The Canes do not own the Whalers brand, the state of CT did until last year....
Link to back up that claim?

I showed earlier (in response to your previous claim) that the USPTO showed that CT has not owned the name or logo since 1994.

http://hfboards.com/showpost.php?p=2...8&postcount=16

kdb209 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
04-19-2010, 12:08 PM
  #52
bleedgreen
Moderator
 
bleedgreen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: colorado
Posts: 10,643
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by kdb209 View Post
Link to back up that claim?

I showed earlier (in response to your previous claim) that the USPTO showed that CT has not owned the name or logo since 1994.

http://hfboards.com/showpost.php?p=2...8&postcount=16
because i lived there at the time, and it was stated repeatedly by both sides that it is was one of the conditions. i dont care what your reference shows, i was there when it happened. it has also been given by video game companies for a reason that all the hockey games since then which feature old school jerseys as unlockables dont have the whalers in them. there has been no vintage whaler stuff available outside of obvious knockoffs until the last year or so. how do you explain these things?

i dont need a link, i heard the words out of both karmanos' and the cda's mouths when it happened. it was frequently mentioned in stories in the courant before, during and after the move. maybe the cda owned it? maybe the city of hartford, maybe some entity you arent finding in your one link?

bleedgreen is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-19-2010, 12:09 PM
  #53
Voice of Reason
Registered User
 
Voice of Reason's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Connecticut
Country: United States
Posts: 2,823
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Haymaker View Post
I'm pretty sure you're drawing parallels where none exist (unless having a dbag owner is a parallel ). The Whalers' move was precipitated by sagging attendance (yes, it was an a-hole move that he decided to move the team before the deadline that he himself imposed on the fans, but it was still an attendance issue). To my knowledge, the Browns' move was a power play to get an new stadium built, no?
Sagging attendance but also a push for a new arena. IIRC, then-Gov Rowland didn't want to agree to the upgrades needed to the Civic Center to keep the team around. The fans made (or were very close to) the 14K season ticket holder mark Karmanos wanted, so that arguement was coming off the table. Bottom line, in hindsight, was they were going to move regardless of what happened.
Personally, I think Bettman had a hand in making sure the weak-sister market of the NE Corridor went South as part of his vision of a true nationwide NHL. The Whale was in a bad situation in the Civic Center. The team got virtually no revenues from parking and other concessions and the crowds were sporadic at best. Even on tv (keep in mind this was like 1995), the Whale was regularly bumped from local SportsChannel coverage IN HARTFORD! if the Bruins and sometimes even the Celtics were on. Very tough to follow. Plus, let's face it, they weren't very good and tended to trade all their stars away.
FYI, I grew up in NJ as a Devils fan. I would love the NHL to return here but am not holding my breath. While it would be a Godsend to the area, too many issues in Hartford keep it from being realistic.

Voice of Reason is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-19-2010, 12:49 PM
  #54
Harpoon Pete
 
Harpoon Pete's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Alabama
Country: United States
Posts: 108
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by bleedgreen View Post
because i lived there at the time, and it was stated repeatedly by both sides that it is was one of the conditions. i dont care what your reference shows, i was there when it happened. it has also been given by video game companies for a reason that all the hockey games since then which feature old school jerseys as unlockables dont have the whalers in them. there has been no vintage whaler stuff available outside of obvious knockoffs until the last year or so. how do you explain these things?

i dont need a link, i heard the words out of both karmanos' and the cda's mouths when it happened. it was frequently mentioned in stories in the courant before, during and after the move. maybe the cda owned it? maybe the city of hartford, maybe some entity you arent finding in your one link?
I can back up everything that he said here, as well. Karmanos come hell or high water was going to move that team to where he wanted and NOTHING that we (as fans and to an extent elected officials) did was going to change that.

The whole thing was a consolation prize of sorts. Karmanos was able to move the business - but what was the Whalers stayed with the fans and the city in the event that they could bring the NHL back someday.

Harpoon Pete is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-19-2010, 01:01 PM
  #55
Buck Aki Berg
My pockets hurt
 
Buck Aki Berg's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Ottawa, ON
Country: Canada
Posts: 14,019
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Voice of Reason View Post
Sagging attendance but also a push for a new arena. IIRC, then-Gov Rowland didn't want to agree to the upgrades needed to the Civic Center to keep the team around. The fans made (or were very close to) the 14K season ticket holder mark Karmanos wanted, so that arguement was coming off the table. Bottom line, in hindsight, was they were going to move regardless of what happened.
Personally, I think Bettman had a hand in making sure the weak-sister market of the NE Corridor went South as part of his vision of a true nationwide NHL. The Whale was in a bad situation in the Civic Center. The team got virtually no revenues from parking and other concessions and the crowds were sporadic at best. Even on tv (keep in mind this was like 1995), the Whale was regularly bumped from local SportsChannel coverage IN HARTFORD! if the Bruins and sometimes even the Celtics were on. Very tough to follow. Plus, let's face it, they weren't very good and tended to trade all their stars away.
FYI, I grew up in NJ as a Devils fan. I would love the NHL to return here but am not holding my breath. While it would be a Godsend to the area, too many issues in Hartford keep it from being realistic.
Hmm, sounds like the attendance was just a red herring to get the team out of town easily, and he wasn't expecting the fans to answer the bell the way they did. And I'm sure that his we-need-a-better-building son and dance was cut from the same cloth.

Why was Karmanos so anxious to get that team to North Carolina (or just out of Hartford)? The fact that he was willing to take losses in Greensboro for two years (he must have known that people in Greensboro wouldn't embrace a team in transit) reeks of desperation.

Buck Aki Berg is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-19-2010, 01:10 PM
  #56
Voice of Reason
Registered User
 
Voice of Reason's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Connecticut
Country: United States
Posts: 2,823
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Haymaker View Post
Hmm, sounds like the attendance was just a red herring to get the team out of town easily, and he wasn't expecting the fans to answer the bell the way they did. And I'm sure that his we-need-a-better-building son and dance was cut from the same cloth.

Why was Karmanos so anxious to get that team to North Carolina (or just out of Hartford)? The fact that he was willing to take losses in Greensboro for two years (he must have known that people in Greensboro wouldn't embrace a team in transit) reeks of desperation.
I personally think Bettman gave him incentives. Hartford was the weakest market in the Northeast. Bettman wanted the NHL in more southern locations. A brand new arena was in the works in NC. Connecticut didn't want to pay for HCC renovations. Seems like the perfect storm.

Voice of Reason is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-19-2010, 02:07 PM
  #57
kdb209
Global Moderator
 
kdb209's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 12,453
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by bleedgreen View Post
because i lived there at the time, and it was stated repeatedly by both sides that it is was one of the conditions. i dont care what your reference shows, i was there when it happened. it has also been given by video game companies for a reason that all the hockey games since then which feature old school jerseys as unlockables dont have the whalers in them. there has been no vintage whaler stuff available outside of obvious knockoffs until the last year or so. how do you explain these things?

i dont need a link, i heard the words out of both karmanos' and the cda's mouths when it happened. it was frequently mentioned in stories in the courant before, during and after the move. maybe the cda owned it? maybe the city of hartford, maybe some entity you arent finding in your one link?
Based on a bunch of googling and too much free time @ work I came up with the following.

1. It appears that there may have been a contractual agreement between the NHL/Karmanos and the CT CDA granting the CDA the rights to the name, seperate from the trade and service marks for use of the name and logo which went with the Hurricanes and licensed to NHL Properties.

2. There are multiple claims that the CDA owned a trademark on the name and logo and that expired in Sept 2009 - and that was what led to the introduction of NHL licensed jerseys last fall. However, all those stories source back to a single blog with an expired USPTO TESS search link - so I am a bit dubious of the claims. I can find no trade or service marks for "Hartford Whalers", "Whalers", or the Whale logo which expired last September. There are several expired trademark registrations, but they all expired in 2001 or earlier.

3. There exists at least one live service mark for the Whaler's Whale Tail logo - owned by the Hurricanes (actually assigned to Comerica Bank with a bunch of other Canes IP, I assume as some security on a loan) and an open file on an expired "Hartford Whalers" name and logo mark that was updated in 2008, owned by the Canes.

4. Reports from Reebok that when they introduced the officialy licensed Whalers Jerseys last Sept, it was because they were finally granted permission by the NHL / NHL Properties.

Unfortunately my Firefox died and I don't have time now to find and copy the links.

kdb209 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
04-19-2010, 02:28 PM
  #58
Buck Aki Berg
My pockets hurt
 
Buck Aki Berg's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Ottawa, ON
Country: Canada
Posts: 14,019
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Voice of Reason View Post
I personally think Bettman gave him incentives. Hartford was the weakest market in the Northeast. Bettman wanted the NHL in more southern locations. A brand new arena was in the works in NC. Connecticut didn't want to pay for HCC renovations. Seems like the perfect storm.
Playing devil's advocate, I can't see Bettman offering incentives for an expedited move south. Yes, Bettman is/was looking for national exposure, but he's not stupid enough to just go slapping franchises all over the map until there's an even distribution across the continent. I'm throughly shocked he signed off on the Greensboro part of the plan.

Also, I was led to believe that there was no arena to be built before Karmanos brought the team down to Raleigh - though this conflicts with other things I've heard, about the 'Canes colour scheme being selected to match the NC State Wolfpack colours. SO now I don't know what to believe.

Buck Aki Berg is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-19-2010, 02:32 PM
  #59
edog37
Registered User
 
edog37's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Washington DC
Country: United States
Posts: 2,953
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by tarheelhockey View Post
Owning the brand is one thing. But that is not what we are talking about. We're talking about having the New Whalers declared an "extension" of the old franchise for the purpose of acquiring broadcast rights and not being vetoed by 4 other ownership groups. That means re-writing the Hurricanes record books, changing their "founded" date, and taking the team's awards and archives against the will of their legal owners. It would also mean explaining to a judge why the NHL failed to handle all of this at the time of the relocation, as has been the established process for making it happen in every other pro league.

There is no precedent for doing any of those things, and an attempt to do it would be laughed out of court.



Give me a break with the vicarious outrage. The Whalers moved and became the Hurricanes. It's as simple as that.
The Hurricanes never won an Adams Division title. Things that occurred in Hartford should stay there. Let's say for the sake of argument the Hurricanes moved back to Hartford. Would you be comfortable if Hartford hung a 2006 Stanley Cup Champ banner in their arena on their opening night because after all, it is one continuous franchise....

edog37 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-19-2010, 02:42 PM
  #60
tarheelhockey
Global Moderator
 
tarheelhockey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: The Triangle
Country: United States
Posts: 32,456
vCash: 500
Quote:
Let's say for the sake of argument the Hurricanes moved back to Hartford. Would you be comfortable if Hartford hung a 2006 Stanley Cup Champ banner in their arena on their opening night because after all, it is one continuous franchise....
Yes, I would be completely comfortable with that. It is, after all, the same franchise. It would be stupid to continue to hang the banner in the RBC Center, wouldn't it? I'm sure that NC State basketball fans wouldn't appreciate the completely random NHL banner from a team that skipped town years ago.

Don't forget that North Carolina has been on the other end of this equation in the past. The Hornets moved to New Orleans, taking Bobby Phills' retired number 13 with them. It hangs in the Hornets' arena down there and I have never heard a peep of complaint about it.

I don't understand why this is an issue at all for someone who hasn't even got a dog in the fight. Not that it's an actual fight.

tarheelhockey is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-19-2010, 03:04 PM
  #61
edog37
Registered User
 
edog37's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Washington DC
Country: United States
Posts: 2,953
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by tarheelhockey View Post
Yes, I would be completely comfortable with that. It is, after all, the same franchise. It would be stupid to continue to hang the banner in the RBC Center, wouldn't it? I'm sure that NC State basketball fans wouldn't appreciate the completely random NHL banner from a team that skipped town years ago.

Don't forget that North Carolina has been on the other end of this equation in the past. The Hornets moved to New Orleans, taking Bobby Phills' retired number 13 with them. It hangs in the Hornets' arena down there and I have never heard a peep of complaint about it.

I don't understand why this is an issue at all for someone who hasn't even got a dog in the fight. Not that it's an actual fight.
because I am a traditionalist who hated that crap Karmanos pulled on Hartford. If the Pens pulled up stakes & went elsewhere, I would be livid if that city put up 3 Stanley Cup banners honoring '91, '92 & '09....

If a team moves, it should be treated as an expansion team ala the Baltimore Ravens. As much as I hate the Ratbirds, at least a second wrong wasn't committed....

edog37 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-19-2010, 03:17 PM
  #62
bleedgreen
Moderator
 
bleedgreen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: colorado
Posts: 10,643
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Haymaker View Post
Hmm, sounds like the attendance was just a red herring to get the team out of town easily, and he wasn't expecting the fans to answer the bell the way they did. And I'm sure that his we-need-a-better-building son and dance was cut from the same cloth.

Why was Karmanos so anxious to get that team to North Carolina (or just out of Hartford)? The fact that he was willing to take losses in Greensboro for two years (he must have known that people in Greensboro wouldn't embrace a team in transit) reeks of desperation.
in the end i think karmanos bought the team with the intention of moving it, bettman with his open admission of wanting to expand the leagues "footprint" wanted the team to move to spread the league out and brought in karmanos as a big wallet owner. karmanos and rutherford have had bettmans back publicly on every issue during the work stoppages to the point of its obvious they are in bettmans corner in a way that suggests they owe him. when it came down to staying in hartford, karmanos made it so the only way they would stay was if the city/state bought them arena and outfitted it with all kinds of revenue streams that were to be given ALL to them. the cda/city/state fought them on all of that and in the end the city thought it had no choice as it felt it couldnt justify to taxpayers bending to what the team wanted and let them go, keeping the logo/name as maybe a hope there would be a time to use it.

the fans werent the issue, though thats how it was sold to NC new fans, and raleigh wanted a team so they gave karmanos what he wanted for an arena. raleigh worked for the league because it fit into bettmans "footprint" theory that worked for him in basketball.

as for your last point, yes karmanos was so sick of the fight in hartford, and it was coming off as he was gonna move the team the whole time - and just bought his way out of the city signing whatever he had to so that they were free and clear. it was worth it to him to be in greensboro just to be out of hartford taking the abuse he was taking, and frankly deserved.

bleedgreen is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-19-2010, 03:20 PM
  #63
tarheelhockey
Global Moderator
 
tarheelhockey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: The Triangle
Country: United States
Posts: 32,456
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by edog37 View Post
If a team moves, it should be treated as an expansion team ala the Baltimore Ravens. As much as I hate the Ratbirds, at least a second wrong wasn't committed....
I am absolutely in agreement with that, but it's something that has to happen before the move. You can't just retroactively declare a franchise "expansion" to spite the owners. And that's the theory at the center of this discussion.

tarheelhockey is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-19-2010, 03:22 PM
  #64
bleedgreen
Moderator
 
bleedgreen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: colorado
Posts: 10,643
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by kdb209 View Post
Based on a bunch of googling and too much free time @ work I came up with the following.

1. It appears that there may have been a contractual agreement between the NHL/Karmanos and the CT CDA granting the CDA the rights to the name, seperate from the trade and service marks for use of the name and logo which went with the Hurricanes and licensed to NHL Properties.

2. There are multiple claims that the CDA owned a trademark on the name and logo and that expired in Sept 2009 - and that was what led to the introduction of NHL licensed jerseys last fall. However, all those stories source back to a single blog with an expired USPTO TESS search link - so I am a bit dubious of the claims. I can find no trade or service marks for "Hartford Whalers", "Whalers", or the Whale logo which expired last September. There are several expired trademark registrations, but they all expired in 2001 or earlier.

3. There exists at least one live service mark for the Whaler's Whale Tail logo - owned by the Hurricanes (actually assigned to Comerica Bank with a bunch of other Canes IP, I assume as some security on a loan) and an open file on an expired "Hartford Whalers" name and logo mark that was updated in 2008, owned by the Canes.

4. Reports from Reebok that when they introduced the officialy licensed Whalers Jerseys last Sept, it was because they were finally granted permission by the NHL / NHL Properties.

Unfortunately my Firefox died and I don't have time now to find and copy the links.
your hunting for information from 1994 bro, i dont know how much is gonna be really out there to support either side. im telling you i was there and it was publicly stated the logo and name the "hartford whalers" was staying in hartford. they even wrote articles specifically about that fact in the time immediately after they were leaving. it was the one thing for fans to hang on to, that someday their team could come back as their team. i dont know, call city hall or something.

bleedgreen is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-19-2010, 03:47 PM
  #65
Harpoon Pete
 
Harpoon Pete's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Alabama
Country: United States
Posts: 108
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by bleedgreen View Post
your hunting for information from 1994 bro, i dont know how much is gonna be really out there to support either side. im telling you i was there and it was publicly stated the logo and name the "hartford whalers" was staying in hartford. they even wrote articles specifically about that fact in the time immediately after they were leaving. it was the one thing for fans to hang on to, that someday their team could come back as their team. i dont know, call city hall or something.
Found it, or information directly related to what we are talking about here. Page 34, section 7. It also talks about the move.

http://ctcda.com/images/customer-fil...ual-Report.pdf

Quote:
In addition, the Whalers and the Authority each have granted the other party a mutual release of
all claims. The authority also retains the rights to the Whalers' name, logo, and NHL Franchise
Area.

Harpoon Pete is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-19-2010, 03:49 PM
  #66
tarheelhockey
Global Moderator
 
tarheelhockey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: The Triangle
Country: United States
Posts: 32,456
vCash: 500
Quote:
In addition, the Whalers and the Authority each have granted the other party a mutual release of
all claims. The authority also retains the rights to the Whalers' name, logo, and NHL Franchise
Area.
Wait... does that make this whole line of discussion moot? Does "franchise area" have to do with broadcasting rights and override the veto?

tarheelhockey is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-19-2010, 03:58 PM
  #67
kdb209
Global Moderator
 
kdb209's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 12,453
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Harpoon Pete View Post
Found it, or information directly related to what we are talking about here. Page 34, section 7. It also talks about the move.

http://ctcda.com/images/customer-fil...ual-Report.pdf
Good find. That's exactly what I was looking for.

Too often here things get repeated enough without any basis that they become "conventional wisdom" - see the "MTS Centre was designed to be expanded" canard that was finally definitively shot down by Chipman recently - that I tend to be skeptical about unsubstantiated claims.

Note also that the Canes are still paying the CDA ~$1M/yr to pay off the construction bonds.

Quote:
NOTE 7 - HARTFORD WHALERS TRANSACTION (Cont'd.):

On June 18, 1997, the Authority and the Whalers entered into a "Settlement Agreement." Under
the terms of the agreement, the Whalers were permitted to relocate their hockey franchise and in
return, the Whalers agreed to pay the Authority $20,500,000 plus interest on a portion of such
principal. The principal payments commenced on July 1, 1997 with the payment of $5,000,000.
Future installments of principal ranging from $1,000,000 to $1,050,000 are due annually on July
1, 1998 through July 1,2012. It should be noted that this payment stream along with all Hartford
Civic Center revenues is pledged to cover the annual debt service of the Authority's 1993 Series
A and 2004 C General Obligation bonds. The Authority expects to recognize the installments of
principal due July 1, 1998 through July 1, 2012 as income when the payments are received.

In addition, the Whalers and the Authority each have granted the other party a mutual release of
all claims. The authority also retains the rights to the Whalers' name, logo, and NHL Franchise
Area.

kdb209 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
04-19-2010, 03:58 PM
  #68
Harpoon Pete
 
Harpoon Pete's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Alabama
Country: United States
Posts: 108
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by tarheelhockey View Post
Wait... does that make this whole line of discussion moot? Does "franchise area" have to do with broadcasting rights and override the veto?
It reads to me that the NHL agreed to keep the market there, in case Hartford got their act together and put forth a mechanism in place to support an NHL franchise. That they agreed not to use 'other methods' to stop it.

It also shows that Karmanos is still making payments on his initial purchase of the Whalers - until 2012. At the end of that period, he may have to give Hartford's history back. I am not sure on that one, but because he is still making payments - he is permitted to use said records/history? Strange wording there.

Harpoon Pete is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-19-2010, 04:09 PM
  #69
tarheelhockey
Global Moderator
 
tarheelhockey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: The Triangle
Country: United States
Posts: 32,456
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Harpoon Pete View Post
It reads to me that the NHL agreed to keep the market there, in case Hartford got their act together and put forth a mechanism in place to support an NHL franchise. That they agreed not to use 'other methods' to stop it.
So it sounds like the whole "continuation of franchise" thing would be unnecessary anyway. Interesting stuff.

Quote:
It also shows that Karmanos is still making payments on his initial purchase of the Whalers - until 2012. At the end of that period, he may have to give Hartford's history back. I am not sure on that one, but because he is still making payments - he is permitted to use said records/history? Strange wording there.
I'm not reading it that way at all... it looks to me like he's just compensating "the Authority" (nice name) on a payment plan for the lost value of their bonds. Nothing really changes after the payments are up.

tarheelhockey is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-19-2010, 07:18 PM
  #70
Buck Aki Berg
My pockets hurt
 
Buck Aki Berg's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Ottawa, ON
Country: Canada
Posts: 14,019
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by edog37 View Post
If a team moves, it should be treated as an expansion team ala the Baltimore Ravens. As much as I hate the Ratbirds, at least a second wrong wasn't committed....
So they should have to release all their players and then have an expansion draft?


EDIT: I originally said that to poke fun at your logic, but the more I think of it the more I like it. You wouldn't see owners pulling these gimme-an-arena-or-else power plays if they had to rebuild their team from scratch in a new town.

Buck Aki Berg is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-20-2010, 07:56 AM
  #71
tarheelhockey
Global Moderator
 
tarheelhockey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: The Triangle
Country: United States
Posts: 32,456
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Haymaker View Post
So they should have to release all their players and then have an expansion draft?


EDIT: I originally said that to poke fun at your logic, but the more I think of it the more I like it. You wouldn't see owners pulling these gimme-an-arena-or-else power plays if they had to rebuild their team from scratch in a new town.
Somebody should've thought of this when QC moved to Denver.

"Selected first in the dispersal draft... Joe Sakic"
"Selected second in the dispersal draft... Peter Forsberg"

tarheelhockey is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-20-2010, 10:52 PM
  #72
mucker*
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Let's Be Safe!
Posts: 3,082
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Harpoon Pete View Post
Are you sure about that? I know that this is putting the cart wayyyy before the horse, but let's try to think this through.

NJD is in Newark now, so I doubt that they have a claim. The Islanders are a real question mark here, because their rights are close to the same as the rangers. The question is how does the NHL view the LI Sound.

When the Whalers were there, Fairfield Cty was always more Rangers than Whalers. This is due to the Rangers TR being close and a lot of people in that area were more NY than CT. Think of it like a DMZ. Greenwich, Trumbull, Norwalk.. are populated by a lot of NYers that take the train to NYC. My guess is that area falls into the NYR rights.

The Bruins reach extended to about Worchester, MA and into RI ....

Do remember that the market that the Whalers occupied was the Hartford - New Haven - Springfield area. We had some of a presence in upstate NY, some reach into Western Mass, and Rhode Island - but we really never extended into the big cities.

Baldwin did address this in his plan and said that he wants to maintain good relations with NYR/Boston. I am sure he understands this TR issue and has a plan for addressing it.

Territorial rights are a strange issue though. I could be wrong here, but I do not see much (or any of an overlap) of TR. I could be wrong though.
The Whalers had a very very MINIMAL base West of New Haven.
Fairfield County is all diehard NY sports all the way, as is most of New Haven County (in particular areas west of New Haven).
Only once you get past New Haven do you begin to get some fans other fans besides New York (in any sport).

This will not change if the Whalers come back, this area of CT is part of the NY Tri-State area.

mucker* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-20-2010, 11:02 PM
  #73
mucker*
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Let's Be Safe!
Posts: 3,082
vCash: 500
Two things

1) Don't see Hartford getting a team. Go to city like NY or BOS, than go to Hartford. You see Hartford is like Elizabeth, NJ or Worcester, MA...not a big league town...heck people ID with NY or BOS here.

2) IF Hartford got the NHL again, what happens to TV rights?

a. Where/what network gets the Whalers?
b. What happens to Bruins/Rangers/Devils/Islanders broadcasts?

My suggestion?
-Create an exclusive Whaler TV market...where ONLY Whaler games air
which would be zone 1, create a shared market where Whaler games can air with Bruins/Ranger/Devils/Islanders

zone 1 (only Whalers, remainder blacked out):
-anything North and/or East beyond the New Haven metropolitan area in the state of CT
-anything North and/or East beyond the Waterbury metropolitan area in the state of CT

zone 2 (Whaler games air along with Ranger/Devils/Islander games)
-Anywhere from the Waterbury and New Haven metropolitan areas south and west

zone 3 (Whaler games air along with Bruins games)
-Extreme Northeast CT (Danileson micropolitan area only)
-Hampden County, MA and points West
-Anywhere in the state of RI past the Providence metropolitan area (like South County or Western RI)

mucker* is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

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 12:42 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.