Bettman the Bastard!
P Thind
When Bettman first took over the Commish's job over
ex-president John Zeigler, I thought it was a great
move for hockey. But as of last year, I can see why
Bettman is a true anti-christ for many Canadians.
Since that shithead came from the NBA and
changed the economics of the game so drastically and
didn't
think of any Canadians or their teams, he has
single handedly initiated the destruction of the NHL.
He stated off slowly by disgracing the old initial
stars of the NHL, by changing the Divisions and the
Conferences to suit the "new" market in America.
He then took his next big step by, craeting the
instigation rule for fighting which has now led to
nasty stickwork and cheapshots by every known player.
After that, he thought of expansion and created hell
for all "legit/real" hockey fans in Canada and US,
by having pluggers play and creating an atrocious
defensive system that slowed the pace of the game.
Through all this he never thought of how the league
itself was growing as a sport, he never assured the
stability of exsisting teams, and where the game is
true from (where the core of the fans exist).
Canadian Teams moved (Winnipeg, Quebec), and went off
into deserts. Bettman never checked at how the ice
would be maintained, creating a further problem for
teams which either lived in humid/hot climates and/or
had numerous events in before the hockey game, allowing
great skaters and players to fall to injury (Jagr, Lindros).
What really pisses me off now is that he fucking contradicts
his actions. He 1st states that Edmonton will be severly
pressured to be kept in Edmonton. Then after hearing yesterday'd
comments by the Houston organisation (who didn't recieve a team),
they stated Bettman told them to pursue a team with full backing
from him. So what kind of bullshit is this? He's just another
arrogant american asshole from my opinion, who only cares for
the short turn $, and not the potential growth of the sport.
Hockey (NHL) is on it's way down, soon the league will be
watered down extremely, then like the NFL, people will go to
the games to watch the big commercial signs, and not the game;
and even further down the road after Canada loses Calgary (right
after Edmonton), then Canada won't give a rats ass about hockey
and hockey will be dead in Canada. Eithe Bettman is a mastermind
and has this all well planned out to take our (Canada/USA/EUROPE),
game to the states only club, or he's a foolish idiot thinking
that team like Edmonton will not need a reasonable profit sharing
to survive.
And if any of you "USA!, USA!" chanters think the game will be
better then, you have the IQ of Domi!
(As you can see all the above is just rambling, it really pisses
me off that Edmonton looks like it's ready to move, mabey moreso
that I live here...andt's frustrating seeing a team with a history
great as any other leave...and heck I've always been a Flyer fan!
In the near future I wonder if hockey will be any fun at all to watch.)
Now I undertand how Winnipeger's Quebec'ers felt after their team ditched
off into the USA.
Oh well Hockey was great while it lasted in Canada....
--
==========================================================
=Jaguar,(Flyers)-----------------------------------------=
=**BCHL Commish**----------------------------------------=
=http://www.geocities.com/colosseum/3789/bchlgateway.html=
Mcleod Patrick M
No chants of "USA" "USA" here.
I agree with you. Bettman has turned the game of hockey into a
dollar-mongering whore festival. It's really too bad that something cannot
be done to stop the expansion plan...or at the least to stop Gary Bettman.
But alas, as long as he gives the owners free reign to dangle their
franchises for the highest bidder like so many cheap whores on a street
corner, they're not going to stop him, because he's letting them line
their pockets.
Regards,
Patrick
John Bradley
pth...@gpu2.srv.ualberta.ca (P Thind) writes:
I think that you give Bettman too much blame and too little to the
NHL owners. One man is not single handedly responsible for every
item that you describe. Hockey has thrived despite the mismanagement
of the owners for many years.
>
>
> When Bettman first took over the Commish's job over
> ex-president John Zeigler, I thought it was a great
> move for hockey. But as of last year, I can see why
> Bettman is a true anti-christ for many Canadians.
>
> He stated off slowly by disgracing the old initial
> stars of the NHL, by changing the Divisions and the
> Conferences to suit the "new" market in America.
Changing the division names isn't bad. Hockey is the only the sport
that encodes the names of all of its awards and previously divisions so
that only the cognoscenti can understand what is happening in the league.
For die hard fans, the names Patrick, Adams, Smythe and Norris are
meaningful but for casual followers this notation must be impregnable.
East/West makes much more sense to me.
>
> He then took his next big step by, craeting the
> instigation rule for fighting which has now led to
> nasty stickwork and cheapshots by every known player.
The error was recognized and amended.
>
> After that, he thought of expansion and created hell
> for all "legit/real" hockey fans in Canada and US,
> by having pluggers play and creating an atrocious
> defensive system that slowed the pace of the game.
The previous expansion preceded him. He made the expansion a little more
tolerable by creating a better pool of talent for the Anaheim/Florida
draft. At least those teams are competitive. Ottawa/Tampa games were
wastes of money during their first few years.
Blame the owners more than Bettman. Their unquenchable greed for expansion
fees is the motivation. Ultimately they may pay when the novelty wears off
in the sunbelt, some franchises become unstable and the value of franchises
throughout the league drops. How short some memories are ? Don't they
remember the problems the league had with Oakland/Cleveland and Colorado ?
I don't understand how people in some of these new cities will pay top
dollar to watch a game that they don't even understand. Isn't there
anything else to do in Phoenix ? Anybody who watch a Phoenix Suns game knew
that the arena was totally unacceptable for hockey. Will the mgmt there
have to invest $50 million or so to drastically remodel the arena ?
However, I do agree that the league is too big and that we are watching
crap half the time.
>
> Through all this he never thought of how the league
> itself was growing as a sport, he never assured the
> stability of exsisting teams, and where the game is
> true from (where the core of the fans exist).
> Canadian Teams moved (Winnipeg, Quebec), and went off
> into deserts. Bettman never checked at how the ice
> would be maintained, creating a further problem for
> teams which either lived in humid/hot climates and/or
> had numerous events in before the hockey game, allowing
> great skaters and players to fall to injury (Jagr, Lindros).
I think that ice quality has less to do with climate and more to do with
the willingness of the local management to create good ice. Here in NY the
ice was notoriously bad because there were so many events that the ice
was constantly being made from scratch. The ice is better now, because there
are fewer of these events. Florida did a good job on the ice in the 96
playoffs by spending $$$ on dehumidifiers at the arena.
>
> What really pisses me off now is that he fucking contradicts
> his actions. He 1st states that Edmonton will be severly
> pressured to be kept in Edmonton. Then after hearing yesterday'd
> comments by the Houston organisation (who didn't recieve a team),
> they stated Bettman told them to pursue a team with full backing
> from him. So what kind of bullshit is this? He's just another
> arrogant american asshole from my opinion, who only cares for
> the short turn $, and not the potential growth of the sport.
>
> Hockey (NHL) is on it's way down, soon the league will be
> watered down extremely, then like the NFL, people will go to
> the games to watch the big commercial signs, and not the game;
> and even further down the road after Canada loses Calgary (right
> after Edmonton), then Canada won't give a rats ass about hockey
> and hockey will be dead in Canada. Eithe Bettman is a mastermind
> and has this all well planned out to take our (Canada/USA/EUROPE),
> game to the states only club, or he's a foolish idiot thinking
> that team like Edmonton will not need a reasonable profit sharing
> to survive.
There are forces there that he can't control. The league made an effort
to improve the financial position of the Canadian teams with their
subsidy program. If Bettman had his way, the last collective bargaining
agreement would have included a salary cap that may have made things
better for the small market teams. Bettman's job with the NBA was salary
cap administration. Maybe we would still have Winnipeg and Quebec under
these circumstances ?
The real culprit here is Aubut and Pocklington. Both of these slimebags
kept their teams in Canada when the teams had poor prospects and they were
assured of steady support from knowledgable fans. When the teams accumulate
young talent, they sell off to interests from other cities who are throwing
money at them.
Bettman didn't cause these owners to go for the quick buck. He is just a tool
of the owners. He is moving the league in the direction that MANY of the
owners want to go. I say many because I think some of the owners in the
established cities can see problems on the horizon. The first sign of these
problems are in Boston, a city with savvy fans who won't watch crap just
because there is a team in town. I suspect that as young talent drifts
to the newer teams, attendance in cities like New York, Pittsburgh,
Chicago, St. Louis and Detroit will suffer.
Who knows what will happen down South. I suspect that part of the
popularity of the Florida teams was due to the interest of snowbirds in
seeing the Northern teams like New York, Montreal and Boston. Will these
people be so excited about their Southeast division rivals: Atlanta and
Nashville ?
This last expansion could have been worse. In New York, at least we will
see a lot of games against local rivals within the division and we got
the Florida teams out of the division. The on ice product may be crap, but
at least there will be some intensity in these divisional games.
John Bradley
j...@panix.com
ThanksRedWings
On 19 Jun 1997, P Thind wrote:
> When Bettman first took over the Commish's job over
> ex-president John Zeigler, I thought it was a great
> move for hockey. But as of last year, I can see why
> Bettman is a true anti-christ for many Canadians.
> Since that shithead came from the NBA and
>
> etc. etc. etc.
>
> And if any of you "USA!, USA!" chanters think the game will be
> better then, you have the IQ of Domi!
As an American who once followed the NBA and once couldn't watch a hockey
game if I wanted to, all I can say is
DITTO.
fredorov
Jann Heringer
> Oh well Hockey was great while it lasted in Canada....
>
>
>
You mean to tell me if you had something to sell you wouldn't want it to
go to the highest bidder?? These US
cities get teams because they can best ecomomically handle
an NHL team. Your analogy about Winnipeg and Quebec deserving team
because they have a "core" of fans is
ridiculous. Free agents are the ones that have made it
necessary to price the NHL out of Joe Hockeyfan's price
range. There was nobody in Winnipeg and Quebec to buy luxury boxes
which are a necessity in this free-agent market. That's the REALITY of
the situation. It is not
Gary Bettman's fault that this it is necessary to provide
fancy luxury boxes and clubs inside arenas in order to
generate the revenue for a team. It's the fault of the ever
increasing free-agent and regular players' salaries. And
what's the matter with the owners wanting to make a buck??
That's why anyone gets into business. This sort of idealized version of
economics seems to be prevelent in
Canada. I guess that's why teams are leaving.
-Kurt in Dallas. HEXTALL IS GOD!!
Bryce McNeil
Jann Heringer <kse...@bnr.ca> wrote:
>> Oh well Hockey was great while it lasted in Canada....
>>
>>
>>
>
>You mean to tell me if you had something to sell you wouldn't want it to
>go to the highest bidder??
selling out games even though they knew they were moving away? Explain
why the new owner has to move the team. Bettman could organize a plan to
turn down the move. If Colangelo had been forced to keep the team in
Winnipeg, he would have been building the new arena, and things would have
been a lot right. Right now in Phoenix, certain seats are cheap because
of the "obstructed view". That`s as bad as any of the problems they had
in Winnipeg.
> These US
>cities get teams because they can best ecomomically handle
>an NHL team.
When the Coyotes/Avalanche are a last place team, let`s see just how well
that US city handles its team. I can`t wait.
> Your analogy about Winnipeg and Quebec deserving team
>because they have a "core" of fans is
>ridiculous. Free agents are the ones that have made it
>necessary to price the NHL out of Joe Hockeyfan's price
>range. There was nobody in Winnipeg and Quebec to buy luxury boxes
>which are a necessity in this free-agent market. That's the REALITY of
>the situation. It is not
>Gary Bettman's fault that this it is necessary to provide
>fancy luxury boxes and clubs inside arenas in order to
>generate the revenue for a team.
Here is what Bettman has the power to do.
He says this. "Ladies and gentlemen, the facts show that the Winnipeg
Jets have been filling the Winnipeg Arena to __ capacity over the past few
years. Since it would be almost impossible to attain a significantly
higher attendance rate anywhere else, I hereby state that the National
Hockey League Board of Governors will block any plan to re-locate the
National Hockey League franchise currently based in Winnipeg." That would
be truthful and fair.
Bryce McNeil
pth...@gpu2.srv.ualberta.ca (P Thind) wrote:
>
>When Bettman first took over the Commish's job over ex-president John >Zeigler, I thought it was a great move for hockey. But as of=
last year, >I can see why Bettman is a true anti-christ for many Canadians.
know what`s even more amazing, is the fact that he is oblivious to all of
this bickering in Canada. Either that or he just doesn`t care. Tough
call, it could be either one...
>Since that shithead came from the NBA and changed the economics of the >game so drastically and didn't think of any Canadians or th=
eir teams, he >has single handedly initiated the destruction of the NHL.
Bettman`s problem is that he tried to bring too much of the NBA into the
NHL, which can`t work because the two sports are totally different.
>He stated off slowly by disgracing the old initial stars of the NHL, by >changing the Divisions and the Conferences to suit the "ne=
w" market in >America.
That was disgusting. I`d always admired how the NHL respected their
legends by naming divisions/conferences after them. I grew up with that
system, and I felt like I had been robbed of something when he took them
away. No. I didn`t feel like I`d been robbed of something, I had been
robbed of something. The legends had been robbed of something too. The
real reason Bettman changed the names of the divisions was probably
because he didn`t know who the other guys were. This guy didn`t even
know who Chris Chelios was he started in his first labour talks. Talk
about a disgrace. He makes me sick.
>He then took his next big step by, craeting the instigation rule for >fighting which has now led to nasty stickwork and cheapshots =
by every >known player.
That`s true. In any other situation in life, fighting is wrong. But if
two hockey players want to fight, let them. Why? Hockey is a spirited
game, one where you began to feel hate for the opponent sheerly because
you want to win so bad. Let them fight. It might not be really right,
but at least it`s fair. It`s much better than cheap shots with sticks
which for some reason the players don`t get thrown out for. What
enetertains the fans more? The fight, which believe it or not, rarely
causes an injury. The fans would rather see a good clean fight in which
afterwords the rivals even hug each other, neither that much worse for
wear. They both got it out of their system. The fans would rather see
that than have to put up with a long delay when some poor soul gets
carted of on the stretcher. The crowd spends the rest of the night
worrying about the guy. And the perpertraitor doesn`t get a game
misconduct.
>After that, he thought of expansion and created hell for all >"legit/real" hockey fans in Canada and US, by having pluggers play an=
d >creating an atrocious defensive system that slowed the pace of the game.
I don`t think Bettman can be blamed for starting the trap craze, but he
certainly didn`t help it by bringing in new teams with little talent.
Oh BTW, I still can`t get over the fact that there is a team in the NHL
called the Mighty Ducks. The name I might be able to live with (I would
certainly have no problem with just Ducks) but the fact that an NHL team
could be born from a kids` movie is embarassing. This expansion thing is
a joke. I`d never thought I would say this, but remember when there were
ONLY 21 teams? That was good. It got destroyed, though.
>Through all this he never thought of how the league itself was growing >as a sport, he never assured the stability of exsisting tea=
ms, and where >the game is true from (where the core of the fans exist). Canadian Teams >moved (Winnipeg, Quebec), and went off into=
deserts. Bettman never >checked at how the ice would be maintained, creating a further problem >for teams which either lived in hum=
id/hot climates and/or had numerous >events in before the hockey game, allowing great skaters and players to >fall to injury (Jagr, =
Lindros).
The ice is a huge problem, one Bettman seems content to ignore. We
should be losing the best ice in the league any time now to a city in
Texas. Bettman did nothing to stop the moves of Winnipeg and Quebec, or
Hartford even (I don`t know about Minnesota, they weren`t putting many
fans in the seats). Those three teams` fans watched their attendance
drop only when they knew there team was going to leave, and who could
blame them? I went through that a few years ago with the AHL. Trust me
it`s not pleasant.
>What really pisses me off now is that he fucking contradicts his >actions. He 1st states that Edmonton will be severly pressured to=
be >kept in Edmonton. Then after hearing yesterday'd comments by the Houston >organisation (who didn't recieve a team),they stated =
Bettman told them >to pursue a team with full backing from him. So what kind of bullshit is >this? He's just another arrogant americ=
an asshole from my opinion, who >only cares for the short turn $, and not the potential growth of the >sport.
The Houston thing really scares me. What he said (and he did say it)
means either one of two things:
The Oilers are coming to Houston.
The NHL might add another expansion team.
I might actually root for the Oilers to move over another expansion team
coming in. Now for those of you don`t think it`s possible for Bettman to
be talking about expansion, then you don`t know who Gary Bettman is. But
in all likelihood, he is talking about stealing the Oilers right out of
Edmonton.
>Hockey (NHL) is on it's way down, soon the league will be watered down >extremely, then like the NFL, people will go to the games t=
o watch the >big commercial signs, and not the game;and even further down the road >after Canada loses Calgary (right after Edmonto=
n), then Canada won't >give a rats ass about hockey and hockey will be dead in Canada. Eithe >Bettman is a mastermind and has this a=
ll well planned out to take our >Canada/USA/EUROPE),game to the states only club, or he's a foolish idiot >thinking that team like E=
dmonton will not need a reasonable profit >sharing to survive.
The league will be extremely watered down. They assume these "new"
areas will be soon producing talent, but they don`t even now if a hockey
is a fad yet. Calgary will probably leave after Edmonton and shortly
after Ottawa will happen to hit the trails. Then another 15 years down
the road, the Canucks will go south. Should Quebec separate, we`ll only
have one Canadian team in the NHL. I think the six Canadian franchises
should pull out of the NHL, make their own league, and take Stanley with
them.
> And if any of you "USA!, USA!" chanters think the game will be
> better then, you have the IQ of Domi!
>(As you can see all the above is just rambling, it really pisses
>me off that Edmonton looks like it's ready to move, mabey moreso
>that I live here...andt's frustrating seeing a team with a history
>great as any other leave...and heck I've always been a Flyer fan!
>In the near future I wonder if hockey will be any fun at all to watch.)
It may have been rambling, but it sure sounded true to me. I think we
all feel the same way. I think we should start a petition to get Bettman
out as NHL comissioner. Anyone with me?
>Now I undertand how Winnipeger's Quebec'ers felt after their team ditched
>off into the USA.
It stinks, it really does. It hurt watching the Avalanche win the Cup
more than it would have to see then the Habs` arch-rival Nordiques win.
>Oh well Hockey was great while it lasted in Canada....
Yep, but those days are gone. Be thankful you lived in Edmonton, where
you got to experience it. Think about the people in Hamilton who never
did.
Patrick McNeil
iy...@jove.acs.unt.edu (Mcleod Patrick M) wrote:
>
>
>No chants of "USA" "USA" here.
>
>I agree with you. Bettman has turned the game of hockey into a
>dollar-mongering whore festival. It's really too bad that something cannot
>be done to stop the expansion plan...or at the least to stop Gary Bettman.
Anyone here hear the Pittsburgh fans unmercifully boo Gary today at the
draft? I thought that was great.
PS Why don`t we all start a get-rid-of-Bettman petition?
Greup
P Thind wrote:
>
> When Bettman first took over the Commish's job over
> ex-president John Zeigler, I thought it was a great
> Bettman is a true anti-christ for many Canadians.
>
> changed the economics of the game so drastically and
> didn't
> single handedly initiated the destruction of the NHL.
>
> stars of the NHL, by changing the Divisions and the
>
> He then took his next big step by, craeting the
> instigation rule for fighting which has now led to
>
> After that, he thought of expansion and created hell
> for all "legit/real" hockey fans in Canada and US,
> defensive system that slowed the pace of the game.
>
> itself was growing as a sport, he never assured the
> true from (where the core of the fans exist).
> Canadian Teams moved (Winnipeg, Quebec), and went off
> would be maintained, creating a further problem for
> had numerous events in before the hockey game, allowing
>
> What really pisses me off now is that he fucking contradicts
> his actions. He 1st states that Edmonton will be severly
> comments by the Houston organisation (who didn't recieve a team),
> from him. So what kind of bullshit is this? He's just another
> the short turn $, and not the potential growth of the sport.
>
> watered down extremely, then like the NFL, people will go to
> and even further down the road after Canada loses Calgary (right
> and hockey will be dead in Canada. Eithe Bettman is a mastermind
> game to the states only club, or he's a foolish idiot thinking
> to survive.
>
> better then, you have the IQ of Domi!
>
> (As you can see all the above is just rambling, it really pisses
> me off that Edmonton looks like it's ready to move, mabey moreso
> that I live here...andt's frustrating seeing a team with a history
> great as any other leave...and heck I've always been a Flyer fan!
> In the near future I wonder if hockey will be any fun at all to watch.)
>
> off into the USA.
>
>
>
>
> ==========================================================
> =Jaguar,(Flyers)-----------------------------------------=
> =**BCHL Commish**----------------------------------------=
> =http://www.geocities.com/colosseum/3789/bchlgateway.html=
Well, first let me say that I agree with you that its sad the way the
NHL is watered down. On the moves however...
Basically its the same system at work that made the best european
players go to the NHL. More money to state it short. Dont you think that
we (euros) would rather have Forsberg, Selänne, Fedorov and all the
others in our own leagues? Its very frustrating to see promising players
make one big tournament in the national jerseys and then disappear to
the NHL never to be seen again, or if we do, they are way past their
prime. We basically never get to see them in their prime. I see no
principal difference in moving a player or a team. So if you oppose the
move of canadian teams to the US you must also, as a consequence, be
opposed to the hiring of european players in the NHL.
Have a good life
/MVH Greup
Taz...@istar.ca
In article <x4k3eqd...@panix.com>,
John Bradley <j...@panix.com> wrote:
> I think that you give Bettman too much blame and too little to the
> NHL owners. One man is not single handedly responsible for every
> item that you describe. Hockey has thrived despite the mismanagement
> of the owners for many years.
>
BATtman gets all the blame for one reason. He is the last line, the man
who has final say on Everything. He is also the one who is supposed to
act in the best interests of the game. Instead he has been acting out of
self-interest and the interest of fattening wallets. He is able to
conteract ANY move by owners and also had the power to direct the game
into the proper areas. Instead he has screwed the game into the ground.
> Changing the division names isn't bad. Hockey is the only the sport
> that encodes the names of all of its awards and previously divisions so
> that only the cognoscenti can understand what is happening in the league.
> For die hard fans, the names Patrick, Adams, Smythe and Norris are
> meaningful but for casual followers this notation must be impregnable.
> East/West makes much more sense to me.
So what? We don't care about you or the 'casual follower'. The game isn't
meant for people who can't find anything better to watch on T.V., or have
already seen that episode of Baywatch. If you don't know the name of the
divisions then don't worry about it, you boviously don't care enough
about the sport to give a damn. And if you can't memorize 4 fucking names
of the divisions, then you shouldn't be let out of the house, let alone
be given any say in the future of the sport.
> Blame the owners more than Bettman. Their unquenchable greed for expansion
> fees is the motivation.
At any point BATtman could have said no, that is his F'in job for christ
sake.Why the hell is he being payed if he is just the mouthpiece for the
owners. The fault lies at his feet eperiod, and for one reaso. He is
there to stop the insanity, and instead he has been the creator and
sustaining force behind it.
> Ultimately they may pay when the novelty wears off
> in the sunbelt, some franchises become unstable and the value of franchises
> throughout the league drops. How short some memories are ? Don't they
> remember the problems the league had with Oakland/Cleveland and Colorado ?
Yeah, and when you can't expand anymore, then the troubled teams can't
use the expansion money to justify their existance and they spiral into
the sun.
> I don't understand how people in some of these new cities will pay top
> dollar to watch a game that they don't even understand. Isn't there
> anything else to do in Phoenix ? Anybody who watch a Phoenix Suns game knew
> that the arena was totally unacceptable for hockey. Will the mgmt there
> have to invest $50 million or so to drastically remodel the arena ?
>
> However, I do agree that the league is too big and that we are watching
> crap half the time.
> There are forces there that he can't control. The league made an effort
> to improve the financial position of the Canadian teams with their
> subsidy program. If Bettman had his way, the last collective bargaining
> agreement would have included a salary cap that may have made things
> better for the small market teams.
The salaries aren't the problem, the problem is that someone south of the
border wants the prestige of a pro team to go with the big bucks he made
of his workers, and so he steals a team from up north. The market has
gone out of whack, and it has little to do with the players and more to
do with the expansion and free-trade of teams. If Battman said. No team
can move, then that would solve the problems very quickly. Fold or sell
to a local concern, don't simply fuck-over the markets who created your
now winning team.
> Bettman's job with the NBA was salary
> cap administration. Maybe we would still have Winnipeg and Quebec under
> these circumstances ?
Not, unless he said they weren't allowed to move.
> The real culprit here is Aubut and Pocklington. Both of these slimebags
> kept their teams in Canada when the teams had poor prospects and they were
> assured of steady support from knowledgable fans. When the teams accumulate
> young talent, they sell off to interests from other cities who are throwing
> money at them.
Exactly.
> Bettman didn't cause these owners to go for the quick buck.
No, he just approves it and helps set up the meetings. You want to sell
your team? Well for a small 10% finders fee, I'll see who I can get to
take it off your hands.
> He is just a tool
> of the owners. He is moving the league in the direction that MANY of the
> owners want to go. I say many because I think some of the owners in the
> established cities can see problems on the horizon. The first sign of these
> problems are in Boston, a city with savvy fans who won't watch crap just
> because there is a team in town. I suspect that as young talent drifts
> to the newer teams, attendance in cities like New York, Pittsburgh,
> Chicago, St. Louis and Detroit will suffer.
The problem is BATtman isn't as savy as the fans, and he shows it. He's a
glorified accountant and that's not what his job is supposed to be.
> Who knows what will happen down South. I suspect that part of the
> popularity of the Florida teams was due to the interest of snowbirds in
> seeing the Northern teams like New York, Montreal and Boston. Will these
> people be so excited about their Southeast division rivals: Atlanta and
> Nashville ?
>
> This last expansion could have been worse. In New York, at least we will
> see a lot of games against local rivals within the division and we got
> the Florida teams out of the division. The on ice product may be crap, but
> at least there will be some intensity in these divisional games.
Not until the FINALLY let Toronto back into the Adams, oh that's the
North East for you cacual fans.
"Trade me right Fucking Now!" -Chiefs Goalie
TRF
-------------------==== Posted via Deja News ====-----------------------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Post to Usenet
Taz...@istar.ca
In article <33AD87...@thehelm.com>,
gr...@thehelm.com wrote:
> Well, first let me say that I agree with you that its sad the way the
> NHL is watered down. On the moves however...
The funny thing is that without what you refer to in the body of your
post, the NHL would be watered down even more. Think of what the league
would REALLY be like with an All N.American league. Oooh, talke about
lack of talent to go around.
> Basically its the same system at work that made the best european
> players go to the NHL. More money to state it short. Dont you think that
> we (euros) would rather have Forsberg, Selänne, Fedorov and all the
> others in our own leagues? Its very frustrating to see promising players
> make one big tournament in the national jerseys and then disappear to
> the NHL never to be seen again, or if we do, they are way past their
> prime. We basically never get to see them in their prime. I see no
> principal difference in moving a player or a team. So if you oppose the
> move of canadian teams to the US you must also, as a consequence, be
> opposed to the hiring of european players in the NHL.
I agree with you, and it's funny that you should say that. It's exactly
what Cherry has been saying for years, except it for different reasons.
:) Although you feel this way many feel the opposite, like Europeans
BELONG in the NHL, Anders and Vern might have words to express on this
had it been stated that "Europeans don't belong in the NHL", which is
what you state in a way. Of course the rest of your statement would be
"because they belong at home", whereas most would think it "because it's
Our game" or something similarly as dumb. Anywho, people bitch about
nationalistic attitudes, but without the pride and fanaticism that goes
along with it, there would be no support for the sport in the first
place. I think the game should do more to honour and stay in the areas
that helped develop and contribute to it.
Keep your stick on the ice. -Red Green
Taz...@istar.ca
In article <5oiec8$so$2...@thor.atcon.com>,
Patrick McNeil <j...@atcon.com> wrote:
> Anyone here hear the Pittsburgh fans unmercifully boo Gary today at the
> draft? I thought that was great.
Yes it was FANtastic as they say. I taped the whole thing, and I had to
re-watch that part over and over. I loved it. He got up all smiles, and
they announced him and he had this look on his face like "What did I do?"
He wanted this big thing, and wanted all this air tie for himself and
then he just looked like the weinner his is. Why the hell did he spend 2
minutes explaining, "When you pick you must come up and raise your hand
and tell the blah blah blah." Like he couldn't write this down or tell
people in advance, he had to wait 'til everyone was watching him make an
administrative announcement. What an idiot lawyer creep!
> PS Why don`t we all start a get-rid-of-Bettman petition?
Because BATtman would probably find some leagal way around it's
signifigance.
But if ever anyone starts one. I'm there for it. TRF says GB musty go!
"Who own da' chiefs?" "Owwnza, ownze" -Chiefs Goalie
Bonnie C Hallman
Your only half right. The other major problems with Canadian teams is
that they are in "small Canadian markets" which don't help get that big
network television contract that the NHL is looking for. Bettman knows
that Canadians love hockey and they will continue to follow hockey with
or without a local NHL franchise. Therefore, lets give new franchise to
big American markets which don't could become good markets. Nashville is
a perfect example because they have a small population base (2 million)
and probably half the population doesn't know who Wayne Gretzky or a puck
is. However, they could develop a market and the American television
networks will see the expansion of the hockey market into another part of
the USA.
On the other hand, lets look at Hamilton Ontario. They have a stadium
built already, they had 12,000 season tickets purchased in 1994 when the
city thought the NHL was coming and they could easily sell fifty luxury
boxes if there were that many in the stadium. But the NHL is not coming
because it knows that its a small centre in Ontario and it would not be
expanding the american base by giving a franchise to a location where
people go to Buffalo or Toronto to see games.
So, don't give us that line that we can't support another NHL franchise
in Canada. Rather, its more about the politics of franchise and the TV
networks.
It is not : Gary Bettman's fault that this it is necessary to provide :
fancy luxury boxes and clubs inside arenas in order to : generate the
revenue for a team. It's the fault of the ever : increasing free-agent
and regular players' salaries. And : what's the matter with the owners
wanting to make a buck?? : That's why anyone gets into business. This
sort of idealized version of : economics seems to be prevelent in :
Canada. I guess that's why teams are leaving.
Barry Hallman
VLDept-E.LOR(MT5655)1240MT
In article <8671135...@dejanews.com>, <Tazman@istar> wrote:
>So what? We don't care about you or the 'casual follower'.
because:
1) you guys are few and far in between
2) you guys can't fork out the cash to buy luxury suites.
So, when you say "We", who are you talking about? If you don't like the
current state of the NHL, do what I've suggested for a long time. Form
your own low-budget Canadian NHL. I'll see how much Canadian talent you
can attract...
>The game isn't
>meant for people who can't find anything better to watch on T.V., or have
>already seen that episode of Baywatch.
It isn't? according to whom? the Bible or the Canadian Constitution?
Remember, you don't run the league, the owners do...
>The salaries aren't the problem,
They aren't? then why did the Nords and the Jets moved? why did the Oilers
fail to keep Gretzky, Messier, Anderson, Fuhr, Kurri, etc. on Canadian soil?
>the problem is that someone south of the
>border wants the prestige of a pro team to go with the big bucks he made
>of his workers, and so he steals a team from up north.
The problem is that your small markets are just not economically strong enough
to keep a current NHL franchise. When the NHL was still a minor league
operation (when salaries were still in 6-figures, you still had a chance.
When the salaries escalated to 7-figures, you are finished.
>The market has
>gone out of whack, and it has little to do with the players
This is naive. If it has little to do with the player salaries, why did
the Oilers do the fire-sale? why did the Nords and Jets have to move?
>If Battman said. No team
>can move, then that would solve the problems very quickly.
Why would Bettman want to sacrifice the financial well-being of the league
just to satisfy your fragile ego and national pride?
--
Edward Lor
l...@mtdcc.ATT.COM
Lucent Technologies
VLDept-E.LOR(MT5655)1240MT
In article <5ofqmu$tmf$2...@thor.atcon.com>, Bryce McNeil <j...@atcon.com> wrote:
> Why does the highest bidder have to move the team when the fans were
>selling out games even though they knew they were moving away?
1) enough corporations to sell out the luxury suites? enough goodies
from the stadium lease (concessions, parking, etc.)?
2) enough financial backing from the city to build an arena with luxury
suites?
So, fans selling out games are not enough. The NHL is a corporate game,
not a pee-wee game...
> When the Coyotes/Avalanche are a last place team, let`s see just how well
>that US city handles its team. I can`t wait.
So why should fans support a team that is poorly managed (e.g. the Kings,
the Whalers, etc.)? Hey, if the Winnepeggers and Quebecouis do support
losers, go ahead, but don't expect other people to be blindly loyal to
a poor product. That's just stupid.
> Here is what Bettman has the power to do.
> He says this. "Ladies and gentlemen, the facts show that the Winnipeg
>Jets have been filling the Winnipeg Arena to __ capacity over the past few
>years. Since it would be almost impossible to attain a significantly
>higher attendance rate anywhere else, I hereby state that the National
>Hockey League Board of Governors will block any plan to re-locate the
>National Hockey League franchise currently based in Winnipeg." That would
>be truthful and fair.
Here is why Bettman is the NHL commissioner and you are a Netnews whiner:
he runs the NHL as a corporation, you think the NHL is a kid's game.
Daniel Fardoe
(VLDept-E.LOR(MT5655)1240MT) writes:
>So, fans selling out games are not enough. The NHL is a corporate game,
>not a pee-wee game...
True but the NHL did nothing to help these franchises with a very loyal fan
base. The problem is that the new US fans are a gamble. The NHL is deserting
its loyal consumers for a larger but fickle market.
>> When the Coyotes/Avalanche are a last place team, let`s see just how well
>>that US city handles its team. I can`t wait.
>So why should fans support a team that is poorly managed (e.g. the Kings,
>the Whalers, etc.)? Hey, if the Winnepeggers and Quebecouis do support
>losers, go ahead, but don't expect other people to be blindly loyal to
>a poor product. That's just stupid.
Because if the don't the team will move. Every team cannot have a winning
record, sometime teams have a few bad years and the fact that the fans still
support the teams shows that they are loyal consumers of the NHL's product.
Even if the local team is bad the fans should still want to see the NHL. Now
you think if a team is losing the fans should not abandon the franchise? If
fans will not support a team that is not a winner they are not what the NHL
needs. Look at how bad the Kings are doing on the ice and off.
>> Here is what Bettman has the power to do.
>> He says this. "Ladies and gentlemen, the facts show that the Winnipeg
>>Jets have been filling the Winnipeg Arena to __ capacity over the past few
>>years. Since it would be almost impossible to attain a significantly
>>higher attendance rate anywhere else, I hereby state that the National
>>Hockey League Board of Governors will block any plan to re-locate the
>>National Hockey League franchise currently based in Winnipeg." That would
>>be truthful and fair.
>Here is why Bettman is the NHL commissioner and you are a Netnews whiner:
>he runs the NHL as a corporation, you think the NHL is a kid's game.
He does not run it very well. FOX is getting terrible ratings because of a
lack of intrest in the US, the CBC's ratings are dropping because the NHL
continues to crap on its Canadian fans. The NHL is economically running the
game out of Canada and the new US fans still arn't supporting the league., and
most franchises are losing money. Sounds like a great bussiness to me.
Daniel Fardoe
dfa...@escape.ca
VLDept-E.LOR(MT5655)1240MT
In article <**dfardoe.22...@escape.ca>,
Daniel Fardoe <**dfa...@escape.ca> wrote:
>True but the NHL did nothing to help these franchises with a very loyal fan
>base.
issue. The loyal fan base, especially in Canadian small markets, is too
insignificant to worry about.
The question is, is the NHL entitled to go big-time?
>The problem is that the new US fans are a gamble. The NHL is deserting
>its loyal consumers for a larger but fickle market.
What's the problem here? You know one thing for sure: sticking to your
loyal customer (small markets), it's a sure loss. Exploring the new
markets, you still have a gamble.
Do you prefer a sure loss or a gamble? Why do you put the negative
connotation on gambling? Why do you ignore the sure loss?
>Because if the don't the team will move. Every team cannot have a winning
>record, sometime teams have a few bad years and the fact that the fans still
>support the teams shows that they are loyal consumers of the NHL's product.
>Even if the local team is bad the fans should still want to see the NHL. Now
>you think if a team is losing the fans should not abandon the franchise? If
>fans will not support a team that is not a winner they are not what the NHL
>needs. Look at how bad the Kings are doing on the ice and off.
Well, the Kings have been in Los Angeles for 30 years. What does it say
about the stability of the Kings vs the Jets/Nordiques?
In other words, whether a team will move depends not just on the turnstiles.
>He does not run it very well. FOX is getting terrible ratings because of a
>lack of intrest in the US,
So what's the problem? Hockey has not been a major sports in the U.S. since
day 1. When has hockey got non-terrible ratings? You care to tell us the
ratings during the reign of John Ziegler/Gil Stein? when the games were on
SportsChannel America?
At least Bettman did something good by putting the NHL on Fox. Any non-zero
rating Fox get is an improvement over Ziegler...
>the CBC's ratings are dropping because the NHL
>continues to crap on its Canadian fans. The NHL is economically running the
>game out of Canada and the new US fans still arn't supporting the league.,
And I assume you have proof for this. This is the same kind of BS that
Mike Eisler put up 2 months ago -- "playoff attendence is down".
>and most franchises are losing money.
Yep, cite the franchises that are losing money. I can't wait.
And besides, owning a franchise is not just about making operating profits,
it's about capital appreciation of the franchise. How much does Pocklington
ask for for his Oilers?
You think he would have nerve to ask for ~$70million had the league been
floundering? Just in 1995, the Oilers was estimated to be U.S. $42 million.
In the early 90s, the expansion fees were only about $30-40 million.
>Sounds like a great bussiness to me.
Sure does. If you know your asset that's worth $42 million jumps up to
$70 million in 2 years, are you happy?
Daniel Fardoe
In article <5ou633$e...@nntpa.cb.lucent.com> l...@mtdcr.mt.att.com (VLDept-E.LOR(MT5655)1240MT) writes:
>In article <**dfardoe.22...@escape.ca>,
>Daniel Fardoe <**dfa...@escape.ca> wrote:
>>True but the NHL did nothing to help these franchises with a very loyal fan
>>base.
>When the NHL tries to go major league, then loyal fan base is NOT the
>issue. The loyal fan base, especially in Canadian small markets, is too
>insignificant to worry about.
I hardly call the Canadian and Northern US fans insignifigant. True the
southern US is a large market but that is a very risky gamble considering a
total lack of intrest until recently.
>The question is, is the NHL entitled to go big-time?
>>The problem is that the new US fans are a gamble. The NHL is deserting
>>its loyal consumers for a larger but fickle market.
>What's the problem here? You know one thing for sure: sticking to your
>loyal customer (small markets), it's a sure loss. Exploring the new
>markets, you still have a gamble.
Sticking to the loyal customers is not a sure loss. Today it is, but that is
because the NHL has allowed it to become that way. Most franchises in large
and small markets lose money, and the lack of revenue sharing and a salary cap
has slanted the playing field to allow big market US teams with deep pocketed
owners to have great teams in order to sell the product to the potentail
American fans.
>Do you prefer a sure loss or a gamble? Why do you put the negative
>connotation on gambling? Why do you ignore the sure loss?
>>Because if the don't the team will move. Every team cannot have a winning
>>record, sometime teams have a few bad years and the fact that the fans still
>>support the teams shows that they are loyal consumers of the NHL's product.
>>Even if the local team is bad the fans should still want to see the NHL. Now
>>you think if a team is losing the fans should not abandon the franchise? If
>>fans will not support a team that is not a winner they are not what the NHL
>>needs. Look at how bad the Kings are doing on the ice and off.
>Well, the Kings have been in Los Angeles for 30 years. What does it say
>about the stability of the Kings vs the Jets/Nordiques?
>In other words, whether a team will move depends not just on the turnstiles.
>>He does not run it very well. FOX is getting terrible ratings because of a
>>lack of intrest in the US,
>So what's the problem? Hockey has not been a major sports in the U.S. since
>day 1. When has hockey got non-terrible ratings? You care to tell us the
>ratings during the reign of John Ziegler/Gil Stein? when the games were on
>SportsChannel America?
>At least Bettman did something good by putting the NHL on Fox. Any non-zero
>rating Fox get is an improvement over Ziegler...
Sure its good that the NHL has a national TV contract in the US, the point is
that the ratings show that there is very little intrest in the US despite the
NHL's efforts to sell the sport. The Finals were not even shown on FOX in
Atlanta and now they have an expansion franchise. Doesn't that indicate
somthing is wrong here?
>>the CBC's ratings are dropping because the NHL
>>continues to crap on its Canadian fans. The NHL is economically running the
>>game out of Canada and the new US fans still arn't supporting the league.,
>And I assume you have proof for this. This is the same kind of BS that
>Mike Eisler put up 2 months ago -- "playoff attendence is down".
When any team cannot sell out a playoff game somthing is wrong. The ratings on
FOX are lower that Monday night wrestling. The CBC only televises Canadian
teams and every Canadian team was under .500 for most of the season. Is it
just a fluke that all Canadian teams are losing, they can't economically stay
competative despite their good fan support.
>>and most franchises are losing money.
>Yep, cite the franchises that are losing money. I can't wait.
Florida is losing at leat a million/month, Colorado is facing big losses next
season unless there is alot of cost cutting, just to name a few. The thing is
that teams owned by Disney, Blockbuster, Anhiser-Busch, ect... can affored to
lose millions on NHL franchises. If they don't have to be fiscally resonsable
that hurts franchises that do.
>And besides, owning a franchise is not just about making operating profits,
>it's about capital appreciation of the franchise. How much does Pocklington
>ask for for his Oilers?
>You think he would have nerve to ask for ~$70million had the league been
>floundering? Just in 1995, the Oilers was estimated to be U.S. $42 million.
>In the early 90s, the expansion fees were only about $30-40 million.
Sure. The team is only worth 40 million or so. Pocklington knows he will get
alot more than its worth from Houston or Portland. The team isn't worth 40
mill in Edmonton, but in Houston or Portland....
>>Sounds like a great bussiness to me.
>Sure does. If you know your asset that's worth $42 million jumps up to
>$70 million in 2 years, are you happy?
Accually the franchise is still valued at appx. 40 million. In another city it
will be worth more. Even if he sells it for 70 million the franchise will
still be valued at 40.
Daniel Fardoe
dfa...@escape.ca
Taz...@istar.ca
In article <5opkue$8...@nntpa.cb.lucent.com>,
l...@mtdcr.mt.att.com (VLDept-E.LOR(MT5655)1240MT) wrote:
> Well, the league obvious don't care about you or the diehard follower,
> because:
You miss the point. The league big-wigs and the Fans are proving to be
more and more disparate in their goals and desires for this game/league.
> 1) you guys are few and far in between
No we are still the majority AND the league's meat and potates which they
are about to lose by concentrating on the gravy. The problem with
drowning stuff in gravy, is that you never realize when the substance in
gone.
> 2) you guys can't fork out the cash to buy luxury suites.
My family may be the exception but we sure could. Although I don't
understand why anyone would want to be that far away from the action. We
have season's tickets that have been in the family for about 30 years,
which are just behind visitors bench at the Gardens. Even Ballards old
box doesn't give you that great a view. BTW, the people who truely love
the sport and don't come to be seen buy season tickets in GREAT seats,
not boxes. The boxes are for corporations to write of as entertainment
expenses, which the last company I worked for did at the Corel Center,
Keg, and Gardens. WE can easily support the luxury suites, the question
is why would I? As for our companies, they already do.
> So, when you say "We", who are you talking about? If you don't like the
> current state of the NHL, do what I've suggested for a long time. Form
> your own low-budget Canadian NHL. I'll see how much Canadian talent you
> can attract...
Do what, I've suggested for a long time, and buy a life. This is not a
simply Yank vs. Canuck issue, although the only people who are the
problem is the new bread of hockey illiterate Yank who now has a
franchise to admire for a few years until it's no longer trendy. Second,
why the hell should I give up the league that members of my family have
played in (on American teams no less)? You're argument is akin to telling
Russia, well if you don't like it go form another NATO. Yeah, great idea.
The die hard fan it's not about America vs. Canada, since mos are
Canaidans anyway :), but it's about franchise going to cities simply
because they are part of a scheme to get a national Sunday Night Football
Follower on ABC. It usck the same wind that would have followed the ire
of Minesota had their franchise been given to Houston. Sometimes you have
to do what's right, and the NHL hasn't done that one since BATtman got
his hands on things.
> It isn't? according to whom? the Bible or the Canadian Constitution?
According to logic, and the idea of sportsmanship and fair play. IF the
league wants to compete solely as an entertainment device for Channel
surfers they better get cheerleaders, and start putting an iron cage
around the ice for the yankee fair-weather fan. You should see the movie
slapshot to get an idea of the difference between selling tickets and
trying to play a game. Sure make it a spectacle, but then stop calling it
sports, and classify it as entertainment just like the WWF, and probably
with the same Yankee fan base and skill level.
> Remember, you don't run the league, the owners do...
No, REMEMBER, the owners are SUPPOSED to be beholden to US, the fans. And
Baseball is finding out just how true that is. And if it has to happen in
Hockey, it will go alot deeper than you seen in MLB. The fans are the
one's who finance the owners and piss them off enough and many teams will
become the property of CITICORP.
> >The salaries aren't the problem,
> They aren't? then why did the Nords and the Jets moved? why did the Oilers
> fail to keep Gretzky, Messier, Anderson, Fuhr, Kurri, etc. on Canadian soil?
Prove to me that it was salaries that did it. Salaries are a good excuse,
but in fact what happened is that someone came in with a sweeter deal.
Was it Salaries that moved the Browns? OR simply Greed. Their is some
level of salary involvement but the main thing is that Hockey is a hot
commodity and many cities looking for the prestige of owning a pro team,
especially in a for-now-hot sport, are willing to bend over backward and
offer alot of incentives (often against the wishes of many of it's
citizens, and at the cost of education and other programs), when this
kind of money is thrown around, people without loyalty simply follow
their nose. What money does is buy big name last year players, the way
small money teams survive is by picking a future. Unfortunately they have
to continually do this becuase of player disloyalty (except the rare Ray
Bourque types). Had the Senators & NHL held-out on Yashin and forced him
to play under his contract they would have done VERY well, and likely
would have been able to afford other talent to help propel them further
last year.
> >the problem is that someone south of the
> >border wants the prestige of a pro team to go with the big bucks he made
> >of his workers, and so he steals a team from up north.
> The problem is that your small markets are just not economically strong enough
> to keep a current NHL franchise.
No that's not true at all. On the local level they are alot stronger than
most American franchises, the difference is the U.S.-only media contracts
and marketing. Nashville getting a stake in N.Y. and Boston's American
broadcasts is something that is unavailible to teams north of the
boarder. Why is that? Because of the structure of our markets and laws.
While Plattsburgh N.Y. coulf fit in a tiny anglo section of Montreal,
having less than 10% of it's Pop., it still gets a greater selection,
variety and T.V. markets because of a national system that recognizes the
boarder and not the markets, so don't tell me about markets. It's not our
small markets, it's our small MARKET. HNIC has things already sewn up so
people aren't falling over each other trying to outbid each other for
games, there's no competition. And that's part of the problem. The thing
is THIS ISN'T GOOD FOR HOCKEY its good for owners pocketbooks. In the
same way that American teams have lost all sense of history/loyalty and
decide to change jerseys ever 2nd year so they can fleece the fans again
for more money so they can compete in a death spiral. The league needs to
act more like OPEC than like a Russian street market.
> When the NHL was still a minor league
> operation (when salaries were still in 6-figures, you still had a chance.
> When the salaries escalated to 7-figures, you are finished.
Says you. I think Hamilton would be able to compete despite the marketing
differences. BTW, one of the other things that 'finished us' and started
giving Americans too big a break, was moving away from C-form type
contracts, and instituting a draft. Americans wouldn't know where to
start in the scouting system, and would get totally screwed if they
didn't have the opportunity to wait for a draft and get alll the scouting
reports after watching what all the other teams do. Local markets would
be dominated by local scouts and Americans wouldn't have had a chance to
spy new talent because it would already be signed to teams within
car-ride distance. It wouldn't work now because the other system has
allowed the league to grow un-naturally, but it would have been alot
different without the draft.
> >The market has
> >gone out of whack, and it has little to do with the players
> This is naive. If it has little to do with the player salaries, why did
> the Oilers do the fire-sale? why did the Nords and Jets have to move?
Umm, because their owners are greedy, want more money, or lost money in
other financial dealings. Now if you followed any of these teams you
might know that. Salaries are a small factor, part of the puzzle, and are
not the be all and end all of the sport. Salaries relate to Big-name
superstar players, that attract the non-fan. One could still create
competitive teams with less money. The ONLY thing that drives the
game/teams is fans showing up. Now the owners then look at how much
profit they can make if they get lux. boxes, have a city build them a
bigger and better stadium, etc. Salaries are just a small part of it, but
they are the most visible to people who have never been involved in the
sport in anything other than a casual manner.
> >If Battman said. No team
> >can move, then that would solve the problems very quickly.
> Why would Bettman want to sacrifice the financial well-being of the league
> just to satisfy your fragile ego and national pride?
It's not national pride you ignorant fool, it's the santity of the game.
It's beginning to suck because the fans who come out don't know shit, so
the league changes to meet their ignorance. The league is in greater risk
of financial ruin because the ones who come out on the tuesday night in
the middle of a 10 game losing streak are going to cancel their season's
tickets. Then you will have the collapse of one team here and one team
there. The Sunshine-teams will fold once the shine is off baby's new toy,
and then the league will be left with a bunch of financially troubled
teams and they are going to try and pawn them off on people who are still
bitter about being betrayed.
"Trade me right Fucking Now!" -Chiefs Goalie
Keep your stick on the Ice -R.G.
Taz...@istar.ca
In article <5or9ct$9...@nntpa.cb.lucent.com>,
l...@mtdcr.mt.att.com (VLDept-E.LOR(MT5655)1240MT) wrote:
> Easy, because 'fans selling out games' is NOT enough. Do you have
>
> 1) enough corporations to sell out the luxury suites? enough goodies
> from the stadium lease (concessions, parking, etc.)?
> 2) enough financial backing from the city to build an arena with luxury
> suites?
In a decade you will find no-one willing to build even a pop-stand for
owners, because too many cities will have been burned by someon who came
when the stadium was built, and then left when they were offered and even
newer stadium down the road.
> So, fans selling out games are not enough. The NHL is a corporate game,
> not a pee-wee game...
That's half the problem. The NHL is big business not sport, and that's a
pretty sick American bastardization of something good.
> > When the Coyotes/Avalanche are a last place team, let`s see just how well
> >that US city handles its team. I can`t wait.
> So why should fans support a team that is poorly managed (e.g. the Kings,
> the Whalers, etc.)? Hey, if the Winnepeggers and Quebecouis do support
> losers, go ahead, but don't expect other people to be blindly loyal to
> a poor product. That's just stupid.
So every year you have about 2-3 teams move because they ended up at the
bottom of the heap. Someone has to finish last every year, unfortunately
last year it was Boston. :( Hey, why support losers, move them elsewhere.
It would be interesting to watch the musical chairs. Don't build new
stadiums, just moth-ball them until next year when anoth coupla teams
finish last and it's your turn. This way we could tour the whole of North
America in a few years with just 12 yeams. You may be on to something. Or
just ON something.
> Here is why Bettman is the NHL commissioner and you are a Netnews whiner:
> he runs the NHL as a corporation, you think the NHL is a kid's game.
And you think that Cristmas shoudl be canceled and kids should be working
making soccer balls and hook-rugs, because it's just buisness.
"My hallergy to the fans, it has returned" -Chiefs Goalie
Keep your stick on the ice. -R.G.
VLDept-E.LOR(MT5655)1240MT
In article <**dfardoe.22...@escape.ca>,
Daniel Fardoe <**dfa...@escape.ca> wrote:
>I hardly call the Canadian and Northern US fans insignifigant.
profit. How many tickets I do have to sell to get to that amount especially
if ticket sales (as in Edmonton) is going to put me in red?
You think the sports business is only about selling tickets?
>True the
>southern US is a large market but that is a very risky gamble considering a
>total lack of intrest until recently.
Isn't it a riskier gamble considering the money a team lost year in year
out in the smaller market?
The Whalers lost $30 million in 3 years. How do you think of that? do you
want to lose $10M/year or do you want to gamble?
You want to lose $10M/year? OK, you are stupid, but don't expect other
people to...
>>The question is, is the NHL entitled to go big-time?
> ...
>Sticking to the loyal customers is not a sure loss.
It's a loss ALREADY. How isn't it a sure loss?
>Today it is, but that is
>because the NHL has allowed it to become that way.
So the NHL, with the direction it's going, can't survive in the smaller
markets. That's why you have to dodge the question:
Is the NHL entitled to go big-time?
>Most franchises in large and small markets lose money, and the lack
>of revenue sharing and a salary cap
>has slanted the playing field to allow big market US teams with deep pocketed
>owners to have great teams in order to sell the product to the potentail
>American fans.
Exactly. So the NHL is trying to become a big-time operation. Is it
entitled to?
I bet you have to evade this point again.
>Sure its good that the NHL has a national TV contract in the US, the point is
>that the ratings show that there is very little intrest in the US despite the
>NHL's efforts to sell the sport.
Well, "very little interest" relative to what? Based on hockey's popularity in
this country, Fox's 4.0 rating in the finals is very good.
>The Finals were not even shown on FOX in
>Atlanta and now they have an expansion franchise. Doesn't that indicate
>somthing is wrong here?
Nope, it means Atlanta is affluent enough to get something they aren't even
crazy about. Does it tell you something about the financial discrepancy
between the two countries? the direction the NHL is trying to go?
>When any team cannot sell out a playoff game somthing is wrong.
According to whom? which major sport in the U.S. that every playoff game is
sold out?
>The ratings on FOX are lower that Monday night wrestling.
Really? Can you cite the ratings of Monday night wrestling?
>The CBC only televises Canadian
>teams and every Canadian team was under .500 for most of the season. Is it
>just a fluke that all Canadian teams are losing, they can't economically stay
>competative despite their good fan support.
As I told you, good fan support is NOT enough. This is a corporate game.
When are you going to wake up?
>>>and most franchises are losing money.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>Yep, cite the franchises that are losing money. I can't wait.
>
>Florida is losing at leat a million/month, Colorado is facing big losses next
>season unless there is alot of cost cutting, just to name a few.
Well, you claimed "most franchises".
How do you classify 2 franchises out of 26 as "most"?
>The thing is
>that teams owned by Disney, Blockbuster, Anhiser-Busch, ect... can affored to
>lose millions on NHL franchises.
Well, unless I have seen the ledger of these corporations, I am not going
to believe this.
Even if I've seen their ledgers, I am still skeptical about such "claims" of
losses. What a naivette don't see in sports operation is:
1) stadium revenue
2) cable channels co-owned by the sports franchise. One very good example was
the Kings acquisitions of Gretzky. Jerry Buss owned Prime Ticket, and he
increase his subscriber base and monthly charge from cable operators
rightaway. Yet such increases were not shown in the Kings' ledger.
Do you know the relationships between Cablevision and the Rangers?
3) the leverage of demanding new stadiums and its goodies (concessions,
parkings, advertisement) for having an NHL franchise.
That's why it's naive to believe that a sports franchise loses money without
looking at the big picture.
>Sure. The team is only worth 40 million or so. Pocklington knows he will get
>alot more than its worth from Houston or Portland. The team isn't worth 40
>mill in Edmonton, but in Houston or Portland....
Yes, so a product worth == the amount your buyer willing to pay. So you
have been yapping about operating losses. Have you figured in the capital
appreciation?
>Accually the franchise is still valued at appx. 40 million. In another city it
>will be worth more. Even if he sells it for 70 million the franchise will
>still be valued at 40.
Why? if you the franchise exist in Houston, why is it still worth $40
million?
Mark G. Sands
Ok, today we are going to dispell the myth that us Americans provide no
market for hockey and that all the *real* hockey fans are in Canada:
1) Ice Hockey is the fastest growing sport in America, featuring a 29%
surge in participation last year alone. The only sport that had more
growth was ROLLER hockey, which grew by 46% (among US youth 12-17). NHL
research has indicated that 69% of Roller Hockey players are fans of the
league.
2) In the Sun Belt, where ten of the thirty NHL teams will be located by
2000-1, there has been an 89% leap in ice hockey participation
3) The "lack of market" in the United States has caused a nation-wide
shortage in ice surface availability. In Denver, CO there is a one-year
waiting list for youth hockey programs. Alltogether, there are plans for
the building of 100 new rinks on the drawing boards as you read this
4) NHL Fox viewership in the US increased 38% for men between 18 and 34,
while ratings for teenagers have jumped 63% between the 1994 and 1997
regular seasons.
5) Ratings among women in the US have increased 43% between the ages of
18 and 34 between the 1994 and 1997 regular seasons. Participation in
women's hockey has blown up 236% over the past three years.
6) Finally, attendence for East Coast Hockey League games have topped the
4.5 million mark.
What do all these numbers mean? Hockey has come to America and it is here
to stay. The more people watch and play the game here, the more they get
hooked. As you can see, there is certainly a *huge* market here in the
States for hockey and it is growing all the time
Mark Sands, from Iowa
Thank you Red Wings!!!! Do it again in '98
Daniel Fardoe
In article <5ouqb6$g...@nntpa.cb.lucent.com> l...@mtdcr.mt.att.com (VLDept-E.LOR(MT5655)1240MT) writes:
>In article <**dfardoe.22...@escape.ca>,
>Daniel Fardoe <**dfa...@escape.ca> wrote:
>>I hardly call the Canadian and Northern US fans insignifigant.
>If a move of the franchise to Houston is going to net me $28 million
>profit. How many tickets I do have to sell to get to that amount especially
>if ticket sales (as in Edmonton) is going to put me in red?
>You think the sports business is only about selling tickets?
>>True the
>>southern US is a large market but that is a very risky gamble considering a
>>total lack of intrest until recently.
>Isn't it a riskier gamble considering the money a team lost year in year
>out in the smaller market?
>The Whalers lost $30 million in 3 years. How do you think of that? do you
>want to lose $10M/year or do you want to gamble?
>You want to lose $10M/year? OK, you are stupid, but don't expect other
>people to...
I never denied that these franchises were/are losing alot of money. Its
obivous that they are. The point was that it is NOT the fault of those markets
but the fault of the economics of the NHL which values rich owners over fan
support. If you knew anything you would know the Whalers moved to a smaller
market with next to no hockey tradition. But if you think that is a good
move....
>>>The question is, is the NHL entitled to go big-time?
>> ...
>>Sticking to the loyal customers is not a sure loss.
>It's a loss ALREADY. How isn't it a sure loss?
Its only been a loss for the past few years when salaries rose and revenues
didn't.
>>Today it is, but that is
>>because the NHL has allowed it to become that way.
>So the NHL, with the direction it's going, can't survive in the smaller
>markets. That's why you have to dodge the question:
> Is the NHL entitled to go big-time?
No. There is not enough intrest or fan support in these new markets to justify
sacrificing the NHL's current fans/franchises.
>>Most franchises in large and small markets lose money, and the lack
>>of revenue sharing and a salary cap
>>has slanted the playing field to allow big market US teams with deep pocketed
>>owners to have great teams in order to sell the product to the potentail
>>American fans.
>Exactly. So the NHL is trying to become a big-time operation. Is it
>entitled to?
If the NHL got high rating on FOX, or if the other US teams were selling out
their games, or if the NHL merchendise revenue was close to the other big 3
sports they would be entitled. But those things are not true.
>>Sure its good that the NHL has a national TV contract in the US, the point
is >>that the ratings show that there is very little intrest in the US despite
the >>NHL's efforts to sell the sport.
>Well, "very little interest" relative to what? Based on hockey's popularity in
>this country, Fox's 4.0 rating in the finals is very good.
A 4.0 is not that good. Pro Wrestling gets those ratings weekly on cable. The
NHL averaged a 1.0 during the season. The other sports get 10 times that at
least.
>>The Finals were not even shown on FOX in
>>Atlanta and now they have an expansion franchise. Doesn't that indicate
>>somthing is wrong here?
>Nope, it means Atlanta is affluent enough to get something they aren't even
>crazy about. Does it tell you something about the financial discrepancy
>between the two countries? the direction the NHL is trying to go?
So you would rather see the NHL playing in empty buildings with a rich owner
that can afford to lose money that infront of sellout crowds and the league
get their economics in order
>>When any team cannot sell out a playoff game somthing is wrong.
>According to whom? which major sport in the U.S. that every playoff game is
>sold out?
>>The ratings on FOX are lower that Monday night wrestling.
>Really? Can you cite the ratings of Monday night wrestling?
Last Monday RAW got a 2.5 and Nitro got a 3.2. these may be off by .1
And these were on cable and on at the same time. So that would be about a 5.7
for wrestling and a 1.0 for the NHL.
>>The CBC only televises Canadian
>>teams and every Canadian team was under .500 for most of the season. Is it
>>just a fluke that all Canadian teams are losing, they can't economically stay
>>competative despite their good fan support.
>As I told you, good fan support is NOT enough. This is a corporate game.
>When are you going to wake up?
The point is that is wrong. No league can survive without fans. Especailly the
NHL. The other big 3 sports can afford to be a corporate league. Their
revenues are vastly higheer than the NHL.
>>>>and most franchises are losing money.
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>>Yep, cite the franchises that are losing money. I can't wait.
>>
>>Florida is losing at leat a million/month, Colorado is facing big losses next
>>season unless there is alot of cost cutting, just to name a few.
>Well, you claimed "most franchises".
>How do you classify 2 franchises out of 26 as "most"?
Hart, NJ, every Canadian team, LA, St.L, TB,ect....
>>The thing is
>>that teams owned by Disney, Blockbuster, Anhiser-Busch, ect... can affored to
>>lose millions on NHL franchises.
>Well, unless I have seen the ledger of these corporations, I am not going
>to believe this.
>Even if I've seen their ledgers, I am still skeptical about such "claims" of
>losses. What a naivette don't see in sports operation is:
>1) stadium revenue
>2) cable channels co-owned by the sports franchise. One very good example was
> the Kings acquisitions of Gretzky. Jerry Buss owned Prime Ticket, and he
> increase his subscriber base and monthly charge from cable operators
> rightaway. Yet such increases were not shown in the Kings' ledger.
> Do you know the relationships between Cablevision and the Rangers?
>3) the leverage of demanding new stadiums and its goodies (concessions,
> parkings, advertisement) for having an NHL franchise.
Wow the Kings and Rangers. Theres two of the smaller markets that need
revenues like that.
>That's why it's naive to believe that a sports franchise loses money without
>looking at the big picture.
Boy the largest market is making money. I guess thing are fine.
>>Sure. The team is only worth 40 million or so. Pocklington knows he will get
>>alot more than its worth from Houston or Portland. The team isn't worth 40
>>mill in Edmonton, but in Houston or Portland....
>Yes, so a product worth == the amount your buyer willing to pay. So you
>have been yapping about operating losses. Have you figured in the capital
>appreciation?
So if I sell a dollar to some moron for two dollars you will pay 2? Its still
worth a dollar no matter what someone pays for it.
>>Accually the franchise is still valued at appx. 40 million. In another city it
>>will be worth more. Even if he sells it for 70 million the franchise will
>>still be valued at 40.
>Why? if you the franchise exist in Houston, why is it still worth $40
>million?
If it move to Houston it will be woth more. But Cloroado and Phoenix are not
valued near what they were sold for.
Daniel Farode
dfa...@escape.ca
Patrick McNeil
**dfa...@escape.ca (Daniel Fardoe) wrote:
> (VLDept-E.LOR(MT5655)1240MT) writes:
>
>>So, fans selling out games are not enough. The NHL is a corporate game,
>>not a pee-wee game...
>
the matter is that gambling on bad ownership is not as big of a gamble as
going into unchartered waters and previously failed markets.
>>> When the Coyotes/Avalanche are a last place team, let`s see just how well
>>>that US city handles its team. I can`t wait.
>>So why should fans support a team that is poorly managed (e.g. the Kings,
>>the Whalers, etc.)? Hey, if the Winnepeggers and Quebecouis do support
>>losers, go ahead, but don't expect other people to be blindly loyal to
>>a poor product. That's just stupid.
>
>Because if the don't the team will move. Every team cannot have a winning
>record, sometime teams have a few bad years and the fact that the fans still
>support the teams shows that they are loyal consumers of the NHL's product.
>Even if the local team is bad the fans should still want to see the NHL. Now
>you think if a team is losing the fans should not abandon the franchise?
You guy who originally posted this is probably some corporateyuppie
jackoff who doesn`t know anything about hockey. You`re supposed to be
loyal to your team to the end.
>>> Here is what Bettman has the power to do.
>>> He says this. "Ladies and gentlemen, the facts show that the Winnipeg
>>>Jets have been filling the Winnipeg Arena to __ capacity over the past few
>>>years. Since it would be almost impossible to attain a significantly
>>>higher attendance rate anywhere else, I hereby state that the National
>>>Hockey League Board of Governors will block any plan to re-locate the
>>>National Hockey League franchise currently based in Winnipeg." That would
>>>be truthful and fair.
>>Here is why Bettman is the NHL commissioner and you are a Netnews whiner:
>>he runs the NHL as a corporation, you think the NHL is a kid's game.
>He does not run it very well. FOX is getting terrible ratings because of a
>lack of intrest in the US, the CBC's ratings are dropping because the NHL
>continues to crap on its Canadian fans. The NHL is economically running the
>game out of Canada and the new US fans still arn't supporting the league., and
>most franchises are losing money. Sounds like a great bussiness to me.
I`m tell you, he`s won my respect (insert hysterical laughter here).
Bettman is an idiot and what really makes him stupid is that he can even
figure out what he`s doing wrong. I wonder who the next Canadian team to
fall by the wayside will be (after Edmonton)
Patrick McNeil
l...@mtdcr.mt.att.com (VLDept-E.LOR(MT5655)1240MT) wrote:
>In article <5ofqmu$tmf$2...@thor.atcon.com>, Bryce McNeil <j...@atcon.com> wrote:
>> Why does the highest bidder have to move the team when the fans were
>>selling out games even though they knew they were moving away?
>
>1) enough corporations to sell out the luxury suites? enough goodies
>from the stadium lease (concessions, parking, etc.)?
>2) enough financial backing from the city to build an arena with luxury
>suites?
>So, fans selling out games are not enough. The NHL is a corporate game,
>not a pee-wee game...
It wasn`t as corporate before Bettman came in...
>> When the Coyotes/Avalanche are a last place team, let`s see just how well
>>that US city handles its team. I can`t wait.
>So why should fans support a team that is poorly managed (e.g. the Kings,
>the Whalers, etc.)? Hey, if the Winnepeggers and Quebecouis do support
>losers, go ahead, but don't expect other people to be blindly loyal to
>a poor product. That's just stupid.
So you are calling Quebeckers and Winnipgers stupid for thinking that
people won`t be fairweather. Am I talking to a hockey fan here or...
>> Here is what Bettman has the power to do.
>> He says this. "Ladies and gentlemen, the facts show that the Winnipeg
>>Jets have been filling the Winnipeg Arena to __ capacity over the past few
>>years. Since it would be almost impossible to attain a significantly
>>higher attendance rate anywhere else, I hereby state that the National
>>Hockey League Board of Governors will block any plan to re-locate the
>>National Hockey League franchise currently based in Winnipeg." That would
>>be truthful and fair.
>Here is why Bettman is the NHL commissioner and you are a Netnews whiner:
>he runs the NHL as a corporation, you think the NHL is a kid's game.
Gary Bettman can kiss my ass. If I had a discussion about hockey about
six years ago, there wouldn`t be nearly as much of this corporate shit.
I still kind of consider myself a kid (I`m 15) and the NHL (used to)
belong to the fans. I may be young but I`ve been watching hockey for ten
years and that`s longer than most of the people who`ll be watching
Nashville play their first games. Nashville is line, now they have to
wait their turn. Hamilton is in front of the line because of how long
they`ve been there. It`s Nashville who should wait.
Patrick McNeil
Taz...@istar.ca wrote:
>In article <5or9ct$9...@nntpa.cb.lucent.com>,
> l...@mtdcr.mt.att.com (VLDept-E.LOR(MT5655)1240MT) wrote:
>
>>
>> 1) enough corporations to sell out the luxury suites? enough goodies
>> from the stadium lease (concessions, parking, etc.)?
>> 2) enough financial backing from the city to build an arena with luxury
>> suites?
>
>owners, because too many cities will have been burned by someon who came
>when the stadium was built, and then left when they were offered and even
>newer stadium down the road.
>
>> not a pee-wee game...
>
>pretty sick American bastardization of something good.
small market people makes you superior. Like going to a playground and
picking on little kids. Great harmless fun. No one gets hurt. Just
like yanking the Jets out of Winnipeg. The 17 000 who came every game
won`t cry, they`ll get over it immediately.
>> > When the Coyotes/Avalanche are a last place team, let`s see just how well
>> >that US city handles its team. I can`t wait.
>> So why should fans support a team that is poorly managed (e.g. the Kings,
>> the Whalers, etc.)? Hey, if the Winnepeggers and Quebecouis do support
>> losers, go ahead, but don't expect other people to be blindly loyal to
>> a poor product. That's just stupid.
>
>So every year you have about 2-3 teams move because they ended up at the
>bottom of the heap. Someone has to finish last every year, unfortunately
>last year it was Boston. :( Hey, why support losers, move them elsewhere.
>It would be interesting to watch the musical chairs. Don't build new
>stadiums, just moth-ball them until next year when anoth coupla teams
>finish last and it's your turn. This way we could tour the whole of North
>America in a few years with just 12 yeams. You may be on to something. Or
>just ON something.
Hey why don`t we turn the NHL into a travelling show like the Ice
Capades (coming soon to your town : the Whalers vs. the Bruins) You could
put the Stanley Cup finals wherever you wanted every year. You`d make
the most money that way, so IT MUST BE a good business move. And with
Bettman as commissioner, it could be a circus too. And a comedy
festival. the entire league is turning into a great big joke.
>
>> Here is why Bettman is the NHL commissioner and you are a Netnews whiner:
>> he runs the NHL as a corporation, you think the NHL is a kid's game.
>
>And you think that Cristmas shoudl be canceled and kids should be working
>making soccer balls and hook-rugs, because it's just buisness.
That`s right. Oh and by the way everybody, Marc showed me the light.
I`m not worried anymore. Hamilton will get an NHL franchise. All they
need to do is follow this easy program:
1) Destroy the airport, and buses that leave town
2) Demolish any hockey rink in the city
3) Black out tv and radio
4) Rid the city of all hockey merchandise
In five years there will be room for development in Hamilton therefore
making it the perfect choice for the NHL`s next expansion
VLDept-E.LOR(MT5655)1240MT
In article <8673582...@dejanews.com>, <Tazman@istar> wrote:
>In a decade you will find no-one willing to build even a pop-stand for
>owners,
to do whatever it took to keep their NHL teams. And you worry about what
happen in a decade?
>because too many cities will have been burned by someon who came
>when the stadium was built, and then left when they were offered and even
>newer stadium down the road.
If I were you, I would worry about why the Canadian small markets came up
short in keeping NHL franchises, and try to make improvements there.
My suggestion? Canada improve its economic situation, make it economically
stronger than the U.S. Then you can raid not only NHL franchises, but also
NFL, MLB and NBA franchises to your soil...
>That's half the problem. The NHL is big business not sport, and that's a
>pretty sick American bastardization of something good.
Corollary: the NHL is a big business. It's great to see it moving forward,
instead of the sick Canadian bastardization to keep it as a 1970s minor
league operation.
>So every year you have about 2-3 teams move because they ended up at the
>bottom of the heap.
Dumbo, in every sport, there are teams that don't do well in a stretch
of years, e.g. the current Kings and Islanders, the Flyers in the
early 90s, the NBA Clippers, the NBA Kings, the NFL Jets, etc. It may
or may not hurt their attendance, but it doesn't mean they have to move.
You are speculating based on your baby logic:
Fans in new southern cities will support winners only. If they don't
win, fans will stop coming => franchise will move.
Wake up and smell the coffee...
>This way we could tour the whole of North
>America in a few years with just 12 yeams.
This is really naive. You are banking your argument on something really
stupid: few fan support in new cities => teams have to move.
>You may be on to something. Or just ON something.
Yes, I am on your stupid argument really good...
VLDept-E.LOR(MT5655)1240MT
In article <8673575...@dejanews.com>, <Taz...@istar.ca> wrote:
>You miss the point. The league big-wigs and the Fans are proving to be
>more and more disparate in their goals and desires for this game/league.
in good shape, TV ratings are in good shape (as compared to pre-Bettman
era), I want to know how the consumers and the sellers are in disparity?
Keep your doomsday view of the league to yourself and your bitter countrymen.
>> 1) you guys are few and far in between
>
>No we are still the majority
What? you mean Canadians in small market Canada are the majority among the
populations in American and Canada? that's news to me...
>AND the league's meat and potates which they
>are about to lose by concentrating on the gravy.
If the league relies on small market Canadians as their meat and potatoes,
then it's in much worse shape than I thought...
>The problem with
>drowning stuff in gravy, is that you never realize when the substance in
>gone.
Simple, because there is really not much substance.
>> 2) you guys can't fork out the cash to buy luxury suites.
>
>My family may be the exception but we sure could.
So you are the exception.
>WE can easily support the luxury suites, the question is why would I?
Well, could they have supported the luxury suites in Quebec and Winnipeg?
Were there luxury suites in Le Colisse and the Winnepeg arena to keep the
teams from moving?
>Do what, I've suggested for a long time, and buy a life.
Life in America, especially the New York area, is fine. We have
three hockey teams in the area and 200+ games on local TV.
>This is not a
>simply Yank vs. Canuck issue, although the only people who are the
>problem is the new bread of hockey illiterate Yank who now has a
>franchise to admire for a few years until it's no longer trendy.
Nope, the only problem are the bitter Canadians who whine about losing hockey
teams...
>Second,
>why the hell should I give up the league that members of my family have
>played in (on American teams no less)?
Easy, because you, and Canadians in general, have no say in how the
league should be run. You are just customers. If you don't like the direction
the league is heading, the only alternative is to make your own product
(i.e. your own version of NHL), or you'll have to whine till eternity.
>Sometimes you have
>to do what's right, and the NHL hasn't done that one since BATtman got
>his hands on things.
And who are you to determine what's right or wrong? do you represent God?
>> It isn't? according to whom? the Bible or the Canadian Constitution?
>
>According to logic,
You said:
So what? We don't care about you or the 'casual follower'. The game isn't
meant for people who can't find anything better to watch on T.V., ...
And that's according to logic? where is that logic defined?
Don't try to disguise your bitterness as logic. You can't get away with it
here. I, and people who runs the league, happen not to share your
bitterness, er, logic ...
>Sure make it a spectacle, but then stop calling it
>sports, and classify it as entertainment just like the WWF, and probably
>with the same Yankee fan base and skill level.
And if the league wants to go to that direction, i.e. entertainment, are
they entitled to?
>No, REMEMBER, the owners are SUPPOSED to be beholden to US, the fans.
Nope, the fans have their consumer rights: if you don't like a product,
then stop buying it. The owners are supposed to achieve their business
objective, whatever it is. They OWN the business. That's why they have the
rights to determine their business direction.
>And
>Baseball is finding out just how true that is. And if it has to happen in
>Hockey, it will go alot deeper than you seen in MLB.
That's just speculation. If you can speculate, so can I: the NHL will
make a great business, and improve its status among the major sports.
>The fans are the
>one's who finance the owners and piss them off enough and many teams will
>become the property of CITICORP.
And what's the problem here?
>> >The salaries aren't the problem,
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>> They aren't? then why did the Nords and the Jets moved? why did the Oilers
>> fail to keep Gretzky, Messier, Anderson, Fuhr, Kurri, etc. on Canadian soil?
>
>Prove to me that it was salaries that did it.
You made a BS claim, and I have to prove to you that the complement is not
true?
>Salaries are a good excuse,
or a good reason.
>but in fact what happened is that someone came in with a sweeter deal.
>Was it Salaries that moved the Browns?
You are not talking about the Browns. You are talking about NHL franchises
that can't survive in Winnepeg and Quebec.
>OR simply Greed. Their is some
>level of salary involvement but the main thing is that Hockey is a hot
>commodity and many cities looking for the prestige of owning a pro team,
>especially in a for-now-hot sport, are willing to bend over backward and
>offer alot of incentives (often against the wishes of many of it's
>citizens, and at the cost of education and other programs),
That's also a good reason. Now if Canada is really such a hockey hot bed,
why can't she keep such hot commodities in her soil? why doesn't the Federal
government use taxpayers' money to keep the teams in Quebec and Winnepeg?
>when this
>kind of money is thrown around, people without loyalty simply follow
>their nose. What money does is buy big name last year players, the way
>small money teams survive is by picking a future. Unfortunately they have
>to continually do this becuase of player disloyalty (except the rare Ray
>Bourque types).
That's right. And do you think player leaving the team for a bigger contract
is disloyal? That tells us how screw-up your perspective is?
>> The problem is that your small markets are just not economically strong enough
>> to keep a current NHL franchise.
>
>No that's not true at all.
No? then why didn't your local economy fork out the cash to buy the Jets
and the Nords and keep them in town?
>On the local level they are alot stronger than most American franchises,
The evidence says otherwise. Your small markets couldn't fork out the
cash to keep the teams.
>the difference is the U.S.-only media contracts
>and marketing. Nashville getting a stake in N.Y. and Boston's American
>broadcasts is something that is unavailible to teams north of the
>boarder. Why is that? Because of the structure of our markets and laws.
>While Plattsburgh N.Y. coulf fit in a tiny anglo section of Montreal,
>having less than 10% of it's Pop., it still gets a greater selection,
>variety and T.V. markets because of a national system that recognizes the
>boarder and not the markets, so don't tell me about markets. It's not our
>small markets, it's our small MARKET. HNIC has things already sewn up so
>people aren't falling over each other trying to outbid each other for
>games, there's no competition. And that's part of the problem. The thing
>is THIS ISN'T GOOD FOR HOCKEY its good for owners pocketbooks. In the
>same way that American teams have lost all sense of history/loyalty and
>decide to change jerseys ever 2nd year so they can fleece the fans again
>for more money so they can compete in a death spiral. The league needs to
>act more like OPEC than like a Russian street market.
??? what are you trying to convey here?
>Americans wouldn't know where to
>start in the scouting system, and would get totally screwed if they
>didn't have the opportunity to wait for a draft and get alll the scouting
>reports after watching what all the other teams do. Local markets would
>be dominated by local scouts and Americans wouldn't have had a chance to
>spy new talent because it would already be signed to teams within
>car-ride distance.
Wow, you are talking about territorial draft? tells us in what decade your
mindset is...
Wake up, this is the 90s.
>Umm, because their owners are greedy, want more money, or lost money in
>other financial dealings.
as well as lost money in the hockey operation. Where does the majority of
the expenses go to?
>Now if you followed any of these teams you might know that.
I know that even if I don't follow the teams closely.
>Salaries are a small factor, part of the puzzle, and are
>not the be all and end all of the sport.
If salaries are only a small factor, then the Jets could have had
the same salary as the Rangers. Is that true?
The facts tell you otherwise. If you don't believe it, hey, who can stop
you from being stupid?
>The ONLY thing that drives the
>game/teams is fans showing up. Now the owners then look at how much
>profit they can make if they get lux. boxes, have a city build them a
>bigger and better stadium, etc.
Then it just refutes what you just said:
the only thing that drives the game/teams is fans showing up.
In other words, if the owner is getting goodies from stadium deal, getting
lots of luxury box revenue, getting sucker cable TV deal, then what's the
big deal if the fans don't show up (say, only 70% capacity)?
>It's not national pride you ignorant fool, it's the santity of the game.
Well, it seems like the sanity of the game is a business, not the way you
want to run it...
>It's beginning to suck because the fans who come out don't know shit, so
>the league changes to meet their ignorance.
It's this kind of attitude that's really annoying. Hockey is not your
birth rights. Even if someone is not grow up with hockey (e.g. southerners),
they are still entitled to enjoy the game...
>The league is in greater risk
>of financial ruin because the ones who come out on the tuesday night in
>the middle of a 10 game losing streak are going to cancel their season's
>tickets.
The league would be in greater risk of financial ruin had they planned to
stay put to satisfy the Canadian ego...
>Then you will have the collapse of one team here and one team there.
What you are arguing against is just a speculation. What I argue against
has aleady been proven: 2 down, 1 to go.
>The Sunshine-teams will fold once the shine is off baby's new toy,
The small market Canadian teams have already moved. Isn't that a harsher
fact to face?
VLDept-E.LOR(MT5655)1240MT
In article <5ovokr$cgl$4...@thor.atcon.com>,
Patrick McNeil <j...@atcon.com> wrote:
>>1) enough corporations to sell out the luxury suites? enough goodies
>>from the stadium lease (concessions, parking, etc.)?
>>2) enough financial backing from the city to build an arena with luxury
>>suites?
obscene contract back in the early 90s. Bettman is just trying to
bring the league to that direction.
Who should we blame here? probably Wayne or Mario. They are the killers
of NHL in Canada...
>>So, fans selling out games are not enough. The NHL is a corporate game,
>>not a pee-wee game...
> It wasn`t as corporate before Bettman came in...
It was a minor league back in the 80s. Wait, it was only a 6-team
league back in the 60s...
Do you realize that things change over time? probably not. Maybe you
are still on diapers...
> So you are calling Quebeckers and Winnipgers stupid for thinking that
>people won`t be fairweather. Am I talking to a hockey fan here or...
I am a fan of good hockey, not a blindly loyal fan to a team that sucks.
> Gary Bettman can kiss my ass. If I had a discussion about hockey about
>six years ago, there wouldn`t be nearly as much of this corporate shit.
>I still kind of consider myself a kid (I`m 15) and the NHL (used to)
>belong to the fans. I may be young but I`ve been watching hockey for ten
>years and that`s longer than most of the people who`ll be watching
>Nashville play their first games.
Yep, that's the kid's attitude towards the game... No wonder...
>Nashville is line, now they have to
>wait their turn. Hamilton is in front of the line because of how long
>they`ve been there. It`s Nashville who should wait.
Nope, if you ask me. Canada is in NO position to get another expansion
team, not when 2 teams went down the flames and one about to go. With
your country's economy, you only deserve to have teams in Montreal,
Toronto, Calgary, and probably Vancouver...
Consider yourself lucky. Finland, Russia and Sweden are as big hockey
countries as Canada. They produce lots of talent, but their citizens are
in no position to enjoy NHL hockey.
Hey, who's to say that the one who plants the seed is the one who eats?
It never works that way.
VLDept-E.LOR(MT5655)1240MT
In article <5ovrhd$18s$1...@thor.atcon.com>,
Patrick McNeil <j...@atcon.com> wrote:
> That`s the point this guy doesn`t get. He seems to think excluding
>small market people makes you superior.
reality make people superior? you tell us...
>Like going to a playground and
>picking on little kids. Great harmless fun. No one gets hurt. Just
>like yanking the Jets out of Winnipeg. The 17 000 who came every game
>won`t cry, they`ll get over it immediately.
Well, they should, because they don't deserve such a high-price
entertainment.
> Hey why don`t we turn the NHL into a travelling show like the Ice
>Capades (coming soon to your town : the Whalers vs. the Bruins) You could
>put the Stanley Cup finals wherever you wanted every year. You`d make
>the most money that way, so IT MUST BE a good business move. And with
>Bettman as commissioner, it could be a circus too. And a comedy
>festival. the entire league is turning into a great big joke.
Boy, you really need a life. It's obvious that hockey won't come back
to your Canadian small markets. Either you wake up, or improve your country's
economy, or bring such sour attitude to your grave eventually...
VLDept-E.LOR(MT5655)1240MT
In article <5ovp26$cgl$5...@thor.atcon.com>,
Patrick McNeil <j...@atcon.com> wrote:
> Yes. Bettman blah blah blahs on and on about ownership, but the fact of
>the matter is that gambling on bad ownership is not as big of a gamble as
>going into unchartered waters and previously failed markets.
Maybe those businessmen in PFM have vision that you don't have.
I trust them more than I trust the lost course (already failed small Canadian
markets, with little municipal support to build new arenas, no local support
to outbid Phoenix/Denver for their franchises).
> You guy who originally posted this is probably some corporateyuppie
>jackoff who doesn`t know anything about hockey. You`re supposed to be
>loyal to your team to the end.
You are probably some pee-wee hockey fan who doesn't know jack about the
business...
VLDept-E.LOR(MT5655)1240MT
In article <**dfardoe.22...@escape.ca>,
Daniel Fardoe <**dfa...@escape.ca> wrote:
>I never denied that these franchises were/are losing alot of money. Its
>obivous that they are. The point was that it is NOT the fault of those markets
>but the fault of the economics of the NHL which values rich owners over fan
>support.
the NHL started giving out megabuck contracts, I posted it here that the small
markets couldn't survive.
Now, do the owners have the rights to determine what directions they go?
>If you knew anything you would know the Whalers moved to a smaller
>market with next to no hockey tradition. But if you think that is a good
>move....
Well, it's a good BUSINESS move. As far as tradition is concerned, you
mean hockey tradition is determined by God when the world was made?
>>>Sticking to the loyal customers is not a sure loss.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>It's a loss ALREADY. How isn't it a sure loss?
>
>Its only been a loss for the past few years when salaries rose and revenues
>didn't.
So the league is going big-time. It's a fact. The premise is true, the
conclusion is thus true:
IT'S A SURE LOSS.
How much more truth do you have in your statement?
>> Is the NHL entitled to go big-time?
>No.
More nonsense. You don't own the franchise or run the league. Why do they
need YOUR approval for their business directions?
>There is not enough intrest or fan support in these new markets to justify
>sacrificing the NHL's current fans/franchises.
Well, these expansion markets are paying $80M for a franchise. Houston may
pay $70M for the Oilers. Is that enough interest? That's interest no one
in Winnepeg/Quebec can imagine.
>If the NHL got high rating on FOX, or if the other US teams were selling out
>their games, or if the NHL merchendise revenue was close to the other big 3
>sports they would be entitled. But those things are not true.
Well, your antecedents are not enough. What I can counter with is "if a
franchise is worth up to $70M", they would be entitled to.
In other words, your attendance/TV ratings are not enough to indicate whether
it should go big-time...
>A 4.0 is not that good. Pro Wrestling gets those ratings weekly on cable.
Yet you are comparing cable rating to over-the-air rating? you have nerve.
>So you would rather see the NHL playing in empty buildings with a rich owner
>that can afford to lose money that infront of sellout crowds and the league
>get their economics in order
Nope, but you have no evidence that the NHL is playing in empty buildings.
Your argument is based on speculation.
>Last Monday RAW got a 2.5 and Nitro got a 3.2. these may be off by .1
>And these were on cable and on at the same time. So that would be about a 5.7
>for wrestling and a 1.0 for the NHL.
You are in Canada, right? You try to compare a Canadian cable rating to
U.S. over-the-air rating? If nothing else, this is an attempt to mislead.
>>As I told you, good fan support is NOT enough. This is a corporate game.
>>When are you going to wake up?
>
>The point is that is wrong.
According to whom? Do you determine right or wrong for this world?
>No league can survive without fans.
American hockey fans are fine here.
>>How do you classify 2 franchises out of 26 as "most"?
>
>Hart, NJ, every Canadian team, LA, St.L, TB,ect....
Well, show us the ledger on the teams in Hart, NJ, St. Louis, TB.
And how much has each of these franchises lost in the say, before and
after Bettman? and how much are the franchises valued at?
Let's say, the last expansion cost ~$35 million per franchise. By 1994,
it was valued at $55M. The current franchises cost $80M. You think
the TB owners are getting a good deal in capital appreciation? Do you
think the operating loss is that big a deal?
> [ other revenue streams ]
>Wow the Kings and Rangers. Theres two of the smaller markets that need
>revenues like that.
Whether they need it or not, it just refuted your distorted view of how
the business is run...
>>That's why it's naive to believe that a sports franchise loses money without
>>looking at the big picture.
>
>Boy the largest market is making money. I guess thing are fine.
Well, you have been making bold claims of many franchises losing money.
I am still waiting for the evidences...
>So if I sell a dollar to some moron for two dollars you will pay 2?
I won't, because to me, it isn't worth $2. To the moron, it is. Maybe the
dollar you own is special to him (sentimental value)...
>Its still worth a dollar no matter what someone pays for it.
You have a weird concept of worth.
>If it move to Houston it will be woth more. But Cloroado and Phoenix are not
>valued near what they were sold for.
When there is a actual transaction of $X, who are you to say the goods is
worth $Y, where Y < X? Do you determine worth for other people? for
all other transactions in the world?
Larry Boyd
Daniel Fardoe wrote:
>
> I never denied that these franchises were/are losing alot of money. Its
> obivous that they are. The point was that it is NOT the fault of those markets
> but the fault of the economics of the NHL which values rich owners over fan
> support. If you knew anything you would know the Whalers moved to a smaller
> market with next to no hockey tradition. But if you think that is a good
> move....
If _you_ knew anything you wouldn't be making assumptions based upon
sour grape opinions.
And exactly how is it that you know so much about the state of hockey in
Raleigh?
I can tell you first hand that it is alive and well. Within a 40 mile
radius we have
3 permanent rinks that have youth and adults league in multiple skill
divisions that play
year round. And this is not something that just happened in recent
years. The ECHL has had a presence in Raleigh for at least six years.
I'm ecstatic that the Whale has moved to Raleigh. NO, I don't see
Karmonas as a savior. I recognize his tactics and feel for the fans in
Hartford. But that doesn't make me any less happy that I'll get many
more opportunities to see the best players in the world on the ice. I'm
just tired of the assumptions that we don't know anything about the game
just because we're down here south of the Mason-Dixon.
Big D.
Local boy and hockey fan/player
--
'95 FLSTN Winger - Nortel Blue/White Hockey Club
lb...@nortel.ca http://47.23.32.137/pp/lboyd/index.html
Nortel RTP Motorcycle Page - http://47.23.32.137/mcy/index.html
"That which doesn't kill me, only makes me stronger."
Bryce McNeil
VLDept-E.LOR(MT5655)1240MT wrote:
>
> In article <5ovokr$cgl$4...@thor.atcon.com>,
> Patrick McNeil <j...@atcon.com> wrote:
> >>1) enough corporations to sell out the luxury suites? enough goodies
> >>from the stadium lease (concessions, parking, etc.)?
> >>2) enough financial backing from the city to build an arena with luxury
> >>suites?
> > Funny they always did before Bettman came in...
> It wasn't trying to go big time until some superstar signed an
> obscene contract back in the early 90s. Bettman is just trying to
> Who should we blame here? probably Wayne or Mario. They are the killers
> of NHL in Canada... Their skills are the killers. The owners who signed them to fat contracts.
> >>So, fans selling out games are not enough. The NHL is a corporate game,
> >>not a pee-wee game...
> > It wasn`t as corporate before Bettman came in...
> It was a minor league back in the 80s. Wait, it was only a 6-team
> league back in the 60s... And the quality of play was extremely high.
> Do you realize that things change over time? probably not. Maybe you
> are still on diapers... No. The fans who are in control seem to change. The NHL no longer cares about its
loyal fans who have been following the league since we were short out of diapers. They
only care about people who don`t care about hockey.
> > So you are calling Quebeckers and Winnipgers stupid for thinking that
> >people won`t be fairweather. Am I talking to a hockey fan here or...
> I am a fan of good hockey, not a blindly loyal fan to a team that sucks. No, you are a fariweather fan. A real fan stays with his/her team. You develop an
anfinity with the team you go for and they became part of you. So you are saying in
essence that we should not allow Winnipeg, a city that will have people come to the
games no matter how good the team is, not in the league, but we should have Nashville, a
city that has a lot of people who don`t care about hockey. I`m surprised you don`t
agree with the NHL not expanding in the 60`s. Why expand? Only "blindly loyal" fans
will support a fledgling franchise, right?
According to this guy, it would be perfectly normal for the last place team in the NHL
to move every year. By the end of one century every market in North America would have
had five franchises if they didn`t stick with the bad teams. Not only is the comment
stupid, it`s poking fun at the loyal fans in Quebec/Winnipeg.
> > Gary Bettman can kiss my ass. If I had a discussion about hockey about
> >six years ago, there wouldn`t be nearly as much of this corporate shit.
> >I still kind of consider myself a kid (I`m 15) and the NHL (used to)
> >belong to the fans. I may be young but I`ve been watching hockey for ten
> >years and that`s longer than most of the people who`ll be watching
> >Nashville play their first games.
> Yep, that's the kid's attitude towards the game... No wonder... No wonder, eh? Maybe it`s because hockey is part of my culture, part of who I am.
Maybe it`s because I know that the NHL is also a game besides a business. Maybe because
it wasn`t this bad before the "do well in America" mentality took over. These idiot
Amerks who have had the game for a few years are telling us why things are because they
took the game over and changed the rules. And maybe you should learn not to
descriminate by age.
> >Nashville is line, now they have to
> >wait their turn. Hamilton is in front of the line because of how long
> >they`ve been there. It`s Nashville who should wait.
> Nope, if you ask me. Canada is in NO position to get another expansion
> team, not when 2 teams went down the flames and one about to go. With
> your country's economy, you only deserve to have teams in Montreal,
> Toronto, Calgary, and probably Vancouver... Now why the hell would I want to ask you anything? It`s the US who should change the
way do sport, where the dollar is king and it`s not even a game anymore. In case you
forgot, people play games of hockey/football/baseball/soccer/basketball on rinks,
fields, and courts in North America. In Canada, the NHL used to be a game too. The US,
with their inability to see past the almighty dollar, assumed the NHL wasn`t a major
league. It was always a major league in Canada. The US decided that until people in
small citites who support are teams are deprived it wasn`t "major league". It wasn`t
"major league" until people were getting signed to ridiculous contracts. It`s the
American mentality that changed hockey. And it sucks. If you need proof from someone
who isn`t 15 like the shallow person you are, you can check an old Hockey Digest. I
can`t remember which one, but I think it had "Oh No Canada, How Many More Will Leave
You" as one of the featured articles. John Vanbiesbrouck was on the cover if I remember
correctly. This was during the 95-96 season. Anyway, this guy, who was from Chicago,
said basically what I just said. He said the US had the right to screw up baseball,
basketball, or football, but not hockey because it wasn`t theirs to own. Certainly we
don`t mind sharing it, because the United States makes it contributition to the game
with so many great players and fans. But the American mentality is what I don`t like.
And like it was said earlier, the man who put the game in that direction was Gary
Bettman. And that`s why I don`t like him.
> Consider yourself lucky. Finland, Russia and Sweden are as big hockey
> countries as Canada. They produce lots of talent, but their citizens are
> in no position to enjoy NHL hockey. Actually they do recieve NHL coverage on tv over there. And I don`t live in an NHL
city so the point is moot. Maybe it`s you that should be thankful. That the Stanley
Cup, originally for Canadian teams, was changed so that the very worthy American teams
could win it. Maybe you should be thankful that the NHL, originally all Canadian teams,
expanded into the US. Maybe you should be thankful that Canadian pioneer fans allowed
the game to be supported well enough to get to where it is today. Maybe you should
respect all of their descendants for carrying on the tradition. So maybe you shouldn`t
steal Canadian teams. Can`t American sports people learn to share?
Bryce McNeil
Bryce McNeil
Bryce McNeil
VLDept-E.LOR(MT5655)1240MT wrote:
>
> In article <5ovp26$cgl$5...@thor.atcon.com>,
> Patrick McNeil <j...@atcon.com> wrote:
> > Yes. Bettman blah blah blahs on and on about ownership, but the fact of
> >the matter is that gambling on bad ownership is not as big of a gamble as
> >going into unchartered waters and previously failed markets.
> Well, previously failed markets (PFM) are paying $80 millions for franchises.
You know it`s funny, San Jose didn`t have an owner when they started either. But they
got into the league. That was when managment was smarter. Bettman saw this
development, but still didn`t give Hamilton the team. He`s an idiot.
> I trust them more than I trust the lost course (already failed small Canadian
> markets, with little municipal support to build new arenas, no local support
> to outbid Phoenix/Denver for their franchises). It wasn`t Phoenix/Denver bidding, it was large corporations who used to bad arenas as
an excuse to move the team to a city of more convience. Those corporations know very
well that if they kept those teams in their old cities that they could have survived.
But Bettman let them do what they wanted so they did.
> > You guy who originally posted this is probably some corporateyuppie
> >jackoff who doesn`t know anything about hockey. You`re supposed to be
> >loyal to your team to the end.
> You are probably some pee-wee hockey fan who doesn't know jack about the
> business... And your probanly some guy who started watching hockey five minutes ago when it became
trendy in the US and don`t the first thing about the NHL`s history.
Bryce McNeil
VLDept-E.LOR(MT5655)1240MT wrote:
> Now, do the owners have the rights to determine what directions they go? If a big corporation buys a team from another owner, they should comply to the request
of the owner to keep the team in that city because we all know they could do the same
thing in the old city as they could in the new one.
> >If you knew anything you would know the Whalers moved to a smaller
> >market with next to no hockey tradition. But if you think that is a good
> >move....
> Well, it's a good BUSINESS move. As far as tradition is concerned, you
> mean hockey tradition is determined by God when the world was made? Hockey tradition was made by the fans who have been following hockey for years. Let me
ask you a question, and I want an answer: How long have you been watching hockey? I
think I know about hockey tradition. I`ve watched it for ten years, all my friends have
watched for 5+ and live in area filled with peopel who have watched for up to 50 years.
Tons of these people.
> >>>Sticking to the loyal customers is not a sure loss.
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> >>It's a loss ALREADY. How isn't it a sure loss?
> >
> >Its only been a loss for the past few years when salaries rose and revenues
> >didn't.
> So the league is going big-time. It's a fact. The premise is true, the
> conclusion is thus true:
>
> IT'S A SURE LOSS.
>
> How much more truth do you have in your statement? But the point is the new teams aren`t always making money. It only seems that way to
you because they have rich owners who can afford to pay off their losses.
> >There is not enough intrest or fan support in these new markets to justify
> >sacrificing the NHL's current fans/franchises.
> Well, these expansion markets are paying $80M for a franchise. Houston may
> pay $70M for the Oilers. Is that enough interest? That's interest no one
> in Winnepeg/Quebec can imagine. Every group that was in on expansion (Hamilton, too) had the money. If they didn`t
they wouldn`t have been even trying.
> >If the NHL got high rating on FOX, or if the other US teams were selling out
> >their games, or if the NHL merchendise revenue was close to the other big 3
> >sports they would be entitled. But those things are not true.
> Well, your antecedents are not enough. What I can counter with is "if a
> franchise is worth up to $70M", they would be entitled to. Who cares if it`s big time or not? I don`t! It`s always been big time to me. If
being big time means cities that can support the product don`t get to just because they
are small, why would you want to big time?
> >A 4.0 is not that good. Pro Wrestling gets those ratings weekly on cable.
> Yet you are comparing cable rating to over-the-air rating? you have nerve. What is that supposed to mean? That`s an unfair comparison with the advantage going to
the non-cable side. And the NHL could still only muster a tie.
> >Last Monday RAW got a 2.5 and Nitro got a 3.2. these may be off by .1
> >And these were on cable and on at the same time. So that would be about a 5.7
> >for wrestling and a 1.0 for the NHL.
> You are in Canada, right? You try to compare a Canadian cable rating to
> U.S. over-the-air rating? If nothing else, this is an attempt to mislead. It`s not a Canadian cable rating. Raw comes on the USA Network (I wonder if that`s
Canadian) and Nitro comes on TNT, both American cable networks. And let`s not forget
that their ratings are also damaged because of the prescense of one another. When one
goes off the air for a bit, it benefits the other.
> >>As I told you, good fan support is NOT enough. This is a corporate game.
> >>When are you going to wake up? Yes. It is all of us who are asleep. It is only you who is awake.
> >The point is that is wrong.
> According to whom? Do you determine right or wrong for this world? Do you?
> >No league can survive without fans.
> American hockey fans are fine here. For now. How long have they been following? Sure, go get new fans, but don`t cost
yourselves old fans. If the US franchises fall through, boy do you have problems.
> >Hart, NJ, every Canadian team, LA, St.L, TB,ect....
> Well, show us the ledger on the teams in Hart, NJ, St. Louis, TB. You are a hockey fan and you DIDN`T know Tampa Bay was broke? That`s been big news.
All those teams are losing money, I think Colorado and Phoenix are as well.
> >Its still worth a dollar no matter what someone pays for it.
> You have a weird concept of worth.
>
> >If it move to Houston it will be woth more. But Cloroado and Phoenix are not
> >valued near what they were sold for.
> When there is a actual transaction of $X, who are you to say the goods is
> worth $Y, where Y < X? Do you determine worth for other people? for
> all other transactions in the world? Why are you defending the great selling of Winnipeg/Quebec? If those franchises were
worth that much money, I guess that Quebec/Winnipeg must have done a good job supporting
them. You said so yourself.
Bryce McNeil
VLDept-E.LOR(MT5655)1240MT wrote:
>
> In article <5ovrhd$18s$1...@thor.atcon.com>,
> Patrick McNeil <j...@atcon.com> wrote:
> > That`s the point this guy doesn`t get. He seems to think excluding
> >small market people makes you superior.
> Dumbo, where do you get this superior/inferior issue? Does facing
> reality make people superior? you tell us... Facing what reality? Having some rich corporation move a team out of a city because
they "can`t support it" and bring them to some other city where they`ll spend a
ridiculous amount of money on free agents, lose a fortune, but will be able to keep the
team there because the owners are rich from their other ventures. And if you don`t
believe that happens, you should face reality.
> >Like going to a playground and
> >picking on little kids. Great harmless fun. No one gets hurt. Just
> >like yanking the Jets out of Winnipeg. The 17 000 who came every game
> >won`t cry, they`ll get over it immediately.
> Well, they should, because they don't deserve such a high-price
> entertainment. Why don`t they desevre it? 17 000 paid. They paid money, they recieve a show. They
were selling the place out. Why don`t they deserve a hockey team?
> > Hey why don`t we turn the NHL into a travelling show like the Ice
> >Capades (coming soon to your town : the Whalers vs. the Bruins) You could
> >put the Stanley Cup finals wherever you wanted every year. You`d make
> >the most money that way, so IT MUST BE a good business move. And with
> >Bettman as commissioner, it could be a circus too. And a comedy
> >festival. the entire league is turning into a great big joke.
> Boy, you really need a life. It's obvious that hockey won't come back
> to your Canadian small markets. Either you wake up, or improve your country's
> economy, or bring such sour attitude to your grave eventually... Hockey is my life. And it`s being flushed down the toilet. And cold people don`t
care about what long time fans think as long as they stand to gain personally. It`s
sick. And you don`t even have your facts straight. American teams like
Phoenix/Colorado are losing money. If they had the same owners in their old citites
they would be doing as well as they are now. But the owners move the team for no good
reason, they were selling out most of the time. Is all fo your country like this? What
a horrible life it must be...
Bryce McNeil
VLDept-E.LOR(MT5655)1240MT wrote:
>
> In article <8671135...@dejanews.com>, <Tazman@istar> wrote:
> >So what? We don't care about you or the 'casual follower'.
> Well, the league obvious don't care about you or the diehard follower,
> because:
>
> 1) you guys are few and far in between
> 2) you guys can't fork out the cash to buy luxury suites.
>
> So, when you say "We", who are you talking about? If you don't like the
> current state of the NHL, do what I've suggested for a long time. Form
> your own low-budget Canadian NHL. I'll see how much Canadian talent you
> can attract... Yeah remember that. The best players come from this side of the border. I think you`d be
surprised how good that Canadian league would be.
> >The game isn't
> >meant for people who can't find anything better to watch on T.V., or have
> >already seen that episode of Baywatch.
> It isn't? according to whom? the Bible or the Canadian Constitution?
> Remember, you don't run the league, the owners do... The diehards don`t mind people like that, it`s when they come in, latch onto our sport, tell us
what`s wrong with it, take over it, and change the sport that we liked and we introduced them to
that they might not like if it was before the way it is now due to the changes because we would
never have introduced them to it. That`s confusing as hell but take it one part at a time and it
makes sense.
> >The salaries aren't the problem,
> They aren't? then why did the Nords and the Jets moved? why did the Oilers
> fail to keep Gretzky, Messier, Anderson, Fuhr, Kurri, etc. on Canadian soil? Salaries are the problem. That`s why you need new arenas. The new owners when the
Jets/Nords were sold could have helped build in the exisiting cities, but they didn`t because
Bettman DIDN`T play hardball with them. Afterall, if you buy the Winnipeg Jets, aren`t you
buying the Winnipeg Jets and not the Phoenix Coyotes?
> >the problem is that someone south of the
> >border wants the prestige of a pro team to go with the big bucks he made
> >of his workers, and so he steals a team from up north.
> The problem is that your small markets are just not economically strong enough
> to keep a current NHL franchise. When the NHL was still a minor league
> operation (when salaries were still in 6-figures, you still had a chance.
> When the salaries escalated to 7-figures, you are finished. The problem is that new owners are from corporations and own NHL teams for something to do
in their spare time. They move the team to a city they are based in, don`t do as good
attendance wise as in their old market, and then they spend millions signing free agents
because they can afford it. And of course all the idiots who say small markets can`t support
hockey don`t acknowledge this. Just like they don`t acknowledge the fact that the Avalanche
lost money in their first year.
> >The market has
> >gone out of whack, and it has little to do with the players
> This is naive. If it has little to do with the player salaries, why did
> the Oilers do the fire-sale? why did the Nords and Jets have to move? The Nords and Jets moved because of the lack of luxury boxes. The Oilers had to trade a few
players, but they could have survived with just a few gone. So basically, they didn`t have to,
Pocklington did it because he was a tightwad. He thought he could sell off every marketable
star and that he wouldn`t lose anything because the fans would still come to the games. He
was wrong because the fans got rightfully pissed off at him and stopped coming to the games
as protest. The attendance has climbed back up in recent years, but that`s how the mess got
started.
> >If Battman said. No team
> >can move, then that would solve the problems very quickly.
> Why would Bettman want to sacrifice the financial well-being of the league
> just to satisfy your fragile ego and national pride? So that a team that was supported as much as it possibly could be wouldn`t move, like the way
it should be?
VLDept-E.LOR(MT5655)1240MT
In article <5p7ltf$ltk$1...@thor.atcon.com>, Bryce McNeil <j...@atcon.com> wrote:
>> It wasn't trying to go big time until some superstar signed an
>> obscene contract back in the early 90s. Bettman is just trying to
>> bring the league to that direction.
>What direction? South? I mean that two ways.
Quebec can't deal with...
BTW, you mean Mario signing that contract was bringing the league south?
So why do you blame Bettman instead of Mario? is it because Mario is
a Canadian while Bettman is an American?
>Their skills are the killers. The owners who signed them to fat contracts.
Or Wayne and Mario could have asked for $200K contracts just to make NHL
a minor-league operation, just to make it affordable to Winnepeg,
Quebec and Edmonton.
What greedy bastards!
>No. The fans who are in control seem to change. The NHL no longer cares about its
>loyal fans who have been following the league since we were short out of diapers. They
>only care about people who don`t care about hockey.
"Loyal" fans? What a joke.
I don't see any loyalties from the fans in Winnepeg and Quebec City, or
they would have forked out the money to keep the team in town (e.g. for
Winnepeg of a population of ~500K, each person fork out about C$700 fo
buy the team and build a new arena). So, are the people there loyal?
yeah, as long as they don't have to spend the money. What cheap loyalty!
Grow up, loyalty works both ways. If you, as a poor, cheap fan, aren't willing
to fork out the dough to support this megabuck operation, why should NHL be
loyal to you?
So in other words, you small market fans are disloyal to the NHL operation...
>No, you are a fariweather fan. A real fan stays with his/her team.
Whose definition is it? Did you get it cast in stone or from the Bible?
>You develop an
>anfinity with the team you go for and they became part of you.
Dumbo, hockey to me is just an entertainment. It's not life and death.
It doesn't become part of me. My life goes on with or without a particular
team. If you want to treat an NHL team as your livelihood, that's fine
with me, but don't think your point of view in following sports is the
ONLY way...
>So you are saying in
>essence that we should not allow Winnipeg, a city that will have people come to the
>games no matter how good the team is, not in the league, but we should have Nashville, a
>city that has a lot of people who don`t care about hockey.
Yep, because Winnepeg are disloyal to NHL hockey. Instead of whining here,
why
don't you suggest Winnepeg to improve its economy. Say, if Winnepeg is
as affluent as Tokyo, New York or Hong Kong, do you think it would let
a desert town raid its sports franchise?
>I`m surprised you don`t
>agree with the NHL not expanding in the 60`s. Why expand? Only "blindly loyal" fans
>will support a fledgling franchise, right?
> According to this guy, it would be perfectly normal for the last place team in the NHL
>to move every year.
Wait a minute. You care to cite where I say
"it would be perfectly normal for the last place team in the NHL
to move every year."
Now, don't make up dumb strawman arguments to argue...
>By the end of one century every market in North America would have
>had five franchises if they didn`t stick with the bad teams. Not only is the comment
>stupid, it`s poking fun at the loyal fans in Quebec/Winnipeg.
Not only are you unable to discuss an issue, you are even dishonest about
what my point is.
I have no sympathy at all that Winnepeg and Quebec lost their teams. Their
citizens didn't do whatever it takes to keep it (e.g. raise the money
to buy the team and build a state-of-the-art arena). Whose fault is it?
See, what does it have to with bad teams and last place?
>No wonder, eh? Maybe it`s because hockey is part of my culture,
Ever heard of cultural activities being free? You want top-of-the-line
culture? Broadway shows cost about $70, New York Philharmonics cost
$50-70 ...
Better revise your statement as
"free hockey is part of my culture..."
>part of who I am.
free-of-charge hockey is part of who you are...
>Maybe it`s because I know that the NHL is also a game besides a business.
Well, the NHL is more of a business than a 'game'. So you have to wake up
and smell the coffee...
>Maybe because
>it wasn`t this bad before the "do well in America" mentality took over.
Yep, it wasn't this bad before Mario signed his obscene contract and Wayne
got part ownership on the Kings. So blame them...
>These idiot
>Amerks who have had the game for a few years are telling us why things are because they
>took the game over and changed the rules. And maybe you should learn not to
>descriminate by age.
I don't discriminate by age. I discriminate by ignorance and bitterness.
>Now why the hell would I want to ask you anything? It`s the US who should change the
>way do sport, where the dollar is king and it`s not even a game anymore.
And you care do tell us why the US "SHOULD" change the way do sport? Do
Canadians get their way to do sport from the Bible or their constitution?
Or should the Americans operate our business according to the Canadian
constitution?
>In case you
>forgot, people play games of hockey/football/baseball/soccer/basketball on rinks,
>fields, and courts in North America.
And who's stopping you from playing sport. We are talking about an
entertainment business, yet you confuse that with games played in your
backyard rink.
Do you think Mario and Wayne, plus all his NHL buddies, would play a
game with you in your backyard rink for free?
>In Canada, the NHL used to be a game too. The US,
>with their inability to see past the almighty dollar, assumed the NHL wasn`t a major
>league. It was always a major league in Canada.
But Canada doesn't control the NHL, the U.S. does.
>The US decided that until people in
>small citites who support are teams are deprived it wasn`t "major league". It wasn`t
>"major league" until people were getting signed to ridiculous contracts. It`s the
>American mentality that changed hockey. And it sucks.
Well, the American mentality is good. It's the Canadian mentality that
sucks. Their fans are disloyal. They aren't willing to put the money where
their mouth is...
>He said the US had the right to screw up baseball,
>basketball, or football, but not hockey because it wasn`t theirs to own.
Well, think about it, if hockey belongs to you but you have NO say in
how the NHL should be run, then what does it say about "Canada owns hockey"?
What kind of ownership is it?
As I said a couple weeks ago, money rules a business. The game itself
doesn't.
You are certainly welcome to run an entertainment business anyway you like
if you own it. That's how you run get the chance to run the QMJHL, OHL,
and the WHL...
>Certainly we
>don`t mind sharing it, because the United States makes it contributition to the game
>with so many great players and fans. But the American mentality is what I don`t like.
Whether you like it or not, that's reality. Americans certainly don't NEED
your approval to run a business. Do you think you can stop all Canadian
players from playing in this mega $$$-infested NHL?
>And like it was said earlier, the man who put the game in that direction was Gary
>Bettman. And that`s why I don`t like him.
That's why Americans, especially those who aren't exposed to the game yet,
have no problem with him. Now do you think Bettman in particular, and
the NHL in general care more about "Americans like us" or "Canadians like us"?
> [ Europeans ]
>Actually they do recieve NHL coverage on tv over there.
Hey, your small market Winnepeg and Quebec receive NHL coverage on TV
too, so what are you complaining about?
>So maybe you shouldn`t steal Canadian teams.
Why not? Canadian small market are disloyal. They aren't willing to put
up the money when the team needs it the most. I mean, what's your
definition of loyality? pay a C$20 ticket to cheer the team 41 times/
year? That's cheap loyalty...
>Can`t American sports people learn to share?
Nope, in the business world, I believe in the Darwin theory. If you are
not fit to compete, then you are dead. You mean the have-nots want
to share with the haves? Do you think the haves want to share with the
have-nots? Are we talking communism here?
Do you think the NHL should operate like communism?
VLDept-E.LOR(MT5655)1240MT
In article <5p7n14$7dh$3...@thor.atcon.com>, Bryce McNeil <j...@atcon.com> wrote:
>The Hamilton group had the money too. It wasn`t granted because of good ownership.
>You know it`s funny, San Jose didn`t have an owner when they started either. But they
>got into the league. That was when managment was smarter. Bettman saw this
>development, but still didn`t give Hamilton the team. He`s an idiot.
He is not an idiot. Anyone with common sense knows that the profile of
the league wouldn't get higher, and thus ask for higher expansion price,
with another Canadian franchise. When it's the NATIONAL hockey league,
do you think the NATIONAL really means Canada?
Face it, you are lucky to have a few teams left in Canada. Enjoy it.
>It wasn`t Phoenix/Denver bidding, it was large corporations who used to bad arenas as
>an excuse to move the team to a city of more convience.
Why is that excuse possible? Then why didn't Winnepeg/Quebec do
whatever it takes to build a new arena to keep the team? is it because
they don't want to spend the money? Is it disloyal?
>Those corporations know very
>well that if they kept those teams in their old cities that they could have survived.
I don't know about that. The Jets lost $10M+ in their last year, and
projected to lose $20M had they stay in the city for one more year.
What businessman would be so stupid to throw the money down the toilet?
You may do better by folding the franchise and put the money in CD...
>But Bettman let them do what they wanted so they did.
Of course, because keeping the teams in Winnepeg would be stupid.
>And your probanly some guy who started watching hockey five minutes ago when it became
>trendy in the US and don`t the first thing about the NHL`s history.
What?
1) if the history of NHL hockey is about losing money, are you saying
that this history should be upheld?
2) if the history of NHL hockey is NOT about losing money, what history
are you talking about?
VLDept-E.LOR(MT5655)1240MT
In article <5p7mij$7dh$2...@thor.atcon.com>, Bryce McNeil <j...@atcon.com> wrote:
>Facing what reality?
The reality that small markets can't support NHL teams...
>Having some rich corporation move a team out of a city because
>they "can`t support it" and bring them to some other city where they`ll spend a
>ridiculous amount of money on free agents, lose a fortune, but will be able to keep the
>team there because the owners are rich from their other ventures. And if you don`t
>believe that happens, you should face reality.
What reality? the rich owners can afford the operating losses, in the
light of franchise appreciation. Your small markets can't.
Besides, the more teams out of the small market, the more the overall
franchise can appreciate, i.e. the league is going big-time. That's
reality too...
>> Well, they should, because they don't deserve such a high-price
>> entertainment.
>Why don`t they desevre it? 17 000 paid.
That's not enough. Did they pay enough money to buy the team and keep
it in town?
Why are you so naive to think that you deserve the show only after you
pay for the tickets?
>They paid money, they recieve a show. They
>were selling the place out. Why don`t they deserve a hockey team?
Because what they pay is not enough. If only 17000 people want to keep the
team in this small town, be prepared to pay for the team's value and
the cost to build a new arena.
>Hockey is my life. And it`s being flushed down the toilet.
What? you see no NHL hockey in Winnepeg and your life's being flushed down
the toilet? Geez, you really should get a life...
>And cold people don`t
>care about what long time fans think as long as they stand to gain personally.
Of course, because you long-time fans are disloyal. You don't contribute
enough to support the NHL operation...
>It`s sick. And you don`t even have your facts straight. American teams like
>Phoenix/Colorado are losing money.
Losing money? do you know anything about capital appreciation of the
franchise? do you know the benefits of having Denver built a new arena
for you?
Only a naivette like you will believe that losing operating cost == losing
money...
>If they had the same owners in their old citites
>they would be doing as well as they are now.
What? like losing $20 million per year as projected? like no new arena?
like the franchise being estimated at only $35-40M while an expansion
franchise doubles that?
Wake up. This business is not just about having 17000 attendance.
VLDept-E.LOR(MT5655)1240MT
In article <5p7odg$oh5$1...@thor.atcon.com>, Bryce McNeil <j...@atcon.com> wrote:
>If a big corporation buys a team from another owner, they should comply to the request
>of the owner to keep the team in that city because we all know they could do the same
>thing in the old city as they could in the new one.
Wake up. If the team had to stay in Winnepeg, do you think the Phoenix
group will pay ~$65M to buy it?
>Hockey tradition was made by the fans who have been following hockey for years.
But those fans are too cheap to spend the money to keep the team in town...
>Let me
>ask you a question, and I want an answer: How long have you been watching hockey? I think I know about hockey tradition. I`ve watched it for ten years,
So, I guess you are about 14-15 years old, right? Wait until you finish
college before you want to talk about adult's business...
As of now, concentrate on your backyard hockey...
>But the point is the new teams aren`t always making money.
Say, the Coyotes are getting around $12M expansion fees, an appreciation
of the franchise value from $65M to $80M in one year. Do you think
it's making money?
>It only seems that way to
>you because they have rich owners who can afford to pay off their losses.
It only seems that they are losing money because you can't look at the
big picture.
>Every group that was in on expansion (Hamilton, too) had the money. If they didn`t
>they wouldn`t have been even trying.
But Winnepeg and Quebec didn't have the money, as well as the potential
to generate big revenue. That's why they let the team go...
>Who cares if it`s big time or not? I don`t! It`s always been big time to me.
But who are you in the NHL hierarchy? Do you buy or sell franchises? or
do you estimate franchise worth?
>If
>being big time means cities that can support the product don`t get to just because they
>are small, why would you want to big time?
as far as the money is there, why not?
>That`s an unfair comparison with the advantage going to
>the non-cable side. And the NHL could still only muster a tie.
So what? NHL is lower in the totem pole in the U.S. than wrestling. So
it's good if it can muster a tie. It's an UPSET!!!
>It is all of us who are asleep. It is only you who is awake.
Apparently so, based on your sour grape attitude..
>> >The point is that is wrong.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>> According to whom? Do you determine right or wrong for this world?
>Do you?
Hey, whose statement is that?
"The point is that is wrong."
>> American hockey fans are fine here.
>For now. How long have they been following?
Well, 'for now' is good enough. No one can tell the future. Even hockey
hotbed like Canada can't keep their teams, AS A FACT. What darker
picture you can paint for America?
>Sure, go get new fans, but don`t cost
>yourselves old fans. If the US franchises fall through, boy do you have problems.
OK, so the Canadian franchises actually DID fall through, does it mean
Canada has problems?
>You are a hockey fan and you DIDN`T know Tampa Bay was broke?
No, how much did they lose? What's the franchise worth now? They pay
$35 million 4-5 years ago. It's $80 million now. Did they lose $45 million
all in one shot?
>That`s been big news.
>All those teams are losing money, I think Colorado and Phoenix are as well.
You mean teams in Winnepeg and Quebec and Edmonton weren't losing money?
>Why are you defending the great selling of Winnipeg/Quebec?
Nope, why are you guys bitter about the great selling of Winnepeg and
Quebec?
>If those franchises were
>worth that much money, I guess that Quebec/Winnipeg must have done
>a good job supporting them.
Except those franchises weren't worth that much money before they left...
VLDept-E.LOR(MT5655)1240MT
In article <5p7g71$neu$1...@thor.atcon.com>, Bryce McNeil <j...@atcon.com> wrote:
>Yeah remember that. The best players come from this side of the border.
>I think you`d be surprised how good that Canadian league would be.
Why would people with such talent don't sell their services to the highest
bidders? Look at the Europeans. Why do they want to play in the NHL instead
of their local low budget leagues?
>The diehards don`t mind people like that, it`s when they come in, latch onto our sport, tell us
>what`s wrong with it, take over it, and change the sport that we liked and we introduced them to
>that they might not like if it was before the way it is now due to the changes because we would
>never have introduced them to it. That`s confusing as hell but take it one part at a time and it
>makes sense.
People like that don't mind the diehards either. So there.
If it's a sport you like, you plant, you harvest, but you don't enjoy the fruit,
what does it tell you?
You are just a peasant. In capitalism, you are in the lowest stratum ...
>Salaries are the problem. That`s why you need new arenas. The new owners when the
>Jets/Nords were sold could have helped build in the exisiting cities, but they didn`t because
>Bettman DIDN`T play hardball with them.
If I am the new owner, why would I have helped build the arena in Winnepeg?
Which city has better revenue potential? Winnepeg or Phoenix? which city
can help the league to gain a higher profile which in turn will help to
increase the value of my franchise?
Second question: why didn't the city of Winnepeg and its citizens buy
the team?
>The problem is that new owners are from corporations and own NHL teams for something to do
>in their spare time. They move the team to a city they are based in, don`t do as good
>attendance wise as in their old market, and then they spend millions signing free agents
>because they can afford it. And of course all the idiots who say small markets can`t support
>hockey don`t acknowledge this.
Well, of course all the idiots who don't acknowledge that small markets can't
support hockey, or they wouldn't have let the Jets/Nords go...
>The Oilers had to trade a few
>players, but they could have survived with just a few gone. So basically, they didn`t have to,
>Pocklington did it because he was a tightwad. He thought he could sell off every marketable
>star and that he wouldn`t lose anything because the fans would still come to the games. He was wrong because the fans got rightfully pissed off at him and stopped coming to the games
>as protest.
Well, so does it mean the fans in Edmonton are disloyal too (your definition)?
They should have come to support the team during thick or thin, whether they
like Pocklington's operation or not...
>So that a team that was supported as much as it possibly could be wouldn`t
>move, like the way it should be?
Ask me again if "the team that was supported as much as it possibly could".
As of now, I see the citizens in Winnepeg and Quebec should be shame of
themselves. They are just too cheap...
Bryce McNeil
VLDept-E.LOR(MT5655)1240MT wrote:
> >> 1) you guys are few and far in between
> >
> >No we are still the majority
> What? you mean Canadians in small market Canada are the majority among the
> populations in American and Canada? that's news to me...
>
> >AND the league's meat and potates which they
> >are about to lose by concentrating on the gravy.
> If the league relies on small market Canadians as their meat and potatoes,
breed fans are in those cities.
> >The problem with
> >drowning stuff in gravy, is that you never realize when the substance in
> >gone.
> Simple, because there is really not much substance. There is plenty of substance, I liked the NHL much more when Quebec/Winnipeg were in
it.
> >> 2) you guys can't fork out the cash to buy luxury suites.
> >
> >WE can easily support the luxury suites, the question is why would I?
> Well, could they have supported the luxury suites in Quebec and Winnipeg?
> Were there luxury suites in Le Colisse and the Winnepeg arena to keep the
> teams from moving? No because the stinking rich owners were allowed to buy the teams who had good fan
support without promising not to move them because Bettman didn`t do anything to
prevent it.
> >Do what, I've suggested for a long time, and buy a life.
> Life in America, especially the New York area, is fine. We have
> three hockey teams in the area and 200+ games on local TV.
>
> >This is not a
> >simply Yank vs. Canuck issue, although the only people who are the
> >problem is the new bread of hockey illiterate Yank who now has a
> >franchise to admire for a few years until it's no longer trendy.
> Nope, the only problem are the bitter Canadians who whine about losing hockey
> teams... We`ll have to wait and see if it is a trend...
> >Second,
> >why the hell should I give up the league that members of my family have
> >played in (on American teams no less)?
> Easy, because you, and Canadians in general, have no say in how the
> league should be run. You are just customers. If you don't like the direction
> the league is heading, the only alternative is to make your own product
> (i.e. your own version of NHL), or you'll have to whine till eternity. Well actually if you knew anything about history than you would know that Canadians are
the customers who got hockey started. Loyal customers are to be rewared, not tossed
aside.
> >Sometimes you have
> >to do what's right, and the NHL hasn't done that one since BATtman got
> >his hands on things.
> And who are you to determine what's right or wrong? do you represent God? It`s funny but I hear more people complaining Bettman than praising him. I guess God
is always with you regardless of what you say and how many people agree with you. Must
be nice...
> You said:
>
> So what? We don't care about you or the 'casual follower'. The game isn't
> meant for people who can't find anything better to watch on T.V., ...
>
> And that's according to logic? where is that logic defined? Why bend over backwards to get hard-to-gets instead of doing little things to get the
given fans? You have to realize something: The NHL needs a back-up plan. What if it is
a trend? They`ll go back to basing the game in Canada and they won`t even be able to
do that any more because no one in Canada will care.
> Don't try to disguise your bitterness as logic. You can't get away with it
> here. I, and people who runs the league, happen not to share your
> bitterness, er, logic ... The people who run the league are idiots. And no I am not God, but I have a lot of
people who agree with me.
> >Sure make it a spectacle, but then stop calling it
> >sports, and classify it as entertainment just like the WWF, and probably
> >with the same Yankee fan base and skill level.
> And if the league wants to go to that direction, i.e. entertainment, are
> they entitled to? Not if the fans don`t want them to. We got this league started. Where`s the respect?
> >No, REMEMBER, the owners are SUPPOSED to be beholden to US, the fans.
> Nope, the fans have their consumer rights: if you don't like a product,
> then stop buying it. The owners are supposed to achieve their business
> objective, whatever it is. They OWN the business. That's why they have the
> rights to determine their business direction. A lot of people did like the product and less people do now because of the owners.
> >The fans are the
> >one's who finance the owners and piss them off enough and many teams will
> >become the property of CITICORP.
> And what's the problem here? Nothing if they don`t move teams out of cities for no good reason like COMSAT did with
the Avalanche.
> >> >The salaries aren't the problem,
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> >> They aren't? then why did the Nords and the Jets moved? why did the Oilers
> >> fail to keep Gretzky, Messier, Anderson, Fuhr, Kurri, etc. on Canadian soil? Salaries weren`t a problem in Edmonton`s case. No team SHOULD be able to afford that
many star players, that way the wealth is spread and the league as a whole is more
competitive. No team would have been able to sign all those players, I don`t care where
they are based. But the problem in Edmonton is that Pocklington very easily could have
afforded to keep SOME of the players but he decided not to. The fans got mad and
boycotted. That is where there problem is. Quebec and Winnipeg was about getting new
arenas.
> >OR simply Greed. Their is some
> >level of salary involvement but the main thing is that Hockey is a hot
> >commodity and many cities looking for the prestige of owning a pro team,
> >especially in a for-now-hot sport, are willing to bend over backward and
> >offer alot of incentives (often against the wishes of many of it's
> >citizens, and at the cost of education and other programs),
> That's also a good reason. Now if Canada is really such a hockey hot bed,
> why can't she keep such hot commodities in her soil? why doesn't the Federal
> government use taxpayers' money to keep the teams in Quebec and Winnepeg? The reason that we can`t keep our teams here is because any American corporation will
make more many than a Canadian one because US dollars are worth more. The reason we are
upset is because the new owners could afford to keep the teams in their old cities, but
choose not to because they feel like it.
> >> The problem is that your small markets are just not economically strong enough
> >> to keep a current NHL franchise. The problem is that the owners that buy them won`t give the city a chance.
> >No that's not true at all.
> No? then why didn't your local economy fork out the cash to buy the Jets
> and the Nords and keep them in town?
> Because it didn`t matter how much, corporations make billions of dollars. And those corporations wouldn`t give the city a chance despite solid fan support.
> >the difference is the U.S.-only media contracts
> >and marketing. Nashville getting a stake in N.Y. and Boston's American
> >broadcasts is something that is unavailible to teams north of the
> >boarder. Why is that? Because of the structure of our markets and laws.
> >While Plattsburgh N.Y. coulf fit in a tiny anglo section of Montreal,
> >having less than 10% of it's Pop., it still gets a greater selection,
> >variety and T.V. markets because of a national system that recognizes the
> >boarder and not the markets, so don't tell me about markets. It's not our
> >small markets, it's our small MARKET. HNIC has things already sewn up so
> >people aren't falling over each other trying to outbid each other for
> >games, there's no competition. And that's part of the problem. The thing
> >is THIS ISN'T GOOD FOR HOCKEY its good for owners pocketbooks. In the
> >same way that American teams have lost all sense of history/loyalty and
> >decide to change jerseys ever 2nd year so they can fleece the fans again
> >for more money so they can compete in a death spiral. The league needs to
> >act more like OPEC than like a Russian street market.
> ??? what are you trying to convey here? What he is saying that taking hockey out of traditional places and putting them in
these US cities may be good for the owners, but not for the game itself.
> >It's not national pride you ignorant fool, it's the santity of the game.
> Well, it seems like the sanity of the game is a business, not the way you
> want to run it...
> That`s we he doesn`t like it. Look at the thread of the article and maybe you will understand the Canadian point of view. And if you don`t let me spell it out for you:
THE NHL IS NOT ALL BUSINESS. THE FANS THAT BUILT THE LEAGUE DON`T WANT IT TO BE LIKE
THAT. IN OTHER WORDS, CITIES THAT CAN SUPPORT TEAMS SHOULD BE GIVEN EVERY OPPORTUNITY
TO MAINTAIN THAT TEAM. IT DOESN`T MATTER IF YOU WOULD MAKE MONEY ELSEWHERE, THE FANS
SHOULD BE GIVEN SOME LOYALTY.
Now do you understand?
> >It's beginning to suck because the fans who come out don't know shit, so
> >the league changes to meet their ignorance.
> It's this kind of attitude that's really annoying. Hockey is not your
> birth rights. Even if someone is not grow up with hockey (e.g. southerners),
> they are still entitled to enjoy the game... But the point made is correct one. The people who pour everything into the game lose
out just to accomdate the people who in actual fact don`t really care. They should have
some respect. They can enjoy the game, but why can`t it be the game that we enjoy?
> >The league is in greater risk
> >of financial ruin because the ones who come out on the tuesday night in
> >the middle of a 10 game losing streak are going to cancel their season's
> >tickets.
> The league would be in greater risk of financial ruin had they planned to
> stay put to satisfy the Canadian ego... Not if the owners who had bought the team had kept the team there.
> >Then you will have the collapse of one team here and one team there.
> What you are arguing against is just a speculation. What I argue against
> has aleady been proven: 2 down, 1 to go. And that`s why Bettman is hated. Not very bright, are you?
> >The Sunshine-teams will fold once the shine is off baby's new toy,
> The small market Canadian teams have already moved. Isn't that a harsher
> fact to face? Maybe but when they moved you can`t say they weren`t well supported.
Bryce McNeil
VLDept-E.LOR(MT5655)1240MT wrote:
>
> In article <5p7g71$neu$1...@thor.atcon.com>, Bryce McNeil <j...@atcon.com> wrote:
> >Yeah remember that. The best players come from this side of the border.
> >I think you`d be surprised how good that Canadian league would be.
> Yes, I would be surprised if this Canadian league can sign any good players.
> Why would people with such talent don't sell their services to the highest
> bidders? Look at the Europeans. Why do they want to play in the NHL instead
enough people to fill the rosters.
> >The diehards don`t mind people like that, it`s when they come in, latch onto our sport, tell us
> >what`s wrong with it, take over it, and change the sport that we liked and we introduced them to
> >that they might not like if it was before the way it is now due to the changes because we would
> >never have introduced them to it. That`s confusing as hell but take it one part at a time and it
> >makes sense.
>
> If it's a sport you like, you plant, you harvest, but you don't enjoy the fruit,
> >Salaries are the problem. That`s why you need new arenas. The new owners when the
> >Jets/Nords were sold could have helped build in the exisiting cities, but they didn`t because
> >Bettman DIDN`T play hardball with them.
> If I am the new owner, why would I have helped build the arena in Winnepeg?
> Which city has better revenue potential? Winnepeg or Phoenix? which city
> can help the league to gain a higher profile which in turn will help to
> increase the value of my franchise? You would help the team because the old NHL would try and give a city a chance if they
knew support was there. The point is, you can stop a sale from happening if there is
fan support. The new owner than is given the old city, which shouldn`t be a problem
because of the fan support. The corporation should have no problem.
> Second question: why didn't the city of Winnepeg and its citizens buy
> the team? They tried to fundraise for the new arena, and it was the most spirited effort I`ve
ever seen, I was moved, and maybe some heartless person like yourself would have been
moved as well. They didn`t have enough to compete with a coporation who was going to
move the team for no good reason.
> >The problem is that new owners are from corporations and own NHL teams for something to do
> >in their spare time. They move the team to a city they are based in, don`t do as good
> >attendance wise as in their old market, and then they spend millions signing free agents
> >because they can afford it. And of course all the idiots who say small markets can`t support
> >hockey don`t acknowledge this.
> Well, of course all the idiots who don't acknowledge that small markets can't
> support hockey, or they wouldn't have let the Jets/Nords go... Did you even read that last paragraph? Read it again, and maybe you will come up with
something...
> >The Oilers had to trade a few
> >players, but they could have survived with just a few gone. So basically, they didn`t have to,
> >Pocklington did it because he was a tightwad. He thought he could sell off every marketable
> >star and that he wouldn`t lose anything because the fans would still come to the games. He was wrong because the fans got rightfully pissed off at him and st
> >as protest.
> Well, so does it mean the fans in Edmonton are disloyal too (your definition)?
> They should have come to support the team during thick or thin, whether they
> like Pocklington's operation or not... They were not disloyal because they still followed and loved the Oilers team. They
just wouldn`t go to the games to support him. Loyalty is about going for a team and not
sticking with that team. You stated something totally different when it came to being
loyal. You said that it was stupid to support a losing team, so this has no relevance
to your original point.
> >So that a team that was supported as much as it possibly could be wouldn`t
> >move, like the way it should be?
> Ask me again if "the team that was supported as much as it possibly could".
> As of now, I see the citizens in Winnepeg and Quebec should be shame of
> themselves. They are just too cheap... Too cheap? For what? Is Quebec too cheap to compete with a city that has a company
that gets its money from OUTSIDE the city representing its drive for a team? I`ve just
lost any ounce of respect I had for you.
Nestor Ocampo
In article <5p9g5t$4...@nntpa.cb.lucent.com>,
VLDept-E.LOR(MT5655)1240MT <l...@mtdcr.mt.att.com> wrote:
:If I am the new owner, why would I have helped build the arena in Winnepeg?
:Which city has better revenue potential? Winnepeg or Phoenix? which city
B.S.
if all teams moved to better revenue areas they would pepper NY and So
Cal.
:can help the league to gain a higher profile which in turn will help to
:increase the value of my franchise?
:
:Second question: why didn't the city of Winnepeg and its citizens buy
:the team?
because there are more important things to spend hard-earned tax
dollars on.
:Well, so does it mean the fans in Edmonton are disloyal too (your definition)?
:They should have come to support the team during thick or thin, whether they
:like Pocklington's operation or not...
why should the fans pay such a severe price for an owner's
mismanagement??
besides, even in their successful days, pocklington still had the gall
to sell icon gretzky.
:Ask me again if "the team that was supported as much as it possibly could".
:As of now, I see the citizens in Winnepeg and Quebec should be shame of
:themselves. They are just too cheap...
well, alot of municipal investment (tax-breaks, subsidies) goes into
helping a fledgling team start off. when an owner greedily accepts a
buyout from another city do they even consider compensation for their
former hosts? unfortunately, in these times the usual compensation
(hartford) isn't enough to start up a new team.
--
\|/ Nestor Ocampo
(.~.) Biological Sciences
oO(_)Oo University of Windsor, Canada
VLDept-E.LOR(MT5655)1240MT
In article <5pcmb8$nit$1...@thor.atcon.com>, Bryce McNeil <j...@atcon.com> wrote:
>It wouldn`t matter. The kids in Canada would keep playing hockey and there would be
>enough people to fill the rosters.
can support are two differnet things.
In other words, you can't argue the fact that the top talents will always go
to the highest bidders...
>> People like that don't mind the diehards either. So there.
>If they mind them so much how come the game has to be changed for them.
Well, you care to tell us how the game was changed? Are you so stupid to think that
"no small market Canadian teams" == hockey is changed?
>> If it's a sport you like, you plant, you harvest, but you don't enjoy the fruit,
>> what does it tell you?
>It tells me that the fruit is alive and it is biting me. I keep making this point.
Biting you? you don't enjoy the fruit == the fruit is biting you? How does depriviation
of hockey "bite" you?
You can keep making this point, it doesn't mean it has substance.
>You would help the team because the old NHL would try and give a city a chance if they
>knew support was there.
Dumbo, in this capitalistic world, "chances" are not given. "Chances" are EARNED. You
have to earn the chance first, before you use that chance to succeed. How does Winnipeg
earn the chance to make NHL a big financial success there? putting up a lot of cash to
keep the franchise there.
So, just by showing up at Winnepeg arena with $20 for a ticket is NOT enough.
>The point is, you can stop a sale from happening if there is
>fan support.
since fan support is not adequate, why?
>The new owner than is given the old city, which shouldn`t be a problem
>because of the fan support. The corporation should have no problem.
Of course there is problem:
1) Canadian $ is weak
2) Small market Canadian team doesn't raise the league's profile.
>They tried to fundraise for the new arena, and it was the most spirited effort I`ve
>ever seen, I was moved, and maybe some heartless person like yourself would have been
>moved as well.
Nope, I only look at the result. Did the team move? or did the Winnipeg citizens not
like the team enough to raise whatever money is needed to keep the team there?
>They didn`t have enough to compete with a coporation who was going to
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>move the team for no good reason.
Ah, so Winniepg was a loser economically, because the citizens didn't want the team
bad enough.
>Did you even read that last paragraph? Read it again, and maybe you will come up with
>something...
I read your last paragraph, it had nothing but sour grapes..
>They were not disloyal because they still followed and loved the Oilers team. They
>just wouldn`t go to the games to support him. Loyalty is about going for a team and not
>sticking with that team.
Geez, that's loyalty? That may be loyalty in your foot! Your loyalty is cheap
talk, with no action/prices involved...
>You stated something totally different when it came to being loyal.
Yeah, apparently my definitiion of loyalty is much different than yours,
because yours is cheap talk. Mine involves paying a hefty prices -- fork
out your personal assets to keep the team...
>Too cheap? For what? Is Quebec too cheap to compete with a city that has a company
>that gets its money from OUTSIDE the city representing its drive for a team?
Yep. Are you saying the whole city of Quebec can't come up with assets that's
worth about $400M?
>I`ve just lost any ounce of respect I had for you.
Save your ounce of respect. I don't need any respect from someone who lives
on fantasy...
VLDept-E.LOR(MT5655)1240MT
In article <5pcl80$rpr$1...@thor.atcon.com>, Bryce McNeil <j...@atcon.com> wrote:
>I think the term "meat and potatoes" refers to the fact that the loyal fans, the old
>breed fans are in those cities.
old breed fans in those cities to survive, then it's in much worse shape
than I thought.
And I don't think those fans are loyal either. They didn't do whatever
it takes (like million of $$$ from their own pockets) to keep the team...
>There is plenty of substance, I liked the NHL much more when Quebec/Winnipeg were in
>it.
Well, but then the majority of the American populations didn't like it as much
when Quebec/Winnipeg were in it while Phoenix and Denver aren't. Now who do
you think the league values more? you or the Americans?
>No because the stinking rich owners were allowed to buy the teams who had good fan
>support without promising not to move them because Bettman didn`t do anything to
>prevent it.
Why should Bettman do anything to prevent it? he isn't that stupid, is he?
>We`ll have to wait and see if it is a trend...
So wait. It means as of now, you have NO argument. You have to bank your
argument on future failure in American cities, which is just speculation and
wishful thinking...
The failure in Quebec and Winnipeg were FACTS.
>Well actually if you knew anything about history than you would know that Canadians are
>the customers who got hockey started. Loyal customers are to be rewared, not tossed
>aside.
Well, if you have any common sense in the real world, you should have known that
the one who plant the seeds are usually not the one who enjoy the harvest...
Think about it. How many original cities that started the NFL still have NFL cities?
Loyal customers are just that, peasants...
>It`s funny but I hear more people complaining Bettman than praising him. I guess God
>is always with you regardless of what you say and how many people agree with you. Must
>be nice...
Really? who are these most people? you mean "people" only consist of Canadians? Are
the people in the new American markets "people" too?
>Why bend over backwards to get hard-to-gets instead of doing little things to get the
>given fans?
Because the given fans are not enough to meet the demands of the league, i.e. megabucks
expenses, especially in big-fat contracts, the POTENTIAL of big revenue, and the
prospect of charging $80M for an expansion team...
>You have to realize something: The NHL needs a back-up plan. What if it is
>a trend? They`ll go back to basing the game in Canada and they won`t even be able to
>do that any more because no one in Canada will care.
Well, I don't worry about your speculation...
>The people who run the league are idiots. And no I am not God, but I have a lot of
>people who agree with me.
And I see a lot more people disagree with you - potential fans who get excited in
the new markets. So, should the league care about those people or the people who
agree with you?
>> And if the league wants to go to that direction, i.e. entertainment, are
>> they entitled to?
>Not if the fans don`t want them to.
Too bad the fans can't stop buying the product. So when you say "the fans
don't want them to", who exactly are you talking about? the small market
Canadian fans?
>We got this league started. Where`s the respect?
You got this league started? So why did you let the control slip to the rich
Americans?
In other words, you got the league started doesn't mean jack...
>A lot of people did like the product and less people do now because of the owners.
ReallY? do you think the potential customers in the new markets are "people"?
What do you think of the record attendences that come to games?
>> >The fans are the
>> >one's who finance the owners and piss them off enough and many teams will
>> >become the property of CITICORP.
>> And what's the problem here?
>Nothing if they don`t move teams out of cities for no good reason like COMSAT did with
>the Avalanche.
Oh, so there is no problem. Good...
>But the problem in Edmonton is that Pocklington very easily could have
>afforded to keep SOME of the players but he decided not to. The fans got mad and
>boycotted. That is where there problem is. Quebec and Winnipeg was about getting new
>arenas.
If Quebec and Winnipeg was about getting new arenas, why didn't the local businessmen
just buy the team and keep them there?
>The reason that we can`t keep our teams here is because any American corporation will
>make more many than a Canadian one because US dollars are worth more.
Oh, so why don't the Canadian "loyal fans" pump in more dollars to keep the
team afloat? to keep the Canadian small market team owners (Abbutt, Pocklington, etc.)
happy? I mean, if every Nordique fan is willing to pay C$200 to attend a game, do
you think Abbutt would have to sell the team? Just imagine:
$200 X 16000 = $3.2M gate revenue/game
$3.2M X 40 home games = C$128M (about U.S.$96M) gate revenue/season.
Does it mean the Canadian fans are loyal iff it doesn't involve their own
wallet?
When you boil down to it, the only reason that the small markets can't
keep their teams is because the fans aren't willing to spend the money.
In this capitalistic system, you lose out only because you are outbid...
>The reason we are
>upset is because the new owners could afford to keep the teams in their old cities, but
>choose not to because they feel like it.
Of course not, why would they keep a team in a place that:
1) the customers are not willing to spend whatever is needed?
2) the currency is weak?
>The problem is that the owners that buy them won`t give the city a chance.
Nonsense, if hockey is that important to the city, why didn't the city buy the
team? or why didn't the citizens buy it (a la the Green Bay Packers)?
> Because it didn`t matter how much, corporations make billions of dollars.
>And those corporations wouldn`t give the city a chance despite solid fan support.
Nonsense. The Jets were only sold for $65M. You mean the city of Winnipeg couldn't
come up with $65M? The city has a population of ~500K. You mean each one of them
can't chip in U.S.$130 (or C$170) to buy the team as well as more to build
a state-of-the-art arena?
>What he is saying that taking hockey out of traditional places and putting them in
>these US cities may be good for the owners, but not for the game itself.
The game is fine. The only aspect of the game that's not fine are the "loyal"
followers in small markets...
>Look at the thread of the article and maybe you will understand the Canadian point of view. And if you don`t let me spell it out for you:
>THE NHL IS NOT ALL BUSINESS.
The NHL is ALL business. If you want a game just go to your local peewee
league or amateur league.
>THE FANS THAT BUILT THE LEAGUE DON`T WANT IT TO BE LIKE THAT.
The fans built the league? I didn't see the fans OWNING the franchises (a la the
Packers), did I?
>IN OTHER WORDS, CITIES THAT CAN SUPPORT TEAMS SHOULD BE GIVEN EVERY OPPORTUNITY
>TO MAINTAIN THAT TEAM. IT DOESN`T MATTER IF YOU WOULD MAKE MONEY ELSEWHERE, THE FANS
>SHOULD BE GIVEN SOME LOYALTY.
> Now do you understand?
I do not. Because what you said is your wishful thinking, not the reality.
I see lots of sour grape here...
>But the point made is correct one. The people who pour everything into the game lose
>out just to accomdate the people who in actual fact don`t really care.
Right, because you guys are just peasants (plant the seeds).
>They should have some respect.
Hey, I spent the money in the supermarket to buy some oranges. Do I have to respect
the person who planted the seed of that orange tree? The only thing I respect is
that it's a legitimate transaction among all parties: every party gets what
it deserves.
>They can enjoy the game, but why can`t it be the game that we enjoy?
Easy, because your only ability is to plant the seed. You have no economic
power to enjoy it. For example, the workers who work on the assembly line
of luxury cars may not have the money to enjoy the car, construction workers
who build luxury homes don't have the money to live in those houses.
Why do you think you deserve better?
>Not if the owners who had bought the team had kept the team there.
False. Winnipeg was losing $10M in its last year, projected to be $20M had they
stayed put...
>> >Then you will have the collapse of one team here and one team there.
>> What you are arguing against is just a speculation. What I argue against
>> has aleady been proven: 2 down, 1 to go.
>And that`s why Bettman is hated. Not very bright, are you?
You mean Bettman is hated because he has the nerve to face reality: act
according to facts, not wishful thinking?
Geez, I would love to be "HATED" in that case. I mean, how much respect
would one get if he/she is too naive to face reality? if he/she always
act on fantasy and stupidity?
>> The small market Canadian teams have already moved. Isn't that a harsher
>> fact to face?
>Maybe but when they moved you can`t say they weren`t well supported.
Well, you can say that the sun rises from the east, but like
"you can`t say they weren`t well supported."
what does that have to do with the issue? Apparently "well-supported" in
a small Canadian market is really insignificant...
Bryce McNeil
VLDept-E.LOR(MT5655)1240MT wrote:
> >Having some rich corporation move a team out of a city because
> >they "can`t support it" and bring them to some other city where they`ll spend a
> >ridiculous amount of money on free agents, lose a fortune, but will be able to keep the
> >team there because the owners are rich from their other ventures. And if you don`t
> >believe that happens, you should face reality.
> What reality? the rich owners can afford the operating losses, in the
> light of franchise appreciation. Your small markets can't. These rich owners don`t just have operating losses. In the grand scheme of things,
when you total it up, THEY LOSE MONEY.
> Besides, the more teams out of the small market, the more the overall
> franchise can appreciate, i.e. the league is going big-time. That's
> reality too... What`s so big time about not having small markets? Question of interest: Who are the
Super Bowl champions at this moment? Get back to me on that one...
> >> Well, they should, because they don't deserve such a high-price
> >> entertainment.
>
> >Why don`t they desevre it? 17 000 paid.
> That's not enough. Did they pay enough money to buy the team and keep
> it in town? THEY don`t have to pay. An owner shouldn`t be allowed to take the team away if it is
well-supported.
> Why are you so naive to think that you deserve the show only after you
> pay for the tickets? ONLY after you pay for the tickets? What team`s fans have paid for more than that?
> >They paid money, they recieve a show. They
> >were selling the place out. Why don`t they deserve a hockey team?
> Because what they pay is not enough. If only 17000 people want to keep the
> team in this small town, be prepared to pay for the team's value and
> the cost to build a new arena. They would have paid a tax. It didn`t matter because the team was gone.
> >Hockey is my life. And it`s being flushed down the toilet.
> What? you see no NHL hockey in Winnepeg and your life's being flushed down
> the toilet? Geez, you really should get a life... Hah hah. I think the NHL shouldn`t take teams out of cities that helped build it to
what it is today.
> >And cold people don`t
> >care about what long time fans think as long as they stand to gain personally.
> Of course, because you long-time fans are disloyal. You don't contribute
> enough to support the NHL operation... First of all, I am not in any NHL city. Second of all, you have failed to point out to
me any time when people in New York or Chicago paid for a team. Give me one example.
> >It`s sick. And you don`t even have your facts straight. American teams like
> >Phoenix/Colorado are losing money.
> Losing money? do you know anything about capital appreciation of the
> franchise? do you know the benefits of having Denver built a new arena
> for you?
> Only a naivette like you will believe that losing operating cost == losing
> money... In the first year they lost money. That`s a fact. That is to say that they would have
made more money by not existing.
> >If they had the same owners in their old citites
> >they would be doing as well as they are now.
> What? like losing $20 million per year as projected? like no new arena?
> like the franchise being estimated at only $35-40M while an expansion
> franchise doubles that? First of all, with the new owners an arena would have been built. As for the loss they
lost in their new city. And the value of the franchise would go up.
> Wake up. This business is not just about having 17000 attendance. Selling out every game can be economically viable if the ownership is right. That`s
why I say that the new owners shouldn`t have taken the team out without a good reason.
Bryce McNeil
VLDept-E.LOR(MT5655)1240MT wrote:
>
> In article <5p7odg$oh5$1...@thor.atcon.com>, Bryce McNeil <j...@atcon.com> wrote:
> >If a big corporation buys a team from another owner, they should comply to the request
> >of the owner to keep the team in that city because we all know they could do the same
> >thing in the old city as they could in the new one.
> Wake up. If the team had to stay in Winnepeg, do you think the Phoenix
> group will pay ~$65M to buy it? It doesn`t matter if they would have or not. A city that supports a team can be
economically viable with the right ownership. I don`t care how much they would have
paid for it.
> >Hockey tradition was made by the fans who have been following hockey for years.
> But those fans are too cheap to spend the money to keep the team in town... You are thick aren`t you? The fans spent money on tickets. That is all they are
required to do.
> >Let me
> >ask you a question, and I want an answer: How long have you been watching hockey? I think I know about hockey tradition. I`ve watched it for ten years,
> So, I guess you are about 14-15 years old, right? Wait until you finish
> college before you want to talk about adult's business... Correct I am. Now even though I am younger than you, I am going to teach you something
that may be of use to you. When someone asks you a question, you usually give them a
piece of information pertaining to it. This is known as an answer.
> As of now, concentrate on your backyard hockey...
>
> >But the point is the new teams aren`t always making money.
> Say, the Coyotes are getting around $12M expansion fees, an appreciation
> of the franchise value from $65M to $80M in one year. Do you think
> it's making money? They don`t make it until they sell the team, which they would only do to cover the
loss. I can have a Mickey Mantle baseball card, and it`s worth money. But really it`s
not worth anything to me until I sell it. I`ve lost the money I spent on it.
> >It only seems that way to
> >you because they have rich owners who can afford to pay off their losses.
> It only seems that they are losing money because you can't look at the
> big picture. No, it seems like they are losing money because I hear they are losing money. And
those sources are just as reliable as you.
> >Every group that was in on expansion (Hamilton, too) had the money. If they didn`t
> >they wouldn`t have been even trying.
> But Winnepeg and Quebec didn't have the money, as well as the potential
> to generate big revenue. That's why they let the team go... They shouldn`t need it because they already have the rights to a team.
> >Who cares if it`s big time or not? I don`t! It`s always been big time to me.
> But who are you in the NHL hierarchy? Do you buy or sell franchises? or
> do you estimate franchise worth? I alone am not, but you`d be surprised how many people agree with me. And you seem to
forget that if my opinion is invaluable, then yours must be just as invaluable.
> >If
> >being big time means cities that can support the product don`t get to just because they
> >are small, why would you want to big time?
> as far as the money is there, why not? But often the owners only put the team there as a convience because of where it is
situated. They make millions so a sports franchise is just something to do.
> >That`s an unfair comparison with the advantage going to
> >the non-cable side. And the NHL could still only muster a tie.
> So what? NHL is lower in the totem pole in the U.S. than wrestling. So
> it's good if it can muster a tie. It's an UPSET!!! Yes but the wrestling was only accessable to a limited audience. As well, Nitro is
re-ran later that night. And the most important parts of RAW are shown on other shows
throughout the week. So really the NHL lost.
> >> >The point is that is wrong.
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> >> According to whom? Do you determine right or wrong for this world?
> >Do you?
> Hey, whose statement is that?
>
> "The point is that is wrong." Well if you are going to be so nitpicky I think it`s wrong. Actually, I might be sure
if you hadn`t snipped the point out of the response.
> >> American hockey fans are fine here.
> >For now. How long have they been following?
> Well, 'for now' is good enough. No one can tell the future. Even hockey
> hotbed like Canada can't keep their teams, AS A FACT. What darker
> picture you can paint for America? It could keep teams though. The ones that were taken away could have survived here.
I could have walked to the store ten minutes ago. I didn`t, but I could have. And
that`s a fact.
> >Sure, go get new fans, but don`t cost
> >yourselves old fans. If the US franchises fall through, boy do you have problems.
> OK, so the Canadian franchises actually DID fall through, does it mean
> Canada has problems? But the Canadian franchises could have stayed though. That`s the point. They moved a
team from where we were sure it could be supported to a place where we aren`t sure.
That`s what is wrong.
> >You are a hockey fan and you DIDN`T know Tampa Bay was broke?
> No, how much did they lose? What's the franchise worth now? They pay
> $35 million 4-5 years ago. It's $80 million now. Did they lose $45 million
> all in one shot? But they don`t have that money. The only time they would is when they sold it and
that would only be to make up for their losses. Selling it is profitable, but owning it
isn`t.
> >That`s been big news.
> >All those teams are losing money, I think Colorado and Phoenix are as well.
> You mean teams in Winnepeg and Quebec and Edmonton weren't losing money? They wouldn`t with new arenas.
> >Why are you defending the great selling of Winnipeg/Quebec?
> Nope, why are you guys bitter about the great selling of Winnepeg and
> Quebec? Because we lost teams we shouldn`t have. How many times do I have to say the same
thing?
> >If those franchises were
> >worth that much money, I guess that Quebec/Winnipeg must have done
> >a good job supporting them.
> Except those franchises weren't worth that much money before they left... They were worth enough for someone to want them weren`t they?
Patrick McNeil
VLDept-E.LOR(MT5655)1240MT wrote:
>
> In article <5pcl80$rpr$1...@thor.atcon.com>, Bryce McNeil <j...@atcon.com> wrote:
> And I don't think those fans are loyal either. They didn't do whatever
> >There is plenty of substance, I liked the NHL much more when Quebec/Winnipeg were in
> >it.
> Well, but then the majority of the American populations didn't like it as much
> when Quebec/Winnipeg were in it while Phoenix and Denver aren't. Now who do
> you think the league values more? you or the Americans? I know the league values Americans more, and why do you think I hate Gary Bettman?
Look at the title of the thread.
> >No because the stinking rich owners were allowed to buy the teams who had good fan
> >support without promising not to move them because Bettman didn`t do anything to
> >prevent it.
> Why should Bettman do anything to prevent it? he isn't that stupid, is he? Because the fans were coming to the games.
> >We`ll have to wait and see if it is a trend...
> So wait. It means as of now, you have NO argument. You have to bank your
> argument on future failure in American cities, which is just speculation and
> wishful thinking... So you mean to tell me, the corporation should take a chance on a US city when they
know they can own a team in a Canadian one and have good support.
That makes no sense.
You don`t seem to know much about business for someone who claims
to...
> The failure in Quebec and Winnipeg were FACTS.
> >Well actually if you knew anything about history than you would know that Canadians are
> >the customers who got hockey started. Loyal customers are to be rewared, not tossed
> >aside.
> Well, if you have any common sense in the real world, you should have known that
> the one who plant the seeds are usually not the one who enjoy the harvest...
> Think about it. How many original cities that started the NFL still have NFL cities? No one important, only the league champions.
> Loyal customers are just that, peasants...
>
> >It`s funny but I hear more people complaining Bettman than praising him. I guess God
> >is always with you regardless of what you say and how many people agree with you. Must
> >be nice...
> Really? who are these most people? you mean "people" only consist of Canadians? Are
> the people in the new American markets "people" too? What about people in the old American markets? Do you think people in Pittsburgh like
him?
> >Why bend over backwards to get hard-to-gets instead of doing little things to get the
> >given fans?
> Because the given fans are not enough to meet the demands of the league, i.e. megabucks
> expenses, especially in big-fat contracts, the POTENTIAL of big revenue, and the
> prospect of charging $80M for an expansion team... It is all potential. Expansion teams are meant for those risks, and you shouldn`t even
blow all those.
> >You have to realize something: The NHL needs a back-up plan. What if it is
> >a trend? They`ll go back to basing the game in Canada and they won`t even be able to
> >do that any more because no one in Canada will care.
> Well, I don't worry about your speculation... Maybe you should, because if it got to a point that no one in Canada cared, you would
be losing a lot of top-notch preformers. The quality of play would go
down and then the
value of the product would to.
> >The people who run the league are idiots. And no I am not God, but I have a lot of
> >people who agree with me.
> And I see a lot more people disagree with you - potential fans who get excited in
> the new markets. So, should the league care about those people or the people who
> agree with you? Because there are fans they know will show up every night in another city.
> >> And if the league wants to go to that direction, i.e. entertainment, are
> >> they entitled to?
> >Not if the fans don`t want them to.
> Too bad the fans can't stop buying the product. So when you say "the fans
> don't want them to", who exactly are you talking about? the small market
> Canadian fans? Yes. They should have a say in where THEIR franchise goes.
> >We got this league started. Where`s the respect?
> You got this league started? So why did you let the control slip to the rich
> Americans? Because we didn`t think they would steal it. Shouldn`t trust Americans I guess...
>
> >A lot of people did like the product and less people do now because of the owners.
> ReallY? do you think the potential customers in the new markets are "people"?
> What do you think of the record attendences that come to games? Only because teams have bigger buildings.
> >> >The fans are the
> >> >one's who finance the owners and piss them off enough and many teams will
> >> >become the property of CITICORP.
> >> And what's the problem here?
> >Nothing if they don`t move teams out of cities for no good reason like COMSAT did with
> >the Avalanche.
> Oh, so there is no problem. Good... So you don`t think a corporation like COMSAT could have made money in Quebec?
> >But the problem in Edmonton is that Pocklington very easily could have
> >afforded to keep SOME of the players but he decided not to. The fans got mad and
> >boycotted. That is where there problem is. Quebec and Winnipeg was about getting new
> >arenas.
> If Quebec and Winnipeg was about getting new arenas, why didn't the local businessmen
> just buy the team and keep them there? Because there were no local businessmen with the money. As you recall COMSAT is a
corporation, not a Denver businessman.
> >The reason that we can`t keep our teams here is because any American corporation will
> >make more many than a Canadian one because US dollars are worth more.
> Oh, so why don't the Canadian "loyal fans" pump in more dollars to keep the
> team afloat? to keep the Canadian small market team owners (Abbutt, Pocklington, etc.)
> happy? I mean, if every Nordique fan is willing to pay C$200 to attend a game, do
> you think Abbutt would have to sell the team? Just imagine:
>
> $200 X 16000 = $3.2M gate revenue/game
>
> $3.2M X 40 home games = C$128M (about U.S.$96M) gate revenue/season.
>
> Does it mean the Canadian fans are loyal iff it doesn't involve their own
> wallet? We are loyal in the sense that we pay for a ticket. That should be all.
> When you boil down to it, the only reason that the small markets can't
> keep their teams is because the fans aren't willing to spend the money. No it isn`t. They buy tickets and therefore they are spending money.
> In this capitalistic system, you lose out only because you are outbid... That is the way the American sports system works. And I don`t like it. So I don`t
like Bettman.
> >The reason we are
> >upset is because the new owners could afford to keep the teams in their old cities, but
> >choose not to because they feel like it.
> Of course not, why would they keep a team in a place that:
>
> 1) the customers are not willing to spend whatever is needed?
> 2) the currency is weak? It doesn`t matter. If I bought the Detroit Red Wings tomorrow and moved them to Mexico
City because there was more people there, would you accept that?
> >The problem is that the owners that buy them won`t give the city a chance.
> Nonsense, if hockey is that important to the city, why didn't the city buy the
> team? or why didn't the citizens buy it (a la the Green Bay Packers)? Because they knew the NHL wouldn`t approve a sale. That`s why Hamilton`s expansion bid
was turned down.
> > Because it didn`t matter how much, corporations make billions of dollars.
> >And those corporations wouldn`t give the city a chance despite solid fan support.
> Nonsense. The Jets were only sold for $65M. You mean the city of Winnipeg couldn't
> come up with $65M? The city has a population of ~500K. You mean each one of them
> can't chip in U.S.$130 (or C$170) to buy the team as well as more to build
> a state-of-the-art arena? The city wouldn`t be able to buy the team. Once again I point to Hamilton.
> >What he is saying that taking hockey out of traditional places and putting them in
> >these US cities may be good for the owners, but not for the game itself.
> The game is fine. The only aspect of the game that's not fine are the "loyal"
> followers in small markets... The game isn`t fine if you change what you`re selling.
> >Look at the thread of the article and maybe you will understand the Canadian point of view. And if you don`t let me spell it out for you:
> >THE NHL IS NOT ALL BUSINESS.
> The NHL is ALL business. If you want a game just go to your local peewee
> league or amateur league. What I want is to see the best hockey players in the world play in a league that is not
completely wrapped up in business. Like it used to be.
> >THE FANS THAT BUILT THE LEAGUE DON`T WANT IT TO BE LIKE THAT.
> The fans built the league? I didn't see the fans OWNING the franchises (a la the
> Packers), did I? The NHL won`t allow community ownership.
> >IN OTHER WORDS, CITIES THAT CAN SUPPORT TEAMS SHOULD BE GIVEN EVERY OPPORTUNITY
> >TO MAINTAIN THAT TEAM. IT DOESN`T MATTER IF YOU WOULD MAKE MONEY ELSEWHERE, THE FANS
> >SHOULD BE GIVEN SOME LOYALTY.
> > Now do you understand?
> I do not. Because what you said is your wishful thinking, not the reality. What about it is wishful thinking?
> I see lots of sour grape here...
>
> >But the point made is correct one. The people who pour everything into the game lose
> >out just to accomdate the people who in actual fact don`t really care.
> Right, because you guys are just peasants (plant the seeds).
>
> >They should have some respect.
> Hey, I spent the money in the supermarket to buy some oranges. Do I have to respect
> the person who planted the seed of that orange tree? The only thing I respect is
> that it's a legitimate transaction among all parties: every party gets what
> it deserves. Yeah the guy who planted the orange got his share when he sold them to the store. This
is irrelevant. If anything this proves what I am saying. The fans
who supported the
team get nothing back, the guy who plants the orange does.
> >They can enjoy the game, but why can`t it be the game that we enjoy?
> Easy, because your only ability is to plant the seed. You have no economic
> power to enjoy it. For example, the workers who work on the assembly line
> of luxury cars may not have the money to enjoy the car, construction workers
> who build luxury homes don't have the money to live in those houses.
> Why do you think you deserve better? The people who make the car are paid. That`s all they need to be.
> >Not if the owners who had bought the team had kept the team there.
> False. Winnipeg was losing $10M in its last year, projected to be $20M had they
> stayed put... The people who bought the team are losing money now in their new cities so it doesn`t
really matter does it?
> >> >Then you will have the collapse of one team here and one team there.
> >> What you are arguing against is just a speculation. What I argue against
> >> has aleady been proven: 2 down, 1 to go.
> >And that`s why Bettman is hated. Not very bright, are you?
> You mean Bettman is hated because he has the nerve to face reality: act
> according to facts, not wishful thinking? Act according to what facts? That Winnipeg/Quebec can put people in the seats?
> Geez, I would love to be "HATED" in that case. I mean, how much respect
> would one get if he/she is too naive to face reality? if he/she always
> act on fantasy and stupidity? What reality is he facing? The new teams moved and they lost money.
> >> The small market Canadian teams have already moved. Isn't that a harsher
> >> fact to face?
> >Maybe but when they moved you can`t say they weren`t well supported.
> Well, you can say that the sun rises from the east, but like
>
> "you can`t say they weren`t well supported."
>
> what does that have to do with the issue? Apparently "well-supported" in
> a small Canadian market is really insignificant... I don`t know why. Colorado/Phoenix lost money...
VLDept-E.LOR(MT5655)1240MT
In article <5pfaa8$902$1...@thor.atcon.com>, Bryce McNeil <j...@atcon.com> wrote:
>These rich owners don`t just have operating losses. In the grand scheme of things,
>when you total it up, THEY LOSE MONEY.
or is it some bluffing that you make up?
In the grand scheme of things, I see the owners sharing $320M just
for expansion.
>What`s so big time about not having small markets?
What's so big deal about selling out games in Winnepeg then?
>Question of interest: Who are the
>Super Bowl champions at this moment? Get back to me on that one...
The NFL has a lucrative contract that does revenue sharing. Can the
NHL say the same?
When you have to resort your argument to an NFL franchise, it means you
have only thin ice to stand on...
>> That's not enough. Did they pay enough money to buy the team and keep
>> it in town?
>THEY don`t have to pay.
Then you don't have the franchise.
>An owner shouldn`t be allowed to take the team away if it is
>well-supported.
"Shouldn't"? according to whom? apparently not according to reality.
In other words, your rules on how the league should be run doesn't
apply here...
>> Why are you so naive to think that you deserve the show only after you
>> pay for the tickets? ONLY after you pay for the tickets?
>What team`s fans have paid for more than that?
These other team's fans are in bigger markets or in American markets. Your
Canadian small markets aren't. Who say life is fair?
>They would have paid a tax. It didn`t matter because the team was gone.
Because they didn't commit to pay enough tax to keep the team. That's
why they don't deserve the franchise...
>Hah hah. I think the NHL shouldn`t take teams out of cities that helped build it to
>what it is today.
Well, too bad, what you THINK doesn't mean jack...
>First of all, I am not in any NHL city. Second of all, you have failed to point out to
>me any time when people in New York or Chicago paid for a team. Give me one example.
First of all, New York or Chicago are major markets, Winnipeg and Quebec
City are not. Then tell us why people in Winnepeg and Quebec City deserves
the same thing that New York and Chicago have.
>> Only a naivette like you will believe that losing operating cost == losing
>> money...
>In the first year they lost money. That`s a fact.
Your fact doesn't lead to any meaningful conclusion...
>That is to say that they would have made more money by not existing.
If that's the case, you are making a case for the Jets not existing.
So what are you arguing about?
>First of all, with the new owners an arena would have been built.
Then why didn't the city buy the franchise?
>As for the loss they
>lost in their new city. And the value of the franchise would go up.
Yep, the value of the franchise goes up, but not by existing in a
small Canadian market...
>Selling out every game can be economically viable if the ownership is right.
If so, then why didn't you buy the franchise and run it yourself?
Do you have any respect on how people run their own business?
>That`s
>why I say that the new owners shouldn`t have taken the team out
>without a good reason.
Of course there are good reasons: placing the team in an American city
raise the worth of the franchise. Not so for keeping the team in a
Canadian small market...
VLDept-E.LOR(MT5655)1240MT
In article <5pfbh8$rvu$1...@thor.atcon.com>, Bryce McNeil <j...@atcon.com> wrote:
>> >If a big corporation buys a team from another owner, they should comply to the request
>> >of the owner to keep the team in that city because we all know they could do the same
>> >thing in the old city as they could in the new one.
>> What request? Was that request legally stated in the transaction?
>Well the owner went looking for local owners first. What does that tell you?
during the transaction. That's just a preference from the old owners. And you
know, preference not stated as a condition during the transaction can be
ignored.
>It doesn`t matter if they would have or not. A city that supports a team can be
>economically viable with the right ownership.
Then why didn't the people in Winnepeg buy it?
>I don`t care how much they would have paid for it.
Then you don't have any argument.
>> >Hockey tradition was made by the fans who have been following hockey for years.
>> But those fans are too cheap to spend the money to keep the team in town...
>You are thick aren`t you? The fans spent money on tickets. That is all they
>are required to do.
Then you can save the money for Christmas presents, because you have no more
tickets to buy.
So do you think they are REQUIRED to do more?
>Correct I am. Now even though I am younger than you, I am going to teach
>you something that may be of use to you.
Well, as of now, you have nothing that I haven't seen...
>When someone asks you a question, you usually give them a
>piece of information pertaining to it. This is known as an answer.
Well, let me teach you something, son. When people ask me meaningless question,
I just BS him with a non-answer. Why do you think every question deserve an
answer?
Answer me this: have you stop beating up your mother? You can answer only
'yes' or 'no'. You can't answer "I have never beaten my mother".
>They don`t make it until they sell the team, which they would only do to
>cover the loss.
Dumbo, wait until you grow up, you'll know that money is not just the
cash in your wallet. And why you do think money in the future (when they
sell the team) is not money? why don't you consider money loss now as
investment? You mean Bill Gates has no money because he hasn't cashed in
his Microsoft stocks yet?
Apparently you have no such concept...
>No, it seems like they are losing money because I hear they are losing
>money. And those sources are just as reliable as you.
Nope, it also seems like they are investing money on the capital assets.
>> But Winnepeg and Quebec didn't have the money, as well as the potential
>> to generate big revenue. That's why they let the team go...
>They shouldn`t need it because they already have the rights to a team.
Then tell us why the previous owners even ponder the thoughts of selling the
team...
>I alone am not, but you`d be surprised how many people agree with me.
Yes, I am surprised. How many of such people are in American? in the
new markets that get teams?
>And you seem to
>forget that if my opinion is invaluable, then yours must be just as invaluable.
Dumbo, your opinion may be invaluable, but it's still yours vs mine. How many
people do you think hate Bettman? how many people do you think has no problem
with him?
So in the grand scheme of things, yours is just a minority (among American
and Canadian hockey fans, including the new markets) opinion. If nothing
else, it's also a weak one -- doesn't match the direction the NHL wants
to go...
>But often the owners only put the team there as a convience because of where it is
>situated. They make millions so a sports franchise is just something to do.
Well, so what? do you have problems on how people spend their money? Who
are you to tell other people how they should use their money?
If I own a franchise, it's my right to place it in Mexico City to lose money
than to place it in Winnepeg to satisfy your ego. You get it?
>> Hey, whose statement is that?
>>
>> "The point is that is wrong."
>Well if you are going to be so nitpicky I think it`s wrong.
OK, so you "THINK" it's wrong. It doesn't mean it's wrong, because it's
only your opinion, not a fact. And you don't determine the opinions for
other people.
>Actually,
>I might be sure if you hadn`t snipped the point out of the response.
>> Well, 'for now' is good enough. No one can tell the future. Even hockey
>> hotbed like Canada can't keep their teams, AS A FACT. What darker
>> picture you can paint for America?
>It could keep teams though.
So where are the teams in Winnepeg and Quebec?
>The ones that were taken away could have survived here.
Could have, should have doesn't mean jack. The point is that they didn't.
And I can easily make the same argument that the franchises could have
survived in the new markets. At least they beat Canada small markets
in one count: it hasn't failed yet in this Bettman regime.
>But the Canadian franchises could have stayed though. That`s the point.
Then the new market franchises could have succeeded too. That's the point.
So you see how hypocritical you are? You use a hypothetical situation to
boost your Canadian small market franchises, yet you hypothesize a doomsday
picture on the American new markets...
>They moved a
>team from where we were sure it could be supported to a place where we
>aren`t sure.
Well, they moved a team from where you know you lost $10 million/year
to a place where you aren't sure.
>That`s what is wrong.
What's wrong with going from a sure loss to a gamble?
>But they don`t have that money. The only time they would is when they
>sold it and that would only be to make up for their losses.
Dumbo, how do you know they don't have that money? That's called "investment".
>Selling it is profitable, but owning it isn`t.
Do you realize what you are saying? you own something means you can sell it
anytime you want.
>> You mean teams in Winnepeg and Quebec and Edmonton weren't losing money?
>They wouldn`t with new arenas.
So they were losing money. New arenas are speculations. They aren't there.
Just like your speculation that it won't survive in the new markets.
>Because we lost teams we shouldn`t have.
You don't have the money to keep the teams there. Why shouldn't you?
>How many times do I have to say the same thing?
You can say it 1000 more times. It doesn't mean it would parse.
>> Except those franchises weren't worth that much money before they left...
>They were worth enough for someone to want them weren`t they?
Want them in Phoenix/Denver, not Winnepeg/Quebec, right?
taz...@istar.ca
In article <5p1bov$k...@nntpa.cb.lucent.com>,
l...@mtdcr.mt.att.com (VLDept-E.LOR(MT5655)1240MT) wrote:
> Proving? I assume you can show the proofs here.
You need only look around and the proof is self-evident, somewhat the way
one proves the law(s) of gravity.
> When the attendence is
> in good shape, TV ratings are in good shape (as compared to pre-Bettman
> era), I want to know how the consumers and the sellers are in disparity?
Pretty easy, look at the attendance in Hockey markets, look at the
viewership in these same markets. Then look at the turn-out at the
'revival' cities, L.A. is even beginning to show that they will only
watch a winning-superstar team. Sure the overall T.V. ratings are higher,
but that's because of the fad of hockey, which is primarily based on what
was, not what BATtman and the owners are now doing/screwing to the league
and fans.
> Keep your doomsday view of the league to yourself and your bitter countrymen.
And keep your ignorance in similar fashion.
> What? you mean Canadians in small market Canada are the majority among the
> populations in American and Canada? that's news to me...
Continue your ignorance, that's fine with me. I am part of the purist
group, I tend to consider that to be people from either country, but the
percentage of the pop. of each country is higher here, althought there
MAY be more in the U.S., since the N.Y. and NorthEast Area has an
equivalent pop. to Can., and has a strong Hockey crowd.
> If the league relies on small market Canadians as their meat and potatoes,
> then it's in much worse shape than I thought...
Considering the depth of your thoughts, I'm not suprised you miss the
state that the sport is in. The meat & potatoes is the market I described
above, and I'd definitely NOT include you among them.
> Simple, because there is really not much substance.
You're right, although you don't even know it. You just agreed that the
way hockey is going there isn't much substance left to the game, and the
fans are leaving for OHL and other minor leagues which offer better
hockey and more bang for the buck.
> >WE can easily support the luxury suites, the question is why would I?
> Well, could they have supported the luxury suites in Quebec and Winnipeg?
> Were there luxury suites in Le Colisse and the Winnepeg arena to keep the
> teams from moving?
The Colisse could probably have supported the suites AFTER the recovery.
But Quebec has economic woes that are unlike much of the rest of the NHL
market, except the expansion into Mexico. Winnipeg showed that they would
be willing to fork over the coin, and I think at least half the boxes
could have been filed, but I'm not sure. My Uncle (who lives there) said
it would likely have had about 70-80% sell-out immediately, and then it
would either go down or up depending on the fates of the team.
> Life in America, especially the New York area, is fine. We have
> three hockey teams in the area and 200+ games on local TV.
Is that per season or all at once (re-runs of Isles wins) :) We have
probably MORE in Toronto, considering they get swamped, and then pick up
the double headers, and the Buffalo, and FOX games. But Unfortunately
Cal. may be all alone in this neck of the woods.
> Nope, the only problem are the bitter Canadians who whine about losing hockey
> teams...
Who whine(d) alongside the North-Star Fans.
> Easy, because you, and Canadians in general, have no say in how the
> league should be run. You are just customers. If you don't like the direction
> the league is heading, the only alternative is to make your own product
> (i.e. your own version of NHL), or you'll have to whine till eternity.
No wonder American consumerism SUCKS in the 90s. Forget "the customer is
always right!" move towards the new Yankee saying, "Fuck you, I own it,
and I'll do what I want with it, and if you don't like it, tough!".
Worked in the 60s and 70s for the car companies right? Sure! We won't
have to create another league, just wait long enough and the league will
bankrupt itself by deficit financing against the FAD-fans, and we'll
reclaim the league for a second time.
> And who are you to determine what's right or wrong?
I'm a paying customer, and more importantly a lifelong fan. I've payed my
dues, helped build the league to where it is now. Therefore I have a say
in what is right and wrong. Now WHO are YOU to argue?
> do you represent God?
Haven't you heard? I'm his front office guy.
> >According to logic,
> You said:
>
> So what? We don't care about you or the 'casual follower'. The game isn't
> meant for people who can't find anything better to watch on T.V., ...
>
> And that's according to logic? where is that logic defined?
The logic is the basis for the arguments about the marketing and
sustainability of the sport. The casual fan, including yourself, are
quick money but nothing to draw any long term growth plans on. Where is
Lacoste and Rebook now? They were trends just like hockey has become in
the U.S. once these fair-weateher followers have gone on to their next
new sport (Canibal Boxing?) then the markets and figures which helped
create this new growth will disappear and then the league will move
backwards. The minute there is something more interesting to watch
(X-games anyone?), then the NHL loses the draw for U.S. contracts, and
the need for teams like Atlanta disappear.
> Don't try to disguise your bitterness as logic. You can't get away with it
> here. I, and people who runs the league, happen not to share your
> bitterness, er, logic ...
No you just share the same brain cell, and it's malignant. My bitterness
is due to the illogical occuring right in the face of the logical. Had
there been one expansion team, I'd have no qualms with Minn. getting it,
nor would I have a problem with them getting Edmonton, although, I'd
still be disappointed that the Oilers move south. But going to these
two-bit un-proven towns that have as much hockey history as MooseJaw has
baseball history, that's where it's irksome. It's not a well-balanced,
logical method of expansion.
> And if the league wants to go to that direction, i.e. entertainment, are
> they entitled to?
Sure, but they'd better refund my season's tickets, and they'd better
refund every taz/tax dollar that has gone into creating the league. Then,
I'll spend my money on hockey and not pro ice-wrestling.
> >No, REMEMBER, the owners are SUPPOSED to be beholden to US, the fans.
> Nope, the fans have their consumer rights: if you don't like a product,
> then stop buying it. The owners are supposed to achieve their business
> objective, whatever it is. They OWN the business. That's why they have the
> rights to determine their business direction.
Actually they are still beholden to the fans as long as the fans pay for
season's tickets and stadiums, and give tax breaks. If I bought the final
product (ie. payed after the game, what I thought it was worth), then you
would be correct, otherwise you're way off the mark. Yes the owners act
the way you think, childish and myopically, but it will come back at them
in the end. Unfortunately we don't benifit from their demise, since the
sport is in the hands of these knuckle draggers.
> That's just speculation. If you can speculate, so can I: the NHL will
> make a great business, and improve its status among the major sports.
Sure, and BATtman will be president of the U.S.A., sure!
> >The fans are the
> >one's who finance the owners and piss them off enough and many teams will
> >become the property of CITICORP.
> And what's the problem here?
The problem is that I'm talking economics and marketing to someone who
doesn't understand the concept of inflation. If the Fad wears thin on the
expansion teams then you will have a glut in a market that was designed
for future growth, it's like the final realisation in a pyramid scheme.
Last one out gets burnt. The league is currently expanding and basing
it's growth on the influx of future fans and teams, and they are
financing the last batch of expansion teams with the funds from this
recent expansion. It's a death spiral.
'Call Detroit, tell 'dem "Bulshit"' -Chiefs Goalie
TRF
-------------------==== Posted via Deja News ====-----------------------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Post to Usenet
Taz...@istar.ca
In article <5p1bov$k...@nntpa.cb.lucent.com>,
l...@mtdcr.mt.att.com (VLDept-E.LOR(MT5655)1240MT) wrote:
>
> >> >The salaries aren't the problem,
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> >> They aren't? then why did the Nords and the Jets moved? why did the Oilers
> >> fail to keep Gretzky, Messier, Anderson, Fuhr, Kurri, etc. on Canadian
soil?
> >
> >Prove to me that it was salaries that did it.
> You made a BS claim, and I have to prove to you that the complement is not
> true?
I was responding to the statement that salaries ARE the problem. Prove to
me that they are. Why should I disprove it?
Salaries are an unreliable determinant of anything, other than wages.
> >Salaries are a good excuse,
> or a good reason.
Until you prove it, they are an excuse.
> >but in fact what happened is that someone came in with a sweeter deal.
> >Was it Salaries that moved the Browns?
> You are not talking about the Browns. You are talking about NHL franchises
> that can't survive in Winnepeg and Quebec.
You're saying that they are totally unrelated, since one is football and
the other is hockey? Did salaries move the North Stars, then?
> That's also a good reason. Now if Canada is really such a hockey hot bed,
> why can't she keep such hot commodities in her soil?
It's not a 'hot commodity' in Canada, it's a staple. It's our bread and
butter. The problem is that it is a 'HOT commodity' in the U.S.,just like
the Japanese are getting the BEST North American beef because they are
willing to pay more a pound for it than the person who lives next door to
the TEXAN rancher. Why doesn't many of the world's art/cultural treasure
tay in their native countries? Because Americans and other Pillagers are
willing to pay more than the governments to keep the articles where they
belong.
> why doesn't the Federal
> government use taxpayers' money to keep the teams in Quebec and Winnepeg?
They did use taxpayer money, up until the tax payer said "F-off!".
Because Canada is getting a grip on her tax burden and you aren't in't
really related to hockey except for perhaps the open coffers.
> That's right. And do you think player leaving the team for a bigger contract
> is disloyal? That tells us how screw-up your perspective is?
My perspective is mighty fine, think you should check yours though. How
much do you think the Gretzky trade hurt Edmonton? Alot, that's due to a
loss of loyalty. How much harm will basketball get from more Shaq trades?
Eventually people wont' care to much anymore, unless they are lucky
enough to get the one player who is willing to stick with his team. You
deriding me for supporting loyalty over greed says alot about you, and
seem to show exactly where sports is in the 90s.
> No? then why didn't your local economy fork out the cash to buy the Jets
> and the Nords and keep them in town?
Because they are in the middle of Massive socio-economic changes that
haven't hit your piss-ant country yet, until your government learns how
to pass a budget without shuting down for months on end. Having local
governments buy stadiums and such is not the local market supporting a
team. That has become the american way of doing things, but it's not
economically sound. Quebec and Winnipeg could easily compete if the NHL
were a league and not a grouping of individual franchises acting
independantly. Quebec easily has as large a fan base and local draw as
the Panthers or Lightning, the problem is that they could make their
ownders more money by going to bigger markets than all 4 of those teams.
> >On the local level they are alot stronger than most American franchises,
> The evidence says otherwise. Your small markets couldn't fork out the
> cash to keep the teams.
No, the small markets couldn't fork over enough money to counter a virgin
offer.
> The thing
> >is THIS ISN'T GOOD FOR HOCKEY its good for owners pocketbooks. In the
> >same way that American teams have lost all sense of history/loyalty and
> >decide to change jerseys ever 2nd year so they can fleece the fans again
> >for more money so they can compete in a death spiral. The league needs to
> >act more like OPEC than like a Russian street market.
>
> ??? what are you trying to convey here?
Acting as a league and not as a collection of individuals.
> Wow, you are talking about territorial draft? tells us in what decade your
> mindset is...
I'm not talking about a territorial draft, if you bothered to read at all
you would have noticed that I was saying NO DRAFT. IT's the old c-form
style. I'm sure you have no idea what tha is becuase you're new to this
sport, so I'll 'splain it to you. Teams can go ANYWHERE and sign ANYONE,
but they have to get there first and they have to find them on their own.
When they're signed, they are signed and are the property of the team.
Trades mean compensation, etc. The difference is that the 'little-known'
players would be the ones that the local team get easily. This would have
stiffled so many teams that don't belong, because they would have had to
develop their teams and had to develop their leads. I'd like to see
Houston, Dallas, or San Jose find talent without having everyone else
tell them where it is.
> Wake up, this is the 90s.
Thanks, I'll keep that in mind, now is that you're I.Q., or the salaries
of your players?
> as well as lost money in the hockey operation. Where does the majority of
> the expenses go to?
Daily operations.
> >Now if you followed any of these teams you might know that.
> I know that even if I don't follow the teams closely.
Sure.
> >Salaries are a small factor, part of the puzzle, and are
> >not the be all and end all of the sport.
> If salaries are only a small factor, then the Jets could have had
> the same salary as the Rangers. Is that true?
You're soooo stupid. Salaries are a small factor and therefore everyone
has the same salaries? Where's the logic in your attempt at a statement?
The Rangers can have their salary and then the Jets have theirs, and then
you see who does better. Who did better this year, the Senators or the
Bruins? Who payed more for their players? Now if salaries aren't the be
all and end all, then occasionally the not-so-rich teams will win. Which
has happened many times. Sure salaries can be factores in and have a
large influence, but they are far from the determining factor, otherwise
Gretzky would have another ring in his collection.
> The facts tell you otherwise. If you don't believe it, hey, who can stop
> you from being stupid?
Only myself, and I'm doing a better job than you are.
> >The ONLY thing that drives the
> >game/teams is fans showing up. Now the owners then look at how much
> >profit they can make if they get lux. boxes, have a city build them a
> >bigger and better stadium, etc.
> Then it just refutes what you just said:
>
> the only thing that drives the game/teams is fans showing up.
>
> In other words, if the owner is getting goodies from stadium deal, getting
> lots of luxury box revenue, getting sucker cable TV deal, then what's the
> big deal if the fans don't show up (say, only 70% capacity)?
Argh, you miss the point completely, YET AGAIN! The only thing that
drives the game is fans, period. Without them you can have the best team
in the league winning 10 straight cups, and lose 50 mil. a year. Doesn't
matter what your salaries are, doesn't matter what deals you get. The
thing is how does it all work together. Do the salaries buy the players
that bring the fans, not always. Does the new stadium bring the fans,
more often than not, no. It's alot of things working together.
Understand?
> >It's not national pride you ignorant fool, it's the santity of the game.
> Well, it seems like the sanity of the game is a business, not the way you
> want to run it...
That's supposed to be sanctity, and buisness is never part of the
sanctity of anything except buisness.
> >It's beginning to suck because the fans who come out don't know shit, so
> >the league changes to meet their ignorance.
> It's this kind of attitude that's really annoying.
Because you don't know shit?
> Hockey is not your
> birth rights.
Yes, it is.
> Even if someone is not grow up with hockey (e.g. southerners),
> they are still entitled to enjoy the game...
Enjoy it, but don't destroy it.
> >The league is in greater risk
> >of financial ruin because the ones who come out on the tuesday night in
> >the middle of a 10 game losing streak are going to cancel their season's
> >tickets.
> The league would be in greater risk of financial ruin had they planned to
> stay put to satisfy the Canadian ego...
No they'd be O.K. then, it's courting the American Dunce that has
poisoned most good things on this planet.
> >Then you will have the collapse of one team here and one team there.
> What you are arguing against is just a speculation. What I argue against
> has aleady been proven: 2 down, 1 to go.
What you are arguing is specualtion after the fact, which equals
ignorance. You are speculating about the cause of the collapse in the
same way that most Americans specualte about the cause of things.
Whatever I see on the surface has to be it. And your comment at the end
shows that you're a hypocrite.
> >The Sunshine-teams will fold once the shine is off baby's new toy,
> The small market Canadian teams have already moved. Isn't that a harsher
> fact to face?
No, it's just a pain, since they'll be back to the best country in the
world, but in the mean time we'll have to suffer through a bunch of hick
yanks for a few years.
"Trade me right fucking now!" -Chiefs Goalie
T.R.F.
Taz...@istar.ca
In article <5pe735$c...@nntpa.cb.lucent.com>,
l...@mtdcr.mt.att.com (VLDept-E.LOR(MT5655)1240MT) wrote:
>
> In article <5pcl80$rpr$1...@thor.atcon.com>, Bryce McNeil <j...@atcon.com> wrote:
> >I think the term "meat and potatoes" refers to the fact that the loyal fans,
the old
> >breed fans are in those cities.
> Well, that's exactly what I said, if the leagues relies on those "loyal",
> old breed fans in those cities to survive, then it's in much worse shape
> than I thought.
>
> And I don't think those fans are loyal either. They didn't do whatever
> it takes (like million of $$$ from their own pockets) to keep the team...
What the hell do you know about loyalty? To you loyalty is the mercenary
who would kill you if you opposition payed him a buck more than you.
These cities HAVE payed out millions, IN THE PAST. They were the ones who
CREATED the franchises that moved. The Stanley cup in Colorado was mostly
payed for by the Fans in Quebec. You don't know what you're talking about
at all, so, I'm going to quite wasting my time on you. You don't
understand even the arguments you put forward.
> >There is plenty of substance, I liked the NHL much more when Quebec/Winnipeg
were in
> >it.
> Well, but then the majority of the American populations didn't like it as much
> when Quebec/Winnipeg were in it while Phoenix and Denver aren't. Now who do
> you think the league values more? you or the Americans?
You for now, but they'll soon understand their GRAVE error. BTW, you
think ALL Americans think like you? You're more jingoistic than I, which
is no small feat. There is a large portion of the American hockey
populace who think along the lines that BATtman's reign of terror is the
worst thing to hit hockey since the invention of knee check. Did you hear
the 'fans' of his at the draft?
> Why should Bettman do anything to prevent it? he isn't that stupid, is he?
No, if he were that stupid he would be smarter than he is now.
> >We`ll have to wait and see if it is a trend...
> So wait. It means as of now, you have NO argument. You have to bank your
> argument on future failure in American cities, which is just speculation and
> wishful thinking...
>
> The failure in Quebec and Winnipeg were FACTS.
No they aren't. You're spin on things, or historical revisionism (a new
favorite american passtime) may lead you to believe that, but the 'FACTS'
lead to another conclusion. GREED.
> >Well actually if you knew anything about history than you would know that
Canadians are
> >the customers who got hockey started. Loyal customers are to be rewared, not
tossed
> >aside.
> Well, if you have any common sense in the real world, you should have known
>that
> the one who plant the seeds are usually not the one who enjoy the harvest...
> Think about it. How many original cities that started the NFL still have NFL
>cities?
And you were saying that Football and Hockey aren't related. Screw you!
Why have the teams moved? Is this good for the NFL? How many teams were
originally in the NFL?
> Loyal customers are just that, peasants...
Oh, thanks for coming out Machievelli. Now I get it, you truely are a
jingoistic Yankee bastard. All are inferior! Well, guess what you
peasant, you've had your turn, in every way, prepare to be knocked-off.
It will just take a little time to right things.
> >It`s funny but I hear more people complaining Bettman than praising him. I
guess God
> >is always with you regardless of what you say and how many people agree with
you. Must
> >be nice...
> Really? who are these most people? you mean "people" only consist of
> Canadians? Are
> the people in the new American markets "people" too?
No they are neilson numbers and Jersey sales. That's not according to me,
that's accordin to the figures put forth in the proposals. BTW, you are
the one who has turned it into a Canada vs. U.S. thing. For most of us
(Bryce and I at least) this is a 'traditional hockey fan' vs. the
Fad-fan. We are the former, you are the later. The thing is that the
majority of the Canadian population is the former and the majority of the
later is comprised of Yanks. This doesn't mean that there aren't just as
many if not more 'traditionalists' in the U.S. since there is a huge
contigent from the North East, the problem is that you guys have the
exclusive rights to the Fad-fan, who are the sworn enemy of anyone who
loves the game.
> >You have to realize something: The NHL needs a back-up plan. What if it is
> >a trend? They`ll go back to basing the game in Canada and they won`t even be
able to
> >do that any more because no one in Canada will care.
> Well, I don't worry about your speculation...
Just like the silly americans did in the 20s. Speculation, great choice
of words. Hmm stock market was just as trendy, and what happened? Wow,
deja-vu or what?
> >The people who run the league are idiots. And no I am not God, but I have a
lot of
> >people who agree with me.
> And I see a lot more people disagree with you - potential fans who get excited
in
> the new markets. So, should the league care about those people or the people
who
> agree with you?
The people who agree with him, since they are still the ones who pay the
majority of the bills. The new fans couldn't fill the shoes of the Bruin,
or Habs fan base. The difference is that these fans have already financed
their teams, now the league wants BlockBuster and Disney to help pay for
BATtman new Porsche, and help suck the money that's currently there, at
the cost of the fans and the future of the game.
> >Not if the fans don`t want them to.
> Too bad the fans can't stop buying the product. So when you say "the fans
> don't want them to", who exactly are you talking about? the small market
> Canadian fans?
I'm not going to waste my time explaining it to you again. You know who
it is by now whether you admit it or not.
> >We got this league started. Where`s the respect?
> You got this league started? So why did you let the control slip to the rich
> Americans?
You idiot, it was WE (the HOCKEY PLAYERS) who got this league started.
There were teams from both sides of the border. The thing that caused us
to let it slip into the hands of Lucifer was that many thought that
getting a National contract was so important. Well BATtman has shown us
the error of our ways.
> In other words, you got the league started doesn't mean jack...
And neither does July 4th.
> ReallY? do you think the potential customers in the new markets are "people"?
> What do you think of the record attendences that come to games?
They are interesting anomalies. Are they still pulling in record
attendance in the sun bowls. Nope!
> >Nothing if they don`t move teams out of cities for no good reason like COMSAT
did with
> >the Avalanche.
> Oh, so there is no problem. Good...
You stupid or blind. That's Rhetorical, stupid!
> If Quebec and Winnipeg was about getting new arenas, why didn't the local
> businessmen
> just buy the team and keep them there?
You have to have someone willing to sell. BTW, how many buisnessmen in
the Houston area could support the NHL, or the NFL, other than a SMALL
handful? Not many. The cities could have easily taken over, but that
doesn't bring the long term money and prestige, which is what the Quebec
sale was all about.
> $200 X 16000 = $3.2M gate revenue/game
>
> $3.2M X 40 home games = C$128M (about U.S.$96M) gate revenue/season.
>
> Does it mean the Canadian fans are loyal iff it doesn't involve their own
> wallet?
Just as loyal as American fans (Minn., Clevland, Houston, Oakland,
Brooklyn, etc.)
> When you boil down to it, the only reason that the small markets can't
> keep their teams is because the fans aren't willing to spend the money.
You're wrong, and it's that simple, no matter what crack-pot cooking you
do.
> In this capitalistic system, you lose out only because you are outbid...
IF that's so, then why don't we have people selling nuclear weaponry? Hey
to the highest bidder. Or is your Smith-market system have some morals
and guidelines after all?
> >The reason we are
> >upset is because the new owners could afford to keep the teams in their old
cities, but
> >choose not to because they feel like it.
> Of course not, why would they keep a team in a place that:
>
> 1) the customers are not willing to spend whatever is needed?
> 2) the currency is weak?
Currency? You don't know DICK! Currency has thing NONE! to do with
ANYTHING! The main problem is TAXES! So stop porving your lack of
knowledge about things. If anything the Canadian currency 'MIGHT' be a
good thing because of projected rises in the next few years, but the
effects of this are som minimal on a freely flowing capital market.
Players contracts aren't long enough and iron clad enough for it to make
any difference at all.
> >The problem is that the owners that buy them won`t give the city a chance.
> Nonsense, if hockey is that important to the city, why didn't the city buy the
> team? or why didn't the citizens buy it (a la the Green Bay Packers)?
BATtman doesn't like that. He's against Edmonton floating stock, and he
was against Hamilton owning their expansion team thatway. However, as
I've said MANY times before this is probably the best way to make sure
that a team is stable and isn't going to become a flight of the
bumble-bee event.
> > Because it didn`t matter how much, corporations make billions of dollars.
> >And those corporations wouldn`t give the city a chance despite solid fan
support.
> Nonsense. The Jets were only sold for $65M. You mean the city of Winnipeg
couldn't
> come up with $65M? The city has a population of ~500K. You mean each one of
them
> can't chip in U.S.$130 (or C$170) to buy the team as well as more to build
> a state-of-the-art arena?
That's asking them to do so after they've speant all this other moeny
trying to secure the team in the first place. Then they come back to the
well for more. Winnipeg could do it, but try justifying that when you are
closing 2 or 3 hospitals and delaying new classroom construction, etc. If
the city forced them to pay back what they've taken befoe leaving, then
you would see them willing to pay, because they'd probably get a few mil.
back. Second, they would only have to buy the team and not build a new
Arena, and in case you hadn't figured it out, the owners weren't
interested in just selling the teams, they wanted to make quick bucks
from new markets. Had nothing to do with either city.
> The game is fine. The only aspect of the game that's not fine are the "loyal"
> followers in small markets...
No the game is not fine, you can ask any of us from the BIGGEST markets
who are the loyal fans, and who created the game, and who have more clout
than you and you little piss-ant newbies, once you're in. You'll be
ignored faster than my last dump. The problem is that our owners get
money from expanding into your weak markets.
> >THE FANS THAT BUILT THE LEAGUE DON`T WANT IT TO BE LIKE THAT.
> The fans built the league? I didn't see the fans OWNING the franchises
Without the Fans you have no league, you have now teams. Period, learn
economics.
> (a la > the
> Packers), did I?
Enough with the 'A La', stupide pom! It's a la something, not a la THE
something. What a poser!
> >But the point made is correct one. The people who pour everything into the
game lose
> >out just to accomdate the people who in actual fact don`t really care.
> Right, because you guys are just peasants (plant the seeds).
And without the farmers the people die. (Reap what you sew!)
> >They should have some respect.
> Hey, I spent the money in the supermarket to buy some oranges. Do I have to
> respect
> the person who planted the seed of that orange tree? The only thing I respect
> is
> that it's a legitimate transaction among all parties: every party gets what
> it deserves.
And you don't even know the economics of the transaction. The person who
deserves the respect is you the consumer, not the persona who gives you
the oranges. And Sunkist has to respect it's suppliers or end up getting
frozen out of the market. Understand market and systems before you start
commenting on them. If Sunkist sells you rotten oranges, even if they are
the only supplier of oranges, then you will probably buy grapefruit or
bananas, or something else. Then they go out of business. If they screw
their farmers, then they sell to Orenco, or someone else, and then they
go out of Buisness again. Understand?
> >They can enjoy the game, but why can`t it be the game that we enjoy?
> Easy, because your only ability is to plant the seed. You have no economic
> power to enjoy it. For example, the workers who work on the assembly line
> of luxury cars may not have the money to enjoy the car, construction workers
> who build luxury homes don't have the money to live in those houses.
> Why do you think you deserve better?
You don't know what you're talking about. You don't know dick about
economics, and so arguing with you is too great an opportunity cost.
Sleep well, seek help.
"My Hallergy to the fans, it has returned" -Chiefs Goalie
Taz...@istar.ca
In article <5p1brd$k...@nntpa.cb.lucent.com>,
l...@mtdcr.mt.att.com (VLDept-E.LOR(MT5655)1240MT) wrote:
>
> In article <8673582...@dejanews.com>, <Tazman@istar> wrote:
> >In a decade you will find no-one willing to build even a pop-stand for
> >owners,
> Dumbo, in the past 2 years we found that Winnepeg and Quebec weren't willing
> to do whatever it took to keep their NHL teams. And you worry about what
> happen in a decade?
You're sooo ignorant. Just because the Canadians have once again caught
on long before the stupid Americans, doesn't change what I said, YOU
'DUMBO'! I said no-one, not a few people wouldn't be willing. So try and
grasp a bit of the English language during your stay here.
> If I were you, I would worry about why the Canadian small markets came up
> short in keeping NHL franchises, and try to make improvements there.
I know where they came up short, they weren't American enough for the
American pres. It has nothing do do with small markets it has to do with
new markets. And of course, greed.
> My suggestion? Canada improve its economic situation, make it economically
> stronger than the U.S. Then you can raid not only NHL franchises, but also
> NFL, MLB and NBA franchises to your soil...
Right now Alberta is probably more financially sound than any region of
your pithy little country, save perhaps Alaska (wealth to pop. ratio is
incredbile there). However we're not going to waste our money for an
American fad. Don't worry other countries, including Canada, will come
along an kick your deteriorating little butt. Canada's economy is already
growing srtonger than yours, and will be per capita much better. It's
already #1, so it's always hard finding ways to improve. You on the other
hand need only look north.
> Corollary: the NHL is a big business. It's great to see it moving forward,
> instead of the sick Canadian bastardization to keep it as a 1970s minor
> league operation.
Shows how much you know about hockey. It's obvious that you're simply a
Yankee super-patriot ditto-head. Otherwise you'd know, and agree that the
60's and 70's were hockey's greatest years so far. But since you don't
know squat about hockey, I can see how you wouldn't get that.
> >So every year you have about 2-3 teams move because they ended up at the
> >bottom of the heap.
> Dumbo, in every sport, there are teams that don't do well in a stretch
> of years, e.g. the current Kings and Islanders, the Flyers in the
> early 90s, the NBA Clippers, the NBA Kings, the NFL Jets, etc. It may
> or may not hurt their attendance, but it doesn't mean they have to move.
According to the earlier statement put forth that's what was the issue,
only top teams -> attendance -> etc. and therefore moves. So don't call
me Dumbo, you dumb-ass. Stick with the thread and try and figure out a
coherent argument.
> You are speculating based on your baby logic:
>
> Fans in new southern cities will support winners only. If they don't
> win, fans will stop coming => franchise will move.
>
> Wake up and smell the coffee...
Smell my ass buddy. The argument put forward before was the issue, and if
you bother not to follow the thread fine. I wasn't simply talking about
the new franchises, although it was out of that discussion that this
aside was created. Try and follow the issue, it does make for more
productive use of everyone else's time.
> >This way we could tour the whole of North
> >America in a few years with just 12 yeams.
> This is really naive. You are banking your argument on something really
> stupid: few fan support in new cities => teams have to move.
That was the original proposal and my SARCASTIC response was illustrating
that, almost as well as your limited rebutal has attempted to do. Thanks
for coming out, do a little more work and maybe you'll make the cut next
year, DUMBO!
> >You may be on to something. Or just ON something.
> Yes, I am on your stupid argument really good...
Ed, you need help, formulating your responses and regulating your
medicine.
I don't know how you ever got a job at Lucent, but it's probably to test
to make sure even dumb-asses like yourself can use the simplest of items.
Face-Off, Eh!
TRF
Taz...@istar.ca
> That`s the point this guy doesn`t get.
I don't think Ed, gets much of anything, except maybe publisher's clearing
house. He really is a winner!
> He seems to think excluding
> small market people makes you superior. Like going to a playground and
> picking on little kids. Great harmless fun. No one gets hurt. Just
> like yanking the Jets out of Winnipeg. The 17 000 who came every game
> won`t cry, they`ll get over it immediately.
And of course after the other kids kick your teeth in and you come
crawling back to the 17,000 small kids, they wouldn't waste their spit on
you to help you. BATtman is burning his brides in order to reach the
summit of mount Everest. What he and many AMERICAN climbers don't realize
is that you have to make it back down in order for it to mean anything.
There are lots of frozen skeletons heading down the mountain, just like
there will be lots of teams layed waste after the fad has passed. What I
seriously see happening is Roller-hockey stealing some fans and causing a
split of some of the base as well as overlap. This will help Roller but
hurt the Ice.
> Hey why don`t we turn the NHL into a travelling show like the Ice
> Capades (coming soon to your town : the Whalers vs. the Bruins) You could
> put the Stanley Cup finals wherever you wanted every year.
Didn't you read that in the description of changes to accompany the
expansion. The Stanley cup will go on tour starting in 2000, it'll be
like a world cup thing. Complete with a half-time show, remember how FOX
wanted 2 halves, well read chapter 4c. :)
> You`d make
> the most money that way, so IT MUST BE a good business move. And with
> Bettman as commissioner, it could be a circus too. And a comedy
> festival. the entire league is turning into a great big joke.
Yes, but I never like Pathos.
> That`s right. Oh and by the way everybody, Marc showed me the light.
> I`m not worried anymore. Hamilton will get an NHL franchise. All they
> need to do is follow this easy program:
> 1) Destroy the airport, and buses that leave town
> 2) Demolish any hockey rink in the city
> 3) Black out tv and radio
> 4) Rid the city of all hockey merchandise
>
> In five years there will be room for development in Hamilton therefore
> making it the perfect choice for the NHL`s next expansion
You forgot that they have to pull Defasco and Stelco out for a bit and
then say that the companies will move in and buy lux. boxes. You also
have to move out the current population, and then bring in a few hookers
just for BATtman. Hey it's a groveling, I mean growing market.
Keep your stick on the Ice -Red Green
Taz...@istar.ca
In article <5p1g3h$k...@nntpa.cb.lucent.com>,
l...@mtdcr.mt.att.com (VLDept-E.LOR(MT5655)1240MT) wrote:
> Boy, you really need a life. It's obvious that hockey won't come back
> to your Canadian small markets. Either you wake up, or improve your country's
> economy, or bring such sour attitude to your grave eventually...
'Tis you sir, that needs a life. Our economy is doing quite fine thank
you, and our society is doing MUCH MUCH better than yours. If you are
truely interested in our economy, then please pay the $trillions, that
you owe us, and then we'll see how things go. Or are you not only
ignorant but also a liar, cheat, thief, etc. You can make the check out
to "The decendant of the New England Loyalists", we'll be sure to ear
mark a few billion for our new hockey league you wish for us to create.
Otherwise shut-up about your stupid superiority complex, which is what
you are trying to push here, not realism or anything of a divine nature.
"You stupid you do dat, only some English pig with no brains do dat."
-Chiefs Goalie
Taz...@istar.ca
Bryce, foget this guy, he's just proved, SO MANY TIMES, that he is
neither a hockey fan, knowledgeable about economics or marketing. He's a
simple ignorant Troll, who doubles back whenever confront with something
he can't refute.
In article <5pglea$g...@nntpa.cb.lucent.com>,
l...@mtdcr.mt.att.com (VLDept-E.LOR(MT5655)1240MT) wrote:
> In the grand scheme of things, I see the owners sharing $320M just
> for expansion.
Which is what it was all about, not about hockey or markets, just the
quick coin.
> >Question of interest: Who are the
> >Super Bowl champions at this moment? Get back to me on that one...
> The NFL has a lucrative contract that does revenue sharing. Can the
> NHL say the same?
>
> When you have to resort your argument to an NFL franchise, it means you
> have only thin ice to stand on...
The why did you bring it up in another post, after even having told me,
you felt it wasn't relevant (although it clearly is, since it's pro
sports in the U.S.)
> >They would have paid a tax. It didn`t matter because the team was gone.
> Because they didn't commit to pay enough tax to keep the team. That's
> why they don't deserve the franchise...
You don't know anything about the sale of the Jets. That wasn't an option,
although you want to argue just for the sake of arguing.
> Well, too bad, what you THINK doesn't mean jack...
Likewise bud!
> >> Only a naivette like you will believe that losing operating cost == losing
> >> money...
> >In the first year they lost money. That`s a fact.
> Your fact doesn't lead to any meaningful conclusion...
The meaningful conclusion is that he refuted your statement which you use
and then you slough it off because he proved you wrong. You're a Troll.
> If so, then why didn't you buy the franchise and run it yourself?
> Do you have any respect on how people run their own business?
Sure but, my teams are doing Just fine right now, but with Asshole like
yourself in the mix, when your teams go tits up because of your lack of
support (not speculation, you've already stated your views and it leads
to the obvious and justified conclusion), then our teams will get hurt,
and since I'm a season ticket holder, just like a stock holder in a sense
(since my ticket hold weight with the people I entertain) then I want to
make sure the league does right by me, otherwise you don't get one red
cent of the tax breaks you want and you aint getting any concession money
out of me (you can smuggle a hell of alot in with a nice Canadian winter
coat). People can run their own buisness if they don't ask me for
anything in return.
> >That`s
> >why I say that the new owners shouldn`t have taken the team out
> >without a good reason.
> Of course there are good reasons: placing the team in an American city
> raise the worth of the franchise. Not so for keeping the team in a
> Canadian small market...
Putting Edmonton or Ottaawa in Hartford would hurt the value of the team,
it's an American city that pales in comparison to some of the other that
went before it. It's not just American cities, it's Big American cities,
and their draw will peter out as quickly as my interest in your comment
or opinions. Stick to your little warped world, and we'll stick to the
real world thank you.
Face Off, Eh!
Bryce McNeil
Arthur wrote:
> Bettman is hired by the owners, for the owners. Period. He isn't really
> a commissioner, he's a representative of the owners. As such, he really
> simply represents them and their views, as he did in the lockout by the
> owners, and can't act unilaterally. If you want to blame someone for
> screwing the game into the ground, blame the owners - they're the ones
> who won't revenue share, they're the ones paying the high salaries,
> and they're the ones who eventually sell their franchises, for a profit,
> to someone who moves it out of town.
Bettman is at the front of the line and that`s why he gets the blame. He did nothing
to stop the movement of well-supported teams. He also allowed the autrocious glow puck
to stand. That is why people don`t like Gary Bettman.
Bryce McNeil
VLDept-E.LOR wrote:
> In article <5pfaa8$902$1...@thor.atcon.com>, Bryce McNeil <j...@atcon.com> wrote:
> >These rich owners don`t just have operating losses. In the grand scheme of
> things,
> >when you total it up, THEY LOSE MONEY.
> Really? you care to provide any evidence in this 'grand scheme of things"?
> or is it some bluffing that you make up? Well I heard from researched reliable sources (HNIC) that they are losing money. Why
should I believe you over them?
> In the grand scheme of things, I see the owners sharing $320M just
> for expansion. So what? If the NHL had expanded to Hamilton, they would have paid the expansion fee
and the NHL would still get the 320 million.
> >What`s so big time about not having small markets?
> What's so big deal about selling out games in Winnepeg then? What?
> >Question of interest: Who are the
> >Super Bowl champions at this moment? Get back to me on that one...
> The NFL has a lucrative contract that does revenue sharing. Can the
> NHL say the same? Actually the NHL does have something like that I think. I`m not sure though...
> When you have to resort your argument to an NFL franchise, it means you
> have only thin ice to stand on... Really? Why do you say that? You said the NHL wanted to go big-time. I get the
impression big-time leagues can`t have small market cities. So either my point is
completely relevant, or you don`t think the NFL is a big-league.
> >> That's not enough. Did they pay enough money to buy the team and keep
> >> it in town?
> >THEY don`t have to pay.
> Then you don't have the franchise. Did the citizens of New York ever have to pay to buy the Rangers? There are tons more
examples...
> >An owner shouldn`t be allowed to take the team away if it is
> >well-supported.
> "Shouldn't"? according to whom? apparently not according to reality.
> In other words, your rules on how the league should be run doesn't
> apply here... According to what reality? The fact that the teams are losing money in their new
cities?
> >> Why are you so naive to think that you deserve the show only after you
> >> pay for the tickets? ONLY after you pay for the tickets?
> >What team`s fans have paid for more than that?
> These other team's fans are in bigger markets or in American markets. Your
> Canadian small markets aren't. Who say life is fair? It doesn`t really matter how many fans there are in the city. The corporations and
multi-owners haul a team to some city that is convenient for them, not really noticing
the fan base. After all Colorado and Phoenix are losing money...
> >They would have paid a tax. It didn`t matter because the team was gone.
> Because they didn't commit to pay enough tax to keep the team. That's
> why they don't deserve the franchise... I wouldn`t pay a tax if I knew that my team was going to leave. If they had built the
arena the team still might still have been sold. It wasn`t 100%. They tried
fundraising instead. And the NHL wouldn`t allow them to buy the team. It might be that
they didn`t approve the tax for that reason, but of course that is only specualtion.
> >Hah hah. I think the NHL shouldn`t take teams out of cities that helped build
> it to
> >what it is today.
> Well, too bad, what you THINK doesn't mean jack... Well that`s all well and good. But when your favorite team is shuttling off to Mexico
City in the future, I`ll be right here to remind you that "Mexico City is a bigger
market" and that there`s "Far more room for development there" and that "What you think
doesn`t mean jack". It would be interesting if all the NHL fans who didn`t agree with
the whole Winnipeg/Quebec situations boycotted the game. Then you would find out if
what the fans think means anything.
> >First of all, I am not in any NHL city. Second of all, you have failed to
> point out to
> >me any time when people in New York or Chicago paid for a team. Give me one
> example.
> First of all, New York or Chicago are major markets, Winnipeg and Quebec
> City are not. Then tell us why people in Winnepeg and Quebec City deserves
> the same thing that New York and Chicago have. If I caught a bus to Toronto tomorrow do I suddenly deserve a major hockey team?
> >> Only a naivette like you will believe that losing operating cost == losing
> >> money...
> >In the first year they lost money. That`s a fact.
> Your fact doesn't lead to any meaningful conclusion... The fact that they lost money doesn`t lead to any meaningful conclusion. Well, since
you stated that they moved to make more money, I think it might.
> >That is to say that they would have made more money by not existing.
> If that's the case, you are making a case for the Jets not existing.
> So what are you arguing about? The Jets franchise still exists as the Phoenix Coyotes. The 1996-97 Phoenix Coyotes
would have made more money by not existing than by icing a team in 1996-97. Now do you
understand?
> >First of all, with the new owners an arena would have been built.
> Then why didn't the city buy the franchise? Because the NHL doesn`t allow it since Bettman took over. Didn`t you notice the main
reason Hamilton got rejected?
> >As for the loss they
> >lost in their new city. And the value of the franchise would go up.
> Yep, the value of the franchise goes up, but not by existing in a
> small Canadian market... It doesn`t really matter if the value goes up if you are not making any money off it.
You would only benefit when it was sold, and you would be just regaining lost income.
>
> >Selling out every game can be economically viable if the ownership is right.
> If so, then why didn't you buy the franchise and run it yourself?
> Do you have any respect on how people run their own business? I don`t have respect for Gary Bettman because of this situation. And I don`t have an
NHL franchise because I don`t have the money. If I could find 40 000 000 other
shareholders, maybe I would.
> >That`s
> >why I say that the new owners shouldn`t have taken the team out
> >without a good reason.
> Of course there are good reasons: placing the team in an American city
> raise the worth of the franchise. Not so for keeping the team in a
> Canadian small market... To raise the value of the franchise. Even if you are not making any money out of it.
My point is that sport is not all business. Does the Stanley Cup mean anything to you?
Do you think the stories the players tell about wanting to win it since they were kids
are false? The NHL used to business another way and it was better for the fans. That`s
my opinion and I know that a lot of people share it. And if the NHL goes for another
major increase, they will wait until fans in Phoenix/Denver are just attached to the
teams as the old fans were. They`ll complain, and I`ll tell `em what they said to us.
VLDept-E.LOR(MT5655)1240MT
In article <8680419...@dejanews.com>, <Taz...@Uknow.ca> wrote:
>What the hell do you know about loyalty?
fans in the small market teams aren't willing to do whatever it takes to
keep the teams...
>To you loyalty is the mercenary
>who would kill you if you opposition payed him a buck more than you.
To you loyalty is cheap talk...
>These cities HAVE payed out millions, IN THE PAST. They were the ones who
>CREATED the franchises that moved.
Dumbo, millions are not enough. Franchise creation is not enough (you have
to maintain it). Now what?
>The Stanley cup in Colorado was mostly
>payed for by the Fans in Quebec. You don't know what you're talking about
>at all, so, I'm going to quite wasting my time on you.
You are wasting your time, not because I don't know what's going on,
but because you are spilling BS. Why do you think your trash can parse?
>You don't understand even the arguments you put forward.
or you have nothing but whining here....
>> Well, but then the majority of the American populations didn't like it as much
>> when Quebec/Winnipeg were in it while Phoenix and Denver aren't. Now who do
>> you think the league values more? you or the Americans?
>
>You for now,
That's good enough. Because "you", the small market Canadians, have proven
to be of little help to the league's survival...
>but they'll soon understand their GRAVE error.
They'll? As opposed to they "DID" understand their grave error of
having teams in small market Canada?
>There is a large portion of the American hockey
>populace who think along the lines that BATtman's reign of terror is the
>worst thing to hit hockey since the invention of knee check. Did you hear
>the 'fans' of his at the draft?
Well, more BS logic. Some fans in one hockey draft represent "large portion
of American hockey populace"? Geez, maybe you should learn more common
sense...
>> The failure in Quebec and Winnipeg were FACTS.
>
>No they aren't.
Then you are lying. NHL hockey didn't survive in Quebec and Winnipeg. They
were facts.
>You're spin on things,
still better than your lies...
>> the one who plant the seeds are usually not the one who enjoy the harvest...
>> Think about it. How many original cities that started the NFL still have NFL
>>cities?
>And you were saying that Football and Hockey aren't related. Screw you!
Well, Football and Hockey are different sports, how are they related?
As for the original cities that started the NFL still have NFL teams, how
many are there?
>Why have the teams moved? Is this good for the NFL?
Well, the NFL became a billion $$$ business, is the NHL?
>How many teams were originally in the NFL?
Well, current NFL teams remain in their cities since day 1:
Chicago and Green Bay. What does that tell you?
With your IQ, you probably don't know...
>Oh, thanks for coming out Machievelli. Now I get it, you truely are a
>jingoistic Yankee bastard.
No, I am just a realist who aren't as bitter as you are...
>> Really? who are these most people? you mean "people" only consist of
>> Canadians? Are
>> the people in the new American markets "people" too?
>
>No they are neilson numbers and Jersey sales.
Well, a professional sport league's survival depends on that. So if you
don't like it, tough.
>That's not according to me,
>that's accordin to the figures put forth in the proposals. BTW, you are
>the one who has turned it into a Canada vs. U.S. thing. For most of us
>(Bryce and I at least) this is a 'traditional hockey fan' vs. the
>Fad-fan.
Nope, this is 'bitter fans who live in fantasy' vs 'people in the real
world'
>We are the former, you are the later.
Nope, you are just spilling sour grapes...
>The thing is that the
>majority of the Canadian population is the former and the majority of the
>later is comprised of Yanks. This doesn't mean that there aren't just as
>many if not more 'traditionalists' in the U.S. since there is a huge
>contigent from the North East, the problem is that you guys have the
>exclusive rights to the Fad-fan, who are the sworn enemy of anyone who
>loves the game.
Well, I don't think these traditional fans love the game, or they would
have put everything they had to save the teams in Winnepeg/Quebec.
BTW, how much NHL traditions were there in Winnepeg/Quebec?
>> Well, I don't worry about your speculation...
>
>Just like the silly americans did in the 20s.
or silly Canadians who simply ignore an already happened failure to curse
about an unknown...
>Speculation, great choice of words.
It's still better choice of words than 'already failed'.
>> the new markets. So, should the league care about those people or the people
>who
>> agree with you?
>
>The people who agree with him, since they are still the ones who pay the
^^^
>majority of the bills.
I assume this "him" means Bryce. They are the ones who pay the majority of
the bills? OK, so you must be talking about fans with teams in their
markets. I would love to see how Bettman didn't care about fans in
New York, Detroit, Toronto, Montreal, etc. And show us the effects
of their dislike on Bettman. Did the fan support in the big markets
drop? Now furnish some evidence.
So, you are so dumb that you confused people in the small markets to the
people in the existing markets.
>The new fans couldn't fill the shoes of the Bruin,
>or Habs fan base.
But the new fans are projected to fill the shoes of the failed Canadian
markets. And what do you say about the projection that Winnepeg/
Quebec/Edmonton gave?
>The difference is that these fans have already financed
>their teams, now the league wants BlockBuster and Disney to help pay for
>BATtman new Porsche, and help suck the money that's currently there, at
>the cost of the fans and the future of the game.
Nope, the league just want to give the new market a chance, since the
small markets have already had theirs...
>> Too bad the fans can't stop buying the product. So when you say "the fans
>> don't want them to", who exactly are you talking about? the small market
>> Canadian fans?
>
>I'm not going to waste my time explaining it to you again.
You shouldn't waste your time to force feed your sour grapes to us...
>You know who it is by now whether you admit it or not.
I don't know. So you have no answer to the question, unless you can
furnish evidence that the existing fan bases are dwindling. The attendence
and TV ratings didn't support that.
>You idiot, it was WE (the HOCKEY PLAYERS) who got this league started.
Oh, you are a hockey player? You started the league? how old are you?
BTW, if the hockey players got this league started, there shouldn't be
any labor/management confrontation, a la strike. The hockey players can
start another league anytime.
So the fact that a strike happened just refuted your point...
Your ignorance really showed. You think that the league infrastructure
is something that can be replaced at any time, only because you have the
players...
>There were teams from both sides of the border. The thing that caused us
>to let it slip into the hands of Lucifer was that many thought that
>getting a National contract was so important.
Well, maybe then you should take the control back, make it a Canadian league,
that getting an American national contract is not so important, filling
teams in Canadian small markets is. Do you think you get any chance to do
that?
>> In other words, you got the league started doesn't mean jack...
>
>And neither does July 4th.
Well, we have the power to celebrate July 4th. You (the players)
have no power to stop the Jets/Nords from moving. The Sakics/
Forsbergs/Gartners are even happily drawing paychecks in the new
cities. So what does it tell you?
>> ReallY? do you think the potential customers in the new markets are "people"?
>> What do you think of the record attendences that come to games?
>
>They are interesting anomalies. Are they still pulling in record
>attendance in the sun bowls. Nope!
The league have more attendence than 1990-91 season, the last year
before the last expansion.
Do you think those extra 5 million customers 'people'?
>> >Nothing if they don`t move teams out of cities for no good reason like COMSAT
>did with
>> >the Avalanche.
>> Oh, so there is no problem. Good...
>
>You stupid or blind. That's Rhetorical, stupid!
dumbo, you can't argue that point. Now is there anything new you want to
whine about?
>> If Quebec and Winnipeg was about getting new arenas, why didn't the local
>> businessmen
>> just buy the team and keep them there?
>
>You have to have someone willing to sell.
Well, Marcel Abutt was selling. Barry Shenkarow was selling. Did
they refuse local bids that were much higher than Colorado/Phoenix bids?
>BTW, how many buisnessmen in
>the Houston area could support the NHL, or the NFL, other than a SMALL
>handful? Not many. The cities could have easily taken over, but that
>doesn't bring the long term money and prestige, which is what the Quebec
>sale was all about.
Oh, so the cities were not supportive, the local businessmen were not
supportive. Yet you still whine about American cities raiding your teams...
>> Does it mean the Canadian fans are loyal iff it doesn't involve their own
>> wallet?
>
>Just as loyal as American fans (Minn., Clevland, Houston, Oakland,
>Brooklyn, etc.)
Well, American fans lose their teams to American cities, unlike Canadian
fans who failed to put up the dough to keep the teams in their country...
As in Oakland's (NFL), Brooklyn's (MLB), Houston (NFL)'s and Cleveland's
(NFL) case, you should have had more common sense. The teams weren't sold.
It's the owners' total discretion to move the team...
>> When you boil down to it, the only reason that the small markets can't
>> keep their teams is because the fans aren't willing to spend the money.
>
>You're wrong, and it's that simple, no matter what crack-pot cooking you
>do.
I am wrong? yet you can't prove it. The simple fact is that the teams was
sold, and then moved...
>IF that's so, then why don't we have people selling nuclear weaponry? Hey
>to the highest bidder. Or is your Smith-market system have some morals
>and guidelines after all?
Dumbo, nuclear weaponry involves millions of lives and deaths. Is NHL
hockey?
Yet another dumb analogy...
>> Of course not, why would they keep a team in a place that:
>>
>> 1) the customers are not willing to spend whatever is needed?
>> 2) the currency is weak?
>
>Currency? You don't know DICK! Currency has thing NONE! to do with
>ANYTHING! The main problem is TAXES! So stop porving your lack of
>knowledge about things.
Dumbo, take your bitterness to Bryce. It's his argument that Canadian
currency is weak.
>If anything the Canadian currency 'MIGHT' be a
>good thing because of projected rises in the next few years,
Wow, so you bank your argument on a projected rise of currently in the
next few years? more rah-rah type of argument...
Come back to us after the projected rise happens...
>> Nonsense, if hockey is that important to the city, why didn't the city buy the
>> team? or why didn't the citizens buy it (a la the Green Bay Packers)?
>
>BATtman doesn't like that.
Is that a fact or just your fantasy?
Well, if you have the money to keep the team in the small markets, what
can Bettman do?
>He's against Edmonton floating stock, and he
>was against Hamilton owning their expansion team thatway.
I suppose you can quote Bettman's official line on that, or you
are just lying. Should I believe anything you say without proof? Nope!
>However, as
>I've said MANY times before this is probably the best way to make sure
>that a team is stable and isn't going to become a flight of the
>bumble-bee event.
Yep, unless you furnish proof, you fabricate Bettman's thoughts on that...
>That's asking them to do so after they've speant all this other moeny
>trying to secure the team in the first place.
Well, if you are in a small market with little wealth, that's right!
>Then they come back to the
>well for more. Winnipeg could do it, but try justifying that when you are
>closing 2 or 3 hospitals and delaying new classroom construction, etc.
Well, if hockey is that important to you, then maybe hospitals and classrooms
should take 2nd place. Afterall, as Bryce claimed, hockey is his life. I
suppose life is more important than sickness and education...
>If
>the city forced them to pay back what they've taken befoe leaving, then
>you would see them willing to pay, because they'd probably get a few mil.
>back. Second, they would only have to buy the team and not build a new
>Arena, and in case you hadn't figured it out, the owners weren't
>interested in just selling the teams, they wanted to make quick bucks
>from new markets. Had nothing to do with either city.
Of course it had, if the owner want to make quick bucks, the cities
have to give him quick bucks. Afterall, he, not the city, owned the team.
That's what 'owning' means...
>No the game is not fine, you can ask any of us from the BIGGEST markets
>who are the loyal fans, and who created the game, and who have more clout
>than you and you little piss-ant newbies, once you're in.
Well, whether the game is fine or not is not based on your sour grape
attitude. So asking you means nothing...
>You'll be
>ignored faster than my last dump. The problem is that our owners get
>money from expanding into your weak markets.
If so, so be it. Maybe our weak markets have more potential than your
strong markets. What does it say about our discrepancies?
>Without the Fans you have no league, you have now teams. Period, learn
>economics.
The fans do not determine the directions of the league. If they don't like
it, they can stop going to games, but
1) there may be new fans who would go to games, that's the projection
that lead to teams moving/expansion. If nothing else, you have to
destroy that projection, are you able to?
2) "If they don't like it" is a big "if".
So learn some common sense instead of projecting sour grapes...
>And without the farmers the people die. (Reap what you sew!)
Yeah, just think that without Canadians players there would be no league.
What a concept!
I guess Canadians are the only people in this world playing hockey ...
I also guess that all hockey players are as loyal to Canadian small
markets as you are. I wonder why the Nords/Jets players followed
their teams to America...
>> >They should have some respect.
>> Hey, I spent the money in the supermarket to buy some oranges. Do I have to
>> respect
>> the person who planted the seed of that orange tree? The only thing I respect
>> is
>> that it's a legitimate transaction among all parties: every party gets what
>> it deserves.
>
>And you don't even know the economics of the transaction. The person who
>deserves the respect is you the consumer, not the persona who gives you
>the oranges.
Nope, in a transaction, every party deserves respect. Your attitude jsut
tells us all -- I pay for the ticket, that's why I am entitled to run the
operation...
That's the disrepect you spill out.
>You don't know what you're talking about. You don't know dick about
>economics, and so arguing with you is too great an opportunity cost.
Dumbo, you don't know jack about the failure in your small market. And you
are still bitter about it. And you even think that paying $20 for a ticket
makes you team CEO...
>Sleep well, seek help.
That's a good advice for yourself...
VLDept-E.LOR(MT5655)1240MT
In article <8680342...@dejanews.com>, <tazman@istar> wrote:
>> Proving? I assume you can show the proofs here.
>
>You need only look around and the proof is self-evident, somewhat the way
>one proves the law(s) of gravity.
argument. You made a claim on
The league big-wigs and the Fans are proving to be more and more
disparate in their goals and desires for this game/league.
with is not justifiable. So this is nothing but sour grapes...
>Pretty easy, look at the attendance in Hockey markets, look at the
>viewership in these same markets.
I look at the attendance overall. It looks pretty good.
>Then look at the turn-out at the
>'revival' cities, L.A. is even beginning to show that they will only
>watch a winning-superstar team.
What does it prove? L.A. has been like that all the time.
>Sure the overall T.V. ratings are higher,
>but that's because of the fad of hockey, which is primarily based on what
>was, not what BATtman and the owners are now doing/screwing to the league
>and fans.
But dumbo, you have NO proof that Bettman and the owners are screwing hockey.
That proof will be apparent if hockey fails in the new markets in the future.
But you are banking your argument on your speculation -- you doom its fate
just because you don't like it run that way...
>> Keep your doomsday view of the league to yourself and your bitter countrymen.
>
>And keep your ignorance in similar fashion.
My "ignorance" view matches the way the owners want to run their business. If
nothing else, they own the business, you don't.
>Continue your ignorance, that's fine with me. I am part of the purist
>group,
So your point of view doesn't mean jack, as purist are usually not to
realistic....
>I tend to consider that to be people from either country, but the
>percentage of the pop. of each country is higher here, althought there
>MAY be more in the U.S., since the N.Y. and NorthEast Area has an
>equivalent pop. to Can., and has a strong Hockey crowd.
??? you care to convey your message in a more coherent fashion?
>Considering the depth of your thoughts, I'm not suprised you miss the
>state that the sport is in.
Considering your sour grapes, I am not surprised with your doomsday view
of the present league, expect it doesn't match reality...
>The meat & potatoes is the market I described above,
Really, you get any proof that the big hockey markets (e.g. Montreal,
Toronto, Boston, New York, Chicago, Detroit) are in bad shape?
So your doomsday view is still nothing but lies...
>and I'd definitely NOT include you among them.
With your lack of IQ, I sure don't want to be included (classified)
into anything by you...
>> Simple, because there is really not much substance.
>
>You're right, although you don't even know it.
For the small markets, I am glad that you finally see the lights.
>You just agreed that the
>way hockey is going there isn't much substance left to the game,
Nope, don't distort what I said:
>AND the league's meat and potates which they
>are about to lose by concentrating on the gravy.
If the league relies on small market Canadians as their meat and potatoes,
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
then it's in much worse shape than I thought...
So I didn't say that "there isn't much substance left to the game."
>and the
>fans are leaving for OHL and other minor leagues which offer better
>hockey and more bang for the buck.
Really? the last I check, league attendence has been rising almost every
year since the last expansion.
>The Colisse could probably have supported the suites AFTER the recovery.
>But Quebec has economic woes that are unlike much of the rest of the NHL
>market, except the expansion into Mexico. Winnipeg showed that they would
>be willing to fork over the coin, and I think at least half the boxes
>could have been filed, but I'm not sure.
So good, you have NO substance to support your point, that Quebec and
Winnepeg could have filled the luxury suites...
>My Uncle (who lives there) said
>it would likely have had about 70-80% sell-out immediately, and then it
>would either go down or up depending on the fates of the team.
If (big IF) that's true, then it's the city's and the local businessmen's
short-sightness for not buying the team and build the luxury arena to house
it. Who's to blame here? certainly Bettman is not entitled to buy the
team himself and keep it in Winnipeg...
>> Life in America, especially the New York area, is fine. We have
>> three hockey teams in the area and 200+ games on local TV.
>
>Is that per season or all at once (re-runs of Isles wins) :) We have
>probably MORE in Toronto, considering they get swamped, and then pick up
>the double headers, and the Buffalo, and FOX games.
Well, you have more games in Toronto != I have to buy a life.
So you can't argue that point either.
>> Nope, the only problem are the bitter Canadians who whine about losing hockey
>> teams...
>
>Who whine(d) alongside the North-Star Fans.
The North-Stars went to Dallas, so it's not America's loss.
Guess why America in general, don't whine as much in Hartford's loss...
>No wonder American consumerism SUCKS in the 90s. Forget "the customer is
>always right!" move towards the new Yankee saying, "Fuck you, I own it,
>and I'll do what I want with it, and if you don't like it, tough!".
Well, dumbo, in a product with more demand than supply, guess which
side has more power...
>Worked in the 60s and 70s for the car companies right? Sure! We won't
>have to create another league, just wait long enough and the league will
>bankrupt itself by deficit financing against the FAD-fans, and we'll
>reclaim the league for a second time.
Good, I guess you can base your argument on such a fantasy. Just wait...
>> And who are you to determine what's right or wrong?
>
>I'm a paying customer, and more importantly a lifelong fan. I've payed my
>dues,
And you've got what you deserve: hockey entertainment in the past. That's
all you are entitled to. What you paid didn't get you ownership on the
team or the power to run the league. Why do you think the league
owes you anything more?
>helped build the league to where it is now.
That's why you have your team in Toronto. Who's going to take away the
Leafs?
>Therefore I have a say in what is right and wrong.
Since your logic
you paid for the product in the past =>
you determine the direction of the product in the future
is flawed, you have no say in what's right and wrong.
>Now WHO are YOU to argue?
Just someone with common sense. You have no say in right or wrong for other
people's business, just by paying for tickets.
>> do you represent God?
>
>Haven't you heard? I'm his front office guy.
Oh, so another hockey fanatic who got insane...
>> And that's according to logic? where is that logic defined?
>
>The logic is the basis for the arguments about the marketing and
>sustainability of the sport.
That's your opinion. Your opinion doesn't represent logic. Apparently
the league is going another marketing direction -- exploring new American
markets in order to go big-time.
>The casual fan, including yourself, are
>quick money but nothing to draw any long term growth plans on.
Well, the small market loyal fans are proofs that they were nothing to
draw current growth plans on, let alone long term growth plans. What
does that tell you?
>The minute there is something more interesting to watch
>(X-games anyone?), then the NHL loses the draw for U.S. contracts, and
>the need for teams like Atlanta disappear.
Well, the current minute is that the teams in Quebec/Winnepeg already
disappeared.
>No you just share the same brain cell, and it's malignant.
Well, if that's malignant, what does it say about yours? already dead, as
in the Jets/Nordiques.
>My bitterness
>is due to the illogical occuring right in the face of the logical.
Nope, your bitterness is due to your small market's weakness...
>Had
>there been one expansion team, I'd have no qualms with Minn. getting it,
>nor would I have a problem with them getting Edmonton, although, I'd
>still be disappointed that the Oilers move south. But going to these
>two-bit un-proven towns that have as much hockey history as MooseJaw has
>baseball history, that's where it's irksome. It's not a well-balanced,
>logical method of expansion.
And you care to tell us how much hockey (as in NHL) history was there
in Quebec and Winnepeg and Edmonton? I presume that you were one of the
vocal opponents of having NHL teams there back in 1980, or were you born
back then?
>> And if the league wants to go to that direction, i.e. entertainment, are
>> they entitled to?
>
>Sure, but they'd better refund my season's tickets,
Which team's season tickets? did they point a gun at your head to buy
their season tickets?
>and they'd better
>refund every taz/tax dollar that has gone into creating the league.
Were there a contractual agreement on that? or you want a refund based on
your fantasy?
> Then, I'll spend my money on hockey and not pro ice-wrestling.
But as you said, you are a purist. Real hockey fans would just go to games
and enjoy the entertainment.
>Actually they are still beholden to the fans as long as the fans pay for
>season's tickets and stadiums, and give tax breaks.
Yep, and are you saying that the Jets/Nordiques are still getting ticket
money from Winnepeg/Quebec? stadium revenues? What bastards!
You mean fans in Winnepeg and Quebec are still paying their money to the
teams for no NHL games to attend? That tells you the IQs of those citizens.
>If I bought the final
>product (ie. payed after the game, what I thought it was worth), then you
>would be correct, otherwise you're way off the mark.
I will worry about it iff you can tell me who's still paying for Jets/Nords
season tickets, that the league should still behold to...
>Yes the owners act
>the way you think, childish and myopically, but it will come back at them
>in the end.
"will" is your speculation. I think the league "will" be fine. That ends
your speculation.
>> That's just speculation. If you can speculate, so can I: the NHL will
>> make a great business, and improve its status among the major sports.
>
>Sure, and BATtman will be president of the U.S.A., sure!
OK, so you can't support your speculation. In other words, you really have
no argument against Bettman, except your subjective specualation which is
based on bitterness.
>The problem is that I'm talking economics and marketing to someone who
>doesn't understand the concept of inflation.
Nope, you have no qualificaiton to talk about economics and marketing. You
even think that the Jets/Nords are still drawing money from Winnepeg/Quebec
for season tickets. That simple claim disqualifies you.
VLDept-E.LOR(MT5655)1240MT
In article <8680376...@dejanews.com>, <Taz...@Uknow.ca> wrote:
>> >> >The salaries aren't the problem,
>> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>> >> They aren't? then why did the Nords and the Jets moved? why did the Oilers
>> >> fail to keep Gretzky, Messier, Anderson, Fuhr, Kurri, etc. on Canadian
>soil?
>> >
>> >Prove to me that it was salaries that did it.
>> You made a BS claim, and I have to prove to you that the complement is not
>> true?
>
>I was responding to the statement that salaries ARE the problem.
>Prove to me that they are. Why should I disprove it?
I was responding to the statement that salaries are not the problem. Prove
to me that they aren't. Why should I prove it?
You made the statement that salary was not the problem, from your article in
<8671135...@dejanews.com>, posted on 6/24/97:
In article <x4k3eqd...@panix.com>,
John Bradley <j...@panix.com> wrote:
> There are forces there that he can't control. The league made an effort
> to improve the financial position of the Canadian teams with their
> subsidy program. If Bettman had his way, the last collective bargaining
> agreement would have included a salary cap that may have made things
> better for the small market teams.
The salaries aren't the problem, ...
So, where did John Bradley say that salary was the problem?
If I want proof that salaries aren't the problem, it's MY responsibility
to ask you for it. So from my point of view, you made a bold claim
without proof.
>Salaries are an unreliable determinant of anything, other than wages.
Is that a fact or just your opinion?
>> >Salaries are a good excuse,
>> or a good reason.
>Until you prove it, they are an excuse.
You made claims that you couldn't justify, yet I have to prove it? you
are really an idiot, a lying idiot...
>> >Was it Salaries that moved the Browns?
>> You are not talking about the Browns. You are talking about NHL franchises
>> that can't survive in Winnepeg and Quebec.
>
>You're saying that they are totally unrelated, since one is football and
>the other is hockey?
Of course, did Art Modell sell the team to a new group in Baltimore?
>Did salaries move the North Stars, then?
Well, America didn't lose the North Stars. The last I check, the city that
gain the North Stars is still in America.
>It's not a 'hot commodity' in Canada, it's a staple. It's our bread and
>butter.
What? you can't even keep your bread and butter on your soil?
>Why doesn't many of the world's art/cultural treasure
>tay in their native countries? Because Americans and other Pillagers are
>willing to pay more than the governments to keep the articles where they
>belong.
Oh, so you think hockey belong to Canada like an artifact. Fortunately, what
you think doesn't match reality.
>They did use taxpayer money, up until the tax payer said "F-off!".
Oh, so they like their tax money for better purpose than hockey. In other
words, hockey is not your bread and butter or staple.
>> That's right. And do you think player leaving the team for a bigger contract
>> is disloyal? That tells us how screw-up your perspective is?
>
>My perspective is mighty fine, think you should check yours though.
Nope, mine is OK, since that's how most people in the real world work -- go to
the place for better professional opportunities. I guess hockey players have
better perspective than you do...
>How much do you think the Gretzky trade hurt Edmonton? Alot, that's due to a
>loss of loyalty.
Well, hockey trade is part of the business. Only a fool like you would
compare it to loyalty...
>How much harm will basketball get from more Shaq trades?
Ok, tell us how much...
>Eventually people wont' care to much anymore, unless they are lucky
>enough to get the one player who is willing to stick with his team. You
>deriding me for supporting loyalty over greed says alot about you, and
>seem to show exactly where sports is in the 90s.
Your claim that changing teams is disloyal says more about you: that you
are at the blink of insanity.
>Because they are in the middle of Massive socio-economic changes that
>haven't hit your piss-ant country yet,
Oh, so they have their perspective in place -- hockey is just a game. Glad
that the people there aren't as screwed up as you are...
>until your government learns how
>to pass a budget without shuting down for months on end. Having local
>governments buy stadiums and such is not the local market supporting a
>team.
When the situation calls for it, it certainly is if you are talking about
life, staple, bread and butter, unless such analogies are BS ...
>That has become the american way of doing things, but it's not
>economically sound.
Wow, so does it mean having a team in Quebec == not economically sound?
>Quebec and Winnipeg could easily compete if the NHL
>were a league and not a grouping of individual franchises acting
>independantly.
But the NHL is a group of individual franchise. So your premise is not true,
now fill in the following:
If the NHL is a group of individual franchises acting
independently, ________________________________________
>Quebec easily has as large a fan base and local draw as
>the Panthers or Lightning, the problem is that they could make their
>ownders more money by going to bigger markets than all 4 of those teams.
That's right. So now you realize that the NHL is not just a game?
>> The evidence says otherwise. Your small markets couldn't fork out the
>> cash to keep the teams.
>
>No, the small markets couldn't fork over enough money to counter a virgin
^^
>offer.
In other words, they can't fork out enough cash to keep the teams, why
did you say 'no'?
>> Wake up, this is the 90s.
>
>Thanks, I'll keep that in mind, now is that you're I.Q., or the salaries
>of your players?
Well, if my IQs are in the 90s, yours is at best in single digit...
>> as well as lost money in the hockey operation. Where does the majority of
>> the expenses go to?
>
>Daily operations.
Does daily operations include salaries to the players? Yes or no?
I bet you have to evade the question...
>You're soooo stupid. Salaries are a small factor and therefore everyone
>has the same salaries? Where's the logic in your attempt at a statement?
So what are you trying to say? if salary is such a small factor, why are
small market teams losing money?
>The Rangers can have their salary and then the Jets have theirs, and then
>you see who does better.
Wow, are you thick or what? are you trying to using team A is better than
team B even though A has lower salaries than B as your logic?
The fact is just that a small market team can't compete in salaries. Your
use of on-field performance as conclusion is an attempt to mislead. Afterall,
who's stopping the Jets/Nords from fielding a cheap team year in year out
(a la the Expos, the Pirates, the Twins, etc.).
>Sure salaries can be factores in and have a large influence,
Oh, good that you admit it...
>but they are far from the determining factor,
Too bad that if the team doesn't let it be the determining factor (e.g, having
a team comprised of mostly minimum salary players), that's a bad projected
image put on the franchise: doesn't try to compete. If you run a team, you
may do that, but becasue you are an idiot . Too bad real owners can't afford
to do that for long term. That's why they can't afford to let salary be
a far from determining factor.
The Expos have a Felipe Alou who works miracles (keep the team
competitive year in year out), but that's an exception, not the rule.
>> The facts tell you otherwise. If you don't believe it, hey, who can stop
>> you from being stupid?
>
>Only myself, and I'm doing a better job than you are.
Based on the logic you show, that's impossible...
>Argh, you miss the point completely, YET AGAIN! The only thing that
>drives the game is fans, period. Without them you can have the best team
>in the league winning 10 straight cups, and lose 50 mil. a year.
Well, you don't need 10 straight cups. The so-called loyal fans in Winnepeg
show up that often, and they still lost $10M in their last year, and
projected to be $20M had they stayed on more year. So who missed the
point here?
>Doesn't matter what your salaries are,
Sure does, if you pay all the players minimum salaries, you think it still
doesn't matter?
>The thing is how does it all work together. Do the salaries buy the players
>that bring the fans, not always.
Obviously you have no concept of "necessary but not sufficient".
>Does the new stadium bring the fans,
>more often than not, no. It's alot of things working together.
>Understand?
And you think 'bring the fans' is a be-all-end-all solution? How stupid
can you be?
>That's supposed to be sanctity, and buisness is never part of the
>sanctity of anything except buisness.
Well, the NHL is a business. So is business part of it?
>> >It's beginning to suck because the fans who come out don't know shit, so
>> >the league changes to meet their ignorance.
>> It's this kind of attitude that's really annoying.
>
>Because you don't know shit?
Well, at least I know more than you do...
>> Hockey is not your birth rights.
>
>Yes, it is.
More ignorances, since the people in Quebec think that other things in
life are more important. Their votes showed it.
>Enjoy it, but don't destroy it.
Who's destroying it? Your small market can't keep the teams, and how is it
destroyed?
>No they'd be O.K.
The fact is that it's not. So you speculation doesn't match the fact.
>then, it's courting the American Dunce that has
>poisoned most good things on this planet.
I see it. It's American hatred...
>What you are arguing is specualtion after the fact, which equals
>ignorance.
The fact is 2 down 1 to go. How is it speculation?
>You are speculating about the cause of the collapse in the
>same way that most Americans specualte about the cause of things.
Wait, I am speculating the cause of the collapse? why should I? the only
thing I pointed out was the collapse itself. Whatever the cause is, it's
your small market's failure to prevent it. And you have the nerve to
blame others.
>Whatever I see on the surface has to be it. And your comment at the end
>shows that you're a hypocrite.
Whatever excuse you can make up, I can still smell the sour grapes miles
away...
>No, it's just a pain, since they'll be back to the best country in the
>world,
Well, so as long as they aren't back to Canada, you still have no argument.
Your rah-rah type argument doesn't mean jack.
>but in the mean time we'll have to suffer through a bunch of hick
>yanks for a few years.
In other words, in the mean time, you are losing this argument big-time.
VLDept-E.LOR(MT5655)1240MT
In article <8680432...@dejanews.com>, <Taz...@istar.ca> wrote:
>> Dumbo, in the past 2 years we found that Winnepeg and Quebec weren't willing
>> to do whatever it took to keep their NHL teams. And you worry about what
>> happen in a decade?
>
>You're sooo ignorant.
>Just because the Canadians have once again caught
>on long before the stupid Americans, doesn't change what I said, YOU
>'DUMBO'! I said no-one, not a few people wouldn't be willing.
^^^^^^
Well, dumbo, you said
"In a decade, you will find no-one willing ..."
^^^^^^^^^^^
I said worry about the present than worry what will happen in a decade.
And you want to argue what 'no-one' means?
>So try and
>grasp a bit of the English language during your stay here.
So try and grasp a bit of common sense before you try to argue here.
>I know where they came up short, they weren't American enough for the
>American pres. It has nothing do do with small markets it has to do with
>new markets. And of course, greed.
Well, money is the name of the game. You can play along and you can whine.
I suppose the only thing you are capable of is whine.
>Right now Alberta is probably more financially sound than any region of
>your pithy little country, save perhaps Alaska (wealth to pop. ratio is
>incredbile there). However we're not going to waste our money for an
>American fad.
So if you think you can spend your money somewhere better, who's to blame
if you lose your hockey teams to our "pithy little country"?
>Don't worry other countries, including Canada, will come
>along an kick your deteriorating little butt. Canada's economy is already
>growing srtonger than yours, and will be per capita much better. It's
>already #1, so it's always hard finding ways to improve. You on the other
>hand need only look north.
Yeah, we are finding ways to broaden our hockey exposure, I think looking
north is the right way. You have lots of hockey teams for sale.
As for wealth in Canada, I'll believe it when I see it. Right now I see
your pithy little country losing your hockey teams here and there...
>> Corollary: the NHL is a big business. It's great to see it moving forward,
>> instead of the sick Canadian bastardization to keep it as a 1970s minor
>> league operation.
>
>Shows how much you know about hockey.
Yep, and that's a lot more than you do.
>It's obvious that you're simply a Yankee super-patriot ditto-head.
Nope, it's obvious that I know more about the real world than you do.
>Otherwise you'd know, and agree that the
>60's and 70's were hockey's greatest years so far.
That's your opinion. I hardly consider a 6-team minor league operation
"the greatest years".
>But since you don't
>know squat about hockey, I can see how you wouldn't get that.
Well, since you are a minor-league purist, better keep that to yourself.
>> Dumbo, in every sport, there are teams that don't do well in a stretch
>> of years, e.g. the current Kings and Islanders, the Flyers in the
>> early 90s, the NBA Clippers, the NBA Kings, the NFL Jets, etc. It may
>> or may not hurt their attendance, but it doesn't mean they have to move.
>
>According to the earlier statement put forth that's what was the issue,
>only top teams -> attendance -> etc. and therefore moves.
Really? where is that statement? you care to cite it?
You have shown that you are putting up lies to argue here, so why do you
think you can make a claim
"According to the earlier statemnet put forth..."
without any substantiation?
>So don't call me Dumbo, you dumb-ass.
Because you are a dumbo, an even dishonest one.
>Stick with the thread and try and figure out a
>coherent argument.
Good advice for yourself. Stick with what I said, not what you think
I say...
>> Wake up and smell the coffee...
>
>Smell my ass buddy.
What? your ass produce the coffee for yourself?
>The argument put forward before was the issue, and if
>you bother not to follow the thread fine.
I happen to follow the thread fine. It's you who can't stand the
challenge and have to fabricate "argument put forward". In which article
was such argument put forward?
I can't wait.
>I wasn't simply talking about
>the new franchises, although it was out of that discussion that this
>aside was created. Try and follow the issue, it does make for more
>productive use of everyone else's time.
I follow the issues, that why I know you are a liar...
>> This is really naive. You are banking your argument on something really
>> stupid: few fan support in new cities => teams have to move.
>
>That was the original proposal
Whose original proposal? you care to cite it?
>and my SARCASTIC response was illustrating
>that, almost as well as your limited rebutal has attempted to do.
Oh, so when you get caught red faced, you have to wimp out with sarcasm?
No wonder...
>Thanks
>for coming out, do a little more work and maybe you'll make the cut next
>year, DUMBO!
Dumbo, I have cut your argument to pieces. You can do nothing but to resort
to future speculation and sarcasm...
>Ed, you need help, formulating your responses and regulating your
>medicine.
I need help to stomp you? it's as if you haven't been beaten bad enough?
>I don't know how you ever got a job at Lucent, but it's probably to test
>to make sure even dumb-asses like yourself can use the simplest of items.
Dumbo, whatever the job is in Lucent, you can't dream of doing it. The
only thing you can do is to sob on yoru country's poor fortune of losing
NHL franchises...
VLDept-E.LOR(MT5655)1240MT
In article <ECnJC...@news.uwindsor.ca>,
Nestor Ocampo <oca...@uwindsor.ca> wrote:
>B.S.
>if all teams moved to better revenue areas they would pepper NY and So
>Cal.
that unreasonable. You can still keep your teams in Toronto and Montreal...
In other words, your logic is that NHL can't survive in Quebec City
and Winnpeg => all teams should move to New York...
>:Second question: why didn't the city of Winnepeg and its citizens buy
>:the team?
>
>because there are more important things to spend hard-earned tax
>dollars on.
OK, so in other words, hockey is just an entertainment. The way Bryce
and Taz argued, I thought hockey is more important to them than urban
planning, education, welfare, civil service, etc.
That tells you what's important in kids' mind...
>why should the fans pay such a severe price for an owner's
>mismanagement??
Hey, that's loyalty, you have to sacrifice when the situation is not
good. You think you can get away with "loyalty == buy tickets
when the team is good"?
>well, alot of municipal investment (tax-breaks, subsidies) goes into
>helping a fledgling team start off.
So was that enough to KEEP THE TEAM?
>when an owner greedily accepts a
>buyout from another city do they even consider compensation for their
>former hosts?
Was that a legal obligation? Was that in the contract?
VLDept-E.LOR(MT5655)1240MT
In article <8680445...@dejanews.com>, <Taz...@istar.ca> wrote:
>> Boy, you really need a life. It's obvious that hockey won't come back
>> to your Canadian small markets. Either you wake up, or improve your country's
>> economy, or bring such sour attitude to your grave eventually...
>
>'Tis you sir, that needs a life.
>Our economy is doing quite fine thank you,
If your economy is doing quite fine, how did you lose franchises to the
Yanks?
>and our society is doing MUCH MUCH better than yours.
I won't bet on it, if hockey is your bread and butter/staples/life...
>If you are
>truely interested in our economy, then please pay the $trillions, that
>you owe us, and then we'll see how things go.
More lies. How did the Americans owe you $trillions?
>Or are you not only
>ignorant but also a liar, cheat, thief, etc.
Well, as far as lying is concern, you have done quite a lot in this
argument...
>You can make the check out
>to "The decendant of the New England Loyalists", we'll be sure to ear
>mark a few billion for our new hockey league you wish for us to create.
Well, I sure wouldn't do such a dumb thing. Why are you entitled to such
a payment? Who do you think you are?
>Otherwise shut-up about your stupid superiority complex,
Why shut-up? your stupid inferiority complex is getting to you, that
you even think that you are the superior one. I guess generation long
sub-ordination is getting you...
VLDept-E.LOR(MT5655)1240MT
In article <5pq0df$cd4$1...@thor.atcon.com>, Bryce McNeil <j...@atcon.com> wrote:
>> Really? you care to provide any evidence in this 'grand scheme of things"?
>> or is it some bluffing that you make up?
>Well I heard from researched reliable sources (HNIC) that they are losing money. Why
>should I believe you over them?
sources? Without citing their ledgers? And why should I believe your
simplistic way of calculating assets (not selling yet == not making money)?
>> In the grand scheme of things, I see the owners sharing $320M just
>> for expansion.
>So what? If the NHL had expanded to Hamilton, they would have paid the expansion fee
>and the NHL would still get the 320 million.
So what? so your claim that they lost money is refuted. That's what.
As of whether they should expand to Hamilton. It's another matter.
>> What's so big deal about selling out games in Winnepeg then?
>What?
What "what"?
>> The NFL has a lucrative contract that does revenue sharing. Can the
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>> NHL say the same?
>Actually the NHL does have something like that I think. I`m not sure though...
Well, the NHL has a lucrative contract from American network TV? There is
one thing that I am sure: you are on drugs.
>> When you have to resort your argument to an NFL franchise, it means you
>> have only thin ice to stand on...
>Really? Why do you say that? You said the NHL wanted to go big-time. I get the
>impression big-time leagues can`t have small market cities.
Nope, the NFL doesn't have any small market cities like Quebec/Winnepeg/
Edmonton, true or false?
>So either my point is
>completely relevant, or you don`t think the NFL is a big-league.
Your point is misleading, since there are no markets like Quebec/Winnepeg/
Edmonton in the NFL. So what are you trying to say?
>Did the citizens of New York ever have to pay to buy the Rangers? There are tons more
>examples...
New York is a big market. The Rangers have no problem staying in New York.
Actually, the area has 3 teams. Can Winnepeg say the same?
>According to what reality? The fact that the teams are losing money in their new
>cities?
Well, dumbo, if (big IF) the new owners can afford to lose money in their new cities,
that's still their rights. So someone is willing to lose money in
Denver instead of in Quebec. Why is that?
Is it because Denver has a better potential to turn a profit? to increase
franchise value? Now why didn't Quebec show that potential?
>It doesn`t really matter how many fans there are in the city. The corporations and
>multi-owners haul a team to some city that is convenient for them, not really noticing
>the fan base.
If fan base has nothing to do with the capital appreciation of the franchise,
sure, why is fan base a factor?
>After all Colorado and Phoenix are losing money...
After all a team in Colorado/Phoenix can demand much more money than a team
in Winnepeg. Even a team in a virgin market like Nashville/Atlanta is worth
2X the Jets when they were in Winnepeg.
>I wouldn`t pay a tax if I knew that my team was going to leave. If they had built the
>arena the team still might still have been sold. It wasn`t 100%. They tried
>fundraising instead. And the NHL wouldn`t allow them to buy the team. It might be that
>they didn`t approve the tax for that reason, but of course that is only specualtion.
Kid, when you argue, leave the speculation for your lunch. Go ask the adults how
to argue based on facts.
>> Well, too bad, what you THINK doesn't mean jack...
>Well that`s all well and good. But when your favorite team is shuttling off to Mexico
>City in the future,
Talk to me again when that happens. As of now, that's a non-issue.
>I`ll be right here to remind you that "Mexico City is a bigger
>market" and that there`s "Far more room for development there" and that "What you think
>doesn`t mean jack". It would be interesting if all the NHL fans who didn`t agree with
>the whole Winnipeg/Quebec situations boycotted the game. Then you would find out if
>what the fans think means anything.
It would be interesting if your premise (boycotted the game) is true.
Too bad that it isn't true.
>If I caught a bus to Toronto tomorrow do I suddenly deserve a major hockey team?
Yep, if you personally see the game in Toronto. Do people in Winnepeg/Quebec plan
to commute to Toronto to attend every game?
>> >In the first year they lost money. That`s a fact.
>> Your fact doesn't lead to any meaningful conclusion...
>The fact that they lost money doesn`t lead to any meaningful conclusion. Well, since
>you stated that they moved to make more money, I think it might.
Yep, they moved to make more money, in terms of capital appreciation of
franchises. Something you can't deny. Now as of why an American big-market
franchise is worth leaps and bounds more than a small Canadian franchise,
e.g, back in 1995, the "well-supported" Jets was estimated as $34M while
the woeful Kings were estimated as $78M, I guess you can give us an
explanation.
>> >That is to say that they would have made more money by not existing.
>> If that's the case, you are making a case for the Jets not existing.
>> So what are you arguing about?
>The Jets franchise still exists as the Phoenix Coyotes.
The Winnepeg Jets didn't exist anymore, true or false?
>The 1996-97 Phoenix Coyotes
>would have made more money by not existing than by icing a team in 1996-97. Now do you
>understand?
Nope, the 1996-97 Jets estimated to lose $20M had they stay put. So you
are arguing for not having a team in Winnepeg.
>Because the NHL doesn`t allow it since Bettman took over. Didn`t you notice the main
>reason Hamilton got rejected?
Nope, Hamilton has lots of politics than you can imagine (e.g. intruding
the Toronto and Buffalo markets), that's why Hamilton lost out in the
previous expansion (under Ziegler), so you have NO proof that Bettman
didn't allow the Winnepeg citizens to own the team.
>> >As for the loss they
>> >lost in their new city. And the value of the franchise would go up.
>> Yep, the value of the franchise goes up, but not by existing in a
>> small Canadian market...
>It doesn`t really matter if the value goes up if you are not making any money off it.
>You would only benefit when it was sold, and you would be just regaining lost income.
Dumbo, if my operating loss is $3M per year, yet my franchise appreciates
$10M per year, do you think it's a good deal?
Have you had any concept of periodically put money into an asset for
its growth (like a house mortgage, like company saving plan)?
You really have to grow up to know this game...
>I don`t have respect for Gary Bettman because of this situation. And I don`t have an
>NHL franchise because I don`t have the money.
So you better shut up. It's not your franchise, and you have no rights to tell
people how to invest their money.
>If I could find 40 000 000 other shareholders, maybe I would.
then go ahead and do it instead of whining here.
>To raise the value of the franchise. Even if you are not making any money out of it.
Well, kid, as long as it's in a big market, that's the name of the game.
That's why your naive mind-set of making money doesn't cut it in this argument.
> My point is that sport is not all business.
Professional sport in America is more business than sport. If you want pure sport,
go to the high-school/pee-wee level.
>Does the Stanley Cup mean anything to you?
>Do you think the stories the players tell about wanting to win it since they were kids
>are false?
These stories have no conflict with the business model. Have any Avs refused
to play in Denver because they left Quebec? have they rejected the rings
becasue they weren't earned in Quebec city?
>The NHL used to business another way and it was better for the fans. That`s
>my opinion and I know that a lot of people share it.
So what? a lot doesn't mean jack if a lot more people have no problem
with the NHL mode of operation. i.e they continue to go to games, they
continue to follow their teams...
>And if the NHL goes for another
>major increase, they will wait until fans in Phoenix/Denver are just attached to the
>teams as the old fans were. They`ll complain, and I`ll tell `em what they said to us.
Well, I'll worry about it when it happens. As of now, you have no case.
Kevin McGowan
I bet this same kind of argument was going on back in the 50's when
the Giants and Dodgers moved to California. People were pissed back
then too. If you are reading this list you obviously really like hockey.
Why do you think people in Atlanta, Nashville, Raleigh, .etc won't
like it too? Is there something about living in a warmer climate that
prevents people from liking hockey? I just don't get it.
VLDept-E.LOR(MT5655)1240MT
In article <8680461...@dejanews.com>, <Taz...@istar.ca> wrote:
>Bryce, foget this guy, he's just proved, SO MANY TIMES, that he is
>neither a hockey fan, knowledgeable about economics or marketing.
fans are not paying for season tickets now. That alone would disqualify
you on any talk about economics, or even common sense.
>Which is what it was all about, not about hockey or markets, just the
>quick coin.
Quick coin is part of the game, since the NHL is a business. Can't
refute that, how about making a meaningless comment like
Which is what it was all about, not about hockey or markets, just the
quick coin.
>The why did you bring it up in another post, after even having told me,
>you felt it wasn't relevant (although it clearly is, since it's pro
>sports in the U.S.)
It wasn't relevant, because the NFL is leaps and bounds stronger than
the NHL financially. If the NHL can attain an NFL like TV contract, you
can put a team in P.E. Island and Yukon for all we care, but that's a
big 'if'.
>You don't know anything about the sale of the Jets. That wasn't an option,
>although you want to argue just for the sake of arguing.
Or you don't know anything about the sale of the Jets. Who's stopping it
to be an option? Quick, how many % of the team did the Manitoba government
own?
Dumbo, stop showing your ignorance here...
>> Well, too bad, what you THINK doesn't mean jack...
>
>Likewise bud!
Well, what I think matches the reality. What you think didn't.
>> >> Only a naivette like you will believe that losing operating cost == losing
>> >> money...
>> >In the first year they lost money. That`s a fact.
>> Your fact doesn't lead to any meaningful conclusion...
>
>The meaningful conclusion is that he refuted your statement which you use
>and then you slough it off because he proved you wrong. You're a Troll.
He refuted my statement? if losing operating cost != losing money,
how so?
>> If so, then why didn't you buy the franchise and run it yourself?
>> Do you have any respect on how people run their own business?
>
>Sure but,
OK, so you have no case.
>my teams are doing Just fine right now, but with Asshole like
>yourself in the mix, when your teams go tits up because of your lack of
>support (not speculation, you've already stated your views and it leads
>to the obvious and justified conclusion), then our teams will get hurt,
Dumbo, you mean your team has not been hurt enough by the weak
financial status of the Jets/Nords? Again, you are arguing on
speculation when you totally whitewash the facts...
So in other words,
1) you disrespect other people's rights to run their business. Even if
they love to lose money in the new market, it's still their rights.
2) you bank your argument on the doomsday view of the new markets
3) you totally whitewash the failure in the Canadian small markets
So stop showing your ignorance on how to make an argument.
>and since I'm a season ticket holder, just like a stock holder in a sense
>(since my ticket hold weight with the people I entertain) then I want to
>make sure the league does right by me,
Right, and who's pointing a gun at you to buy the product? Boy, you
are dumber than I thought...
>otherwise you don't get one red
>cent of the tax breaks you want and you aint getting any concession money
>out of me (you can smuggle a hell of alot in with a nice Canadian winter
>coat).
Yes, and I guess at this moment, there are enough of you in Toronto
that the Ballard family really loses sleep about. Boy, you are really
powerful that you can force the league to be run your way...
>People can run their own buisness if they don't ask me for
>anything in return.
And you determine what's go and what's no-go for Ontario? or do
you plan to set up your own country within Toronto?
I guess only your vote counts...
>Putting Edmonton or Ottaawa in Hartford would hurt the value of the team,
>it's an American city that pales in comparison to some of the other that
>went before it.
Wait, who's putting Edmonton or Ottawa in Hartford?
>It's not just American cities, it's Big American cities,
>and their draw will peter out as quickly as my interest in your comment
>or opinions.
Dumbo, as you know, "will" doesn't mean jack here. Better wait until
it happens...
>Stick to your little warped world, and we'll stick to the
>real world thank you.
Your real world? your real world has 2 hockey teams down and 1 to go.
"Your real world" can't keep 2 teams in your kindergarten economic
model. Whose world is real?
VLDept-E.LOR(MT5655)1240MT
In article <5pu3tr$1t7$1...@jeeves.niehs.nih.gov>,
Well, all those whiners here spill nothing but sour grapes and old-man
bitterness. Their small markets can't keep the NHL franchises, yet they
blame Bettman for that instead of blaming their own financial woes.
Funny how the NHL franchises that recently moved are all WHA franchises
(the Jets, the Nords, the Whalers), and the Oilers are on the blink.
Does that tell you something about the WHA?
VLDept-E.LOR(MT5655)1240MT
In article <5pgnm6$m59$1...@thor.atcon.com>, Patrick McNeil <j...@atcon.com> wrote:
>> And I don't think those fans are loyal either. They didn't do whatever
>> it takes (like million of $$$ from their own pockets) to keep the team...
>But neither did any other city.
a problem, do you want to solve it? or do you want to let the worse
happen because other people have no such problem.
>I know the league values Americans more, and why do you think I hate Gary Bettman?
>Look at the title of the thread.
Good, so face the facts. Since you know the league doesn't value you as
much, do you think they care about you 'hate' Bettman?
>> Why should Bettman do anything to prevent it? he isn't that stupid, is he?
>Because the fans were coming to the games.
Not enough of a reason.
>So you mean to tell me, the corporation should take a chance on a US city when they
>know they can own a team in a Canadian one and have good support.
Sure, because as your feeble mind should realize that:
good fan support is not enough
>That makes no sense.
>You don`t seem to know much about business for someone who claims
>to...
Well, to a kid, of course it doesn't make sense. What does kid know about
business? They only have a simplistic mind...
>> Think about it. How many original cities that started the NFL still have NFL cities?
>No one important, only the league champions.
Wrong, there are two. But still, what does it tell you about the significance of
starting the league?
>What about people in the old American markets? Do you think people in Pittsburgh like
>him?
I sure do. If nothing else, how do you know that people during the draft represent the
hockey attendance. So even if you don't like Bill Gates, but you still love
Microsoft products, you think Bill will lose sleep about it?
>> Because the given fans are not enough to meet the demands of the league, i.e. megabucks
>> expenses, especially in big-fat contracts, the POTENTIAL of big revenue, and the
>> prospect of charging $80M for an expansion team...
>It is all potential.
That's right. People make investment directions based on potential. And the
American new markets certainly have better potentials than small Canadian
markets. Fair or not, that's the perception. And it's the perception that
1) you can't get big revenue (luxury boxes, new arenas) in Canadian small
markets
2) you can't get big TV contracts with lots of teams in Canadian small
markets
that kill you. Solution? get rid of these perceptions...
>Maybe you should, because if it got to a point that no one in Canada cared, you would
>be losing a lot of top-notch preformers. The quality of play would go
>down and then the value of the product would to.
Why should we? if no one in Canada care about the NHL? I will worry about
it if pigs can fly...
>Yes. They should have a say in where THEIR franchise goes.
They did. Actually the government did in Winnepeg's case. They decided to let it
go.
>Because we didn`t think they would steal it. Shouldn`t trust Americans I guess...
Geez, the Americans pay tens of millions $$ to buy it. And you call that
stealing? You have a weird definition of 'steal'...
>> ReallY? do you think the potential customers in the new markets are "people"?
>> What do you think of the record attendences that come to games?
>Only because teams have bigger buildings.
Team have bigger building is part of the game. If the fans don't like the
product, bigger buildings != bigger attendance.
>So you don`t think a corporation like COMSAT could have made money in Quebec?
Nope, I don't think the franchise would be worth as much in Quebec as in Denver.
So COMSAT is not an idiot.
>Because there were no local businessmen with the money. As you recall COMSAT is a
>corporation, not a Denver businessman.
What? you mean Winnepeg has no corporation that has $60M cash? You know how much %
the Manitoba government owned the Jets? You mean the whole province can't come up
with a few millions to buy the rest of the team?
Boy, your small market is poorer than I think...
>> Does it mean the Canadian fans are loyal iff it doesn't involve their own
>> wallet?
>We are loyal in the sense that we pay for a ticket. That should be all.
You are not loyal enough to pay for more expensive tickets, or taxes, because
your team REQUIRED you to do that to stay in Winnepeg.
So you try to disguise your disloyalty by saying: the Rangers fans don't
have to do that.
>No it isn`t. They buy tickets and therefore they are spending money.
They are not spending enough money.
>That is the way the American sports system works. And I don`t like it. So I don`t
>like Bettman.
The NHL is operated that way. So you don't like the NHL, right?
Sour grapes.
>It doesn`t matter. If I bought the Detroit Red Wings tomorrow and moved them to Mexico
>City because there was more people there, would you accept that?
Ask me again if pigs can fly. Why would someone bought a team with great revenue
stream and move it to a city with worse potential revenue?
Now do I have a problem that Art Modell moved the Browns to Baltimore? Nope.
>Because they knew the NHL wouldn`t approve a sale. That`s why Hamilton`s expansion bid
> was turned down.
Dumbo, Hamilton's expansion bid was turned down even before Bettman took
office (during the last expansion). You think it's because of such a reason?
The Manitoba government was already owning the Jets (32%). The
whole province had a say of using taxpayers money to keep the team there.
Did the taxpayers step up and agree to pay whatever money it needs to keep
the Jets?
>The city wouldn`t be able to buy the team.
The city was already owning the team. There was an agreement between Shenkarow
and the provincial government that the government could assume the operating
losses to keep the team there. The government wimped out.
>Once again I point to Hamilton.
Once again your excuse doesn't wash, since you have no clue on what's
happening in Winnepeg.
Get a copy of the AP wire from Ottawa on 5/2/1995, titled:
"Jets, Nordiques offered no government help to stay in Canada"
>The game isn`t fine if you change what you`re selling.
If the change results in more revenue, how isn't it fine?
>What I want is to see the best hockey players in the world play in a league that is not
>completely wrapped up in business. Like it used to be.
Then you have Lemieux and Gretzky to blame. Once they signed those megabuck
contracts, the league was not what it used to be (6 figure salaries for the
stars, games on the USA Network).
Do you want the league to adapt for survival or to fold?
>The NHL won`t allow community ownership.
Yet the NHL allowed government ownership. Manitoba even had the final say of
whether they want to foot the operating losses. They wimped out. Now
you have the nerve to blame Bettman.
>> >IN OTHER WORDS, CITIES THAT CAN SUPPORT TEAMS SHOULD BE GIVEN EVERY OPPORTUNITY
>> >TO MAINTAIN THAT TEAM. IT DOESN`T MATTER IF YOU WOULD MAKE MONEY ELSEWHERE, THE FANS
>> >SHOULD BE GIVEN SOME LOYALTY.
>> > Now do you understand?
>> I do not. Because what you said is your wishful thinking, not the reality.
>What about it is wishful thinking?
The whole paragraph. Why should the consumers decide how the business is run?
Your only rights is to decide whether you want to buy it or not.
>Yeah the guy who planted the orange got his share when he sold them to the store. This
>is irrelevant. If anything this proves what I am saying. The fans
>who supported the team get nothing back, the guy who plants the orange does.
You sure do. You got NHL hockey in town, from 1980 to 1996. You mean 16
years of hockey was nothing?
Now the team has left. What else are the citizens paying? You certainly
have the flexibility to spend the money on hospitals and civil services,
which is exactly what you want: Manitoba's decision.
So what are you whining about? or do you say that the provincial government
doesn't represent you? or give you what you want?
>The people who make the car are paid. That`s all they need to be.
Well, so the people who plant the seed: develop talent at the junior level,
got their rewards. What other seeds did the Winnepeg people plant?
>The people who bought the team are losing money now in their new cities so it doesn`t
>really matter does it?
It doesn't matter. Because a franchise's worth in Phoenix is leaps and bounds
more than a franchise's worth in Winnepeg. Fair or not, that's life.
>Act according to what facts? That Winnipeg/Quebec can put people in the seats?
Nope, that franchise in Winnipeg is worth the least in the list, that a
well-supported Jets team is still worth < 1/2 of a badly-supported, totally
chaotic Kings team.
That tells you 'butts on the seats' don't translate to franchise worth.
>What reality is he facing? The new teams moved and they lost money.
But the teams moved are worth leaps and bounds in the new cities over the
teams in the small Canadian markets.
>I don`t know why. Colorado/Phoenix lost money...
Of course you don't know. Colorado/Phoenix is worth much more money. If
nothing else, the Jets was worth $35M in 1995. Upon approved for moving,
it was sold for $65M...
What does that tell you?
--
Bryce McNeil
VLDept-E.LOR(MT5655)1240MT wrote:
> >Did salaries move the North Stars, then?
> Well, America didn't lose the North Stars. The last I check, the city that
> gain the North Stars is still in America. That doesn`t matter. Did salaries move the North Stars?
> >It's not a 'hot commodity' in Canada, it's a staple. It's our bread and
> >butter.
> What? you can't even keep your bread and butter on your soil? Not when people steal it.
> >They did use taxpayer money, up until the tax payer said "F-off!".
> Oh, so they like their tax money for better purpose than hockey. In other
> words, hockey is not your bread and butter or staple. No they decided they would rather live from healthcare and enjoy IHL hockey and then
die from NHL hockey.
> >Eventually people wont' care to much anymore, unless they are lucky
> >enough to get the one player who is willing to stick with his team. You
> >deriding me for supporting loyalty over greed says alot about you, and
> >seem to show exactly where sports is in the 90s.
> Your claim that changing teams is disloyal says more about you: that you
> are at the blink of insanity. No, people like you are on the brink of destroying sports.
>
> >Because they are in the middle of Massive socio-economic changes that
> >haven't hit your piss-ant country yet,
> Oh, so they have their perspective in place -- hockey is just a game. Glad
> that the people there aren't as screwed up as you are... If we allow you to be a fairweather fan why don`t you allow us to be diehard fans?
> >That has become the american way of doing things, but it's not
> >economically sound.
> Wow, so does it mean having a team in Quebec == not economically sound? No not really. Not anymore so than Denver.
> >Quebec easily has as large a fan base and local draw as
> >the Panthers or Lightning, the problem is that they could make their
> >ownders more money by going to bigger markets than all 4 of those teams.
> That's right. So now you realize that the NHL is not just a game? But it is not just a business either.
> >> The evidence says otherwise. Your small markets couldn't fork out the
> >> cash to keep the teams.
> >
> >No, the small markets couldn't fork over enough money to counter a virgin
> ^^
> >offer.
> In other words, they can't fork out enough cash to keep the teams, why
> did you say 'no'? They could have they just didn`t want to die from no healthcare.
> >> as well as lost money in the hockey operation. Where does the majority of
> >> the expenses go to?
> >
> >Daily operations.
> Does daily operations include salaries to the players? Yes or no?
>
> I bet you have to evade the question... Sure it does. Why do you think Joe Sakic is going to be traded from that team you say
is rolling in the money? Salaries are not all of the problem. They are part of it.
> >You're soooo stupid. Salaries are a small factor and therefore everyone
> >has the same salaries? Where's the logic in your attempt at a statement?
> So what are you trying to say? if salary is such a small factor, why are
> small market teams losing money? I don`t know, why are big-market teams losing money?
> The fact is just that a small market team can't compete in salaries. Your
> use of on-field performance as conclusion is an attempt to mislead. Afterall,
> who's stopping the Jets/Nords from fielding a cheap team year in year out
> (a la the Expos, the Pirates, the Twins, etc.). I guess the Avalanche is a small market team since they are so reluctant to pay
Sakic...
> >Argh, you miss the point completely, YET AGAIN! The only thing that
> >drives the game is fans, period. Without them you can have the best team
> >in the league winning 10 straight cups, and lose 50 mil. a year.
> Well, you don't need 10 straight cups. The so-called loyal fans in Winnepeg
> show up that often, and they still lost $10M in their last year, and
> projected to be $20M had they stayed on more year. So who missed the
> point here? They were projected to. I`ve heard you turn down projected facts so I`m just going to
ignore this
Even though it doesn`t matter since the new teams did actually lose money.
> >Does the new stadium bring the fans,
> >more often than not, no. It's alot of things working together.
> >Understand?
> And you think 'bring the fans' is a be-all-end-all solution? How stupid
> can you be? It`s most of it. Without fans you have nothing. That is an undeniable fact.
> >That's supposed to be sanctity, and buisness is never part of the
> >sanctity of anything except buisness.
> Well, the NHL is a business. So is business part of it? The NHL is part business. It is also part sport. If the NHL was completely a
business, it would be rigged so that every playoff series goes seven games. Now do you
understand the difference between the NHL and any other business?
> >> >It's beginning to suck because the fans who come out don't know shit, so
> >> >the league changes to meet their ignorance.
> >> It's this kind of attitude that's really annoying. Why? What he said was completely true.
> >Because you don't know shit?
> Well, at least I know more than you do... About what? Surely not about hockey...
> >> Hockey is not your birth rights.
> >
> >Yes, it is.
> More ignorances, since the people in Quebec think that other things in
> life are more important. Their votes showed it. Yeah life itself. The things they turned down hockey for are healthcare. It`s kind of
hard to celebrate the Nordiques Cup win when you`re six feet under ground in a casket.
> >Enjoy it, but don't destroy it.
> Who's destroying it? Your small market can't keep the teams, and how is it
> destroyed? They "can`t" support teams in the "new" NHL. That`s what has been destroyed. The old
fans give the new fans a gift, and they break it.
> >What you are arguing is specualtion after the fact, which equals
> >ignorance.
> The fact is 2 down 1 to go. How is it speculation? Because you keep ignoring the fact that you use money as a reason for their move even
though Colorado/Phoenix are losing money. Why do you keep avoiding this?
> >You are speculating about the cause of the collapse in the
> >same way that most Americans specualte about the cause of things.
> Wait, I am speculating the cause of the collapse? why should I? the only
> thing I pointed out was the collapse itself. Whatever the cause is, it's
> your small market's failure to prevent it. And you have the nerve to
> blame others. They could have helped. We helped you get started and you leave us to die? Kind of
cruel don`t you think?
> >Whatever I see on the surface has to be it. And your comment at the end
> >shows that you're a hypocrite.
> Whatever excuse you can make up, I can still smell the sour grapes miles
> away... So basically you say your favorite phrase in the whole world "sour grapes" to ignore
the fact that you are a hypocrite.
> >but in the mean time we'll have to suffer through a bunch of hick
> >yanks for a few years.
> In other words, in the mean time, you are losing this argument big-time. No not really. You keep saying "prove this" and "prove that" for something to keep us
occupied with whether it has to be disproved or proved it is always us that has to do
it. You still haven`t adressed the fact that the new cities are losing money. So you
can`t be losing the arguement, because you have given up arguing...
Bryce McNeil
VLDept-E.LOR(MT5655)1240MT wrote:
>
> In article <8680419...@dejanews.com>, <Taz...@Uknow.ca> wrote:
> >What the hell do you know about loyalty?
> Well, I know loyalty more than you do. At least you don't realize that the
> fans in the small market teams aren't willing to do whatever it takes to
anything.
> >These cities HAVE payed out millions, IN THE PAST. They were the ones who
> >CREATED the franchises that moved.
> Dumbo, millions are not enough. Franchise creation is not enough (you have
Denver/Phoenix paid to get the teams isn`t enough. They don`t have the proven loyalty
that Winnipeg/Quebec do. Glad to see you agree with us.
> >The Stanley cup in Colorado was mostly
> >payed for by the Fans in Quebec. You don't know what you're talking about
> >at all, so, I'm going to quite wasting my time on you.
> You are wasting your time, not because I don't know what's going on,
> but because you are spilling BS. Why do you think your trash can parse? What BS was spilled there. That was a statement of fact.
>
> >> Well, but then the majority of the American populations didn't like it as much
> >> when Quebec/Winnipeg were in it while Phoenix and Denver aren't. Now who do
> >> you think the league values more? you or the Americans?
> >
> >You for now,
> That's good enough. Because "you", the small market Canadians, have proven
> to be of little help to the league's survival... Yeah the NHL was going to die before Phoenix and Colorado arrived. Not likely...
> >but they'll soon understand their GRAVE error.
> They'll? As opposed to they "DID" understand their grave error of
> having teams in small market Canada? There was no grave error. Those teams belonged there.
> >There is a large portion of the American hockey
> >populace who think along the lines that BATtman's reign of terror is the
> >worst thing to hit hockey since the invention of knee check. Did you hear
> >the 'fans' of his at the draft?
> Well, more BS logic. Some fans in one hockey draft represent "large portion
> of American hockey populace"? Geez, maybe you should learn more common
> sense... Some fans in the draft, the pissed off fans in
Quebec/Winnipeg/Edmonton/Hamilton/Hartford, general Canadians who are pissed, people who
outnumber you in this newsgroup... do you get the picture yet? Sounds like you have no
common sense.
> >> The failure in Quebec and Winnipeg were FACTS.
> >
> >No they aren't.
> Then you are lying. NHL hockey didn't survive in Quebec and Winnipeg. They
> were facts. No that is not correct. Who did they not survive there? If I bought the Red Wings
tomorrow and moved them to Sacramento but you couldn`t say they didn`t survive in
Detroit. They were unnecessarily moved, like Quebec/Winnipeg.
> >> the one who plant the seeds are usually not the one who enjoy the harvest...
> >> Think about it. How many original cities that started the NFL still have NFL
> >>cities?
> >And you were saying that Football and Hockey aren't related. Screw you!
> Well, Football and Hockey are different sports, how are they related?
>
> As for the original cities that started the NFL still have NFL teams, how
> many are there? This question isn`t really relevant because the NFL wasn`t really an organized league
when it started out.
> >Why have the teams moved? Is this good for the NFL?
> Well, the NFL became a billion $$$ business, is the NHL? The NFL became a billion dollar business with the Green Bay Packers. So the NHL could
do the same.
> >How many teams were originally in the NFL?
> Well, current NFL teams remain in their cities since day 1:
> Chicago and Green Bay. What does that tell you? It tells you that the NFL wasn`t organized in their early years. The scheduling was
all screwed up, they didn`t even have playoffs.
> With your IQ, you probably don't know...
>
> >Oh, thanks for coming out Machievelli. Now I get it, you truely are a
> >jingoistic Yankee bastard.
> No, I am just a realist who aren't as bitter as you are... Realist? You don`t know the real deal that Colorado is losing money.
> >> Really? who are these most people? you mean "people" only consist of
> >> Canadians? Are
> >> the people in the new American markets "people" too?
> >
> >No they are neilson numbers and Jersey sales.
> Well, a professional sport league's survival depends on that. So if you
> don't like it, tough.
> >That's not according to me,
> >that's accordin to the figures put forth in the proposals. BTW, you are
> >the one who has turned it into a Canada vs. U.S. thing. For most of us
> >(Bryce and I at least) this is a 'traditional hockey fan' vs. the
> >Fad-fan.
> Nope, this is 'bitter fans who live in fantasy' vs 'people in the real
> world' No it`s fad-fan vs. traditional fan. I`m sure I`d find lots of Red Wings fans in
Michigan who agree with me. You admitted you weren`t a die-hard hockey fan so why
should we take your advice knowing that you could be gone?
> >We are the former, you are the later.
> Nope, you are just spilling sour grapes... What does this have to with the above statement?
> >The thing is that the
> >majority of the Canadian population is the former and the majority of the
> >later is comprised of Yanks. This doesn't mean that there aren't just as
> >many if not more 'traditionalists' in the U.S. since there is a huge
> >contigent from the North East, the problem is that you guys have the
> >exclusive rights to the Fad-fan, who are the sworn enemy of anyone who
> >loves the game.
> Well, I don't think these traditional fans love the game, or they would
> have put everything they had to save the teams in Winnepeg/Quebec. Yep. If I had lived in Quebec I would have ripped my leg off and sold it to an
amputated person to save the Nordiques. Get real.
> BTW, how much NHL traditions were there in Winnepeg/Quebec? Did you see the playoffs this year? The white-out in Phoenix? You wouldn`t happen to
know where that came from would you? The "Battle of Quebec"? That enough tradtition
for you?
> >> Well, I don't worry about your speculation...
> >
> >Just like the silly americans did in the 20s.
> or silly Canadians who simply ignore an already happened failure to curse
> about an unknown... Just what do you classify as failure?
> >Speculation, great choice of words.
> It's still better choice of words than 'already failed'. But they didn`t! They were unjustly moved. How stubborn are you?
> >> the new markets. So, should the league care about those people or the people
> >who
> >> agree with you?
> >
> >The people who agree with him, since they are still the ones who pay the
> ^^^
> >majority of the bills.
> I assume this "him" means Bryce. They are the ones who pay the majority of
> the bills? OK, so you must be talking about fans with teams in their
> markets. I would love to see how Bettman didn't care about fans in
> New York, Detroit, Toronto, Montreal, etc. And show us the effects
> of their dislike on Bettman. Did the fan support in the big markets
> drop? Now furnish some evidence. Bettman didn`t care about hockey fans in those cities because they he changed the game
they started following and an overwhelming majority of the people I have talked to who
supports those teams hates Bettman.
> So, you are so dumb that you confused people in the small markets to the
> people in the existing markets. The fact that you have to resort to insulting people like this shows your weakness and
just plain lack of respect.
> >The new fans couldn't fill the shoes of the Bruin,
> >or Habs fan base.
> But the new fans are projected to fill the shoes of the failed Canadian
> markets. And what do you say about the projection that Winnepeg/
> Quebec/Edmonton gave? They are definitely filling the shoes of Quebec/Winnipeg. You said those teams were
losing money, and so are these new cities!
> >The difference is that these fans have already financed
> >their teams, now the league wants BlockBuster and Disney to help pay for
> >BATtman new Porsche, and help suck the money that's currently there, at
> >the cost of the fans and the future of the game.
> Nope, the league just want to give the new market a chance, since the
> small markets have already had theirs... So does that mean there is a limit to how long you can have a team? That`s the dumbest
thing I`ve ever heard.
> >> Too bad the fans can't stop buying the product. So when you say "the fans
> >> don't want them to", who exactly are you talking about? the small market
> >> Canadian fans?
> >
> >I'm not going to waste my time explaining it to you again.
> You shouldn't waste your time to force feed your sour grapes to us... Are sour grapes the only two words in the English language you know?
> >You know who it is by now whether you admit it or not.
> I don't know. So you have no answer to the question, unless you can
> furnish evidence that the existing fan bases are dwindling. The attendence
> and TV ratings didn't support that. Yes, but someone can still buy the same and like the game less. I don`t like hockey as
much as I use to but there is a free game on tv so I`ll watch because I like hockey.
But not as much as I used to. I`m one step closer to not watching at all.
>
> BTW, if the hockey players got this league started, there shouldn't be
> any labor/management confrontation, a la strike. The hockey players can
> start another league anytime. If they wanted to, I have no doubt they could. They have organized tours (99 All-Stars)
and tournaments (Four-On-Four Challenge) in the past.
> So the fact that a strike happened just refuted your point... How do you know that management in early days wasn`t former hockey players?
> >There were teams from both sides of the border. The thing that caused us
> >to let it slip into the hands of Lucifer was that many thought that
> >getting a National contract was so important.
> Well, maybe then you should take the control back, make it a Canadian league,
> that getting an American national contract is not so important, filling
> teams in Canadian small markets is. Do you think you get any chance to do
> that? No because of the evil Bettman.
> >> In other words, you got the league started doesn't mean jack...
> >
> >And neither does July 4th.
> Well, we have the power to celebrate July 4th. You (the players)
> have no power to stop the Jets/Nords from moving. The Sakics/
> Forsbergs/Gartners are even happily drawing paychecks in the new
> cities. So what does it tell you? Sure. Let me ask you this: If Colorado is so money-happy, how come it is so likely
they are about to let go of one of their franchise players (Sakic)? From the way you
made it sound, Colorado was rolling in the money. They can`t even scrape up the dollars
to sign one of their top three players? Similar to your own words, "How cheap!"
> >> ReallY? do you think the potential customers in the new markets are "people"?
> >> What do you think of the record attendences that come to games?
> >
> >They are interesting anomalies. Are they still pulling in record
> >attendance in the sun bowls. Nope!
> The league have more attendence than 1990-91 season, the last year
> before the last expansion. Well when you have five more teams and half the teams in bigger arenas it`s not too
hard to have bigger attendance.
> >> If Quebec and Winnipeg was about getting new arenas, why didn't the local
> >> businessmen
> >> just buy the team and keep them there?
> >
> >You have to have someone willing to sell.
> Well, Marcel Abutt was selling. Barry Shenkarow was selling. Did
> they refuse local bids that were much higher than Colorado/Phoenix bids? It doesn`t matter if the bids were local. Is COMSAT local to the people of Denver?
> >> Does it mean the Canadian fans are loyal iff it doesn't involve their own
> >> wallet?
> >
> >Just as loyal as American fans (Minn., Clevland, Houston, Oakland,
> >Brooklyn, etc.)
> Well, American fans lose their teams to American cities, unlike Canadian
> fans who failed to put up the dough to keep the teams in their country... Why would someone in Winnipeg pay to move the Jets to Hamilton? And BTW, Cleveland
merged, Brooklyn folded, and Atlanta moved to Calgary. That enough for you?
> As in Oakland's (NFL), Brooklyn's (MLB), Houston (NFL)'s and Cleveland's
> (NFL) case, you should have had more common sense. The teams weren't sold.
> It's the owners' total discretion to move the team... I don`t know about Houston but I took the others to mean old hockey teams. Unless he
was talking about the old Houston Aeros of the WHA.
> >> When you boil down to it, the only reason that the small markets can't
> >> keep their teams is because the fans aren't willing to spend the money.
> >
> >You're wrong, and it's that simple, no matter what crack-pot cooking you
> >do.
> I am wrong? yet you can't prove it. The simple fact is that the teams was
> sold, and then moved... The only reason the teams moved was because of personal convience. My speculation is
worth as much as yours.
> >IF that's so, then why don't we have people selling nuclear weaponry? Hey
> >to the highest bidder. Or is your Smith-market system have some morals
> >and guidelines after all?
> Dumbo, nuclear weaponry involves millions of lives and deaths. Is NHL
> hockey? No but millions of people are hurt, emotionally. Your problem is as a fairweather fan
you can`t possibly comprehend what a team means to a loyal fan. That is why I don`t
take all of your points seriously. You are either at a lack of understanding or you are
a cold person who doesn`t feel sad for the teams that moved.
> >> Of course not, why would they keep a team in a place that:
> >>
> >> 1) the customers are not willing to spend whatever is needed?
> >> 2) the currency is weak?
> >
> >Currency? You don't know DICK! Currency has thing NONE! to do with
> >ANYTHING! The main problem is TAXES! So stop porving your lack of
> >knowledge about things.
> Dumbo, take your bitterness to Bryce. It's his argument that Canadian
> currency is weak. Prove that.
> >If anything the Canadian currency 'MIGHT' be a
> >good thing because of projected rises in the next few years,
> Wow, so you bank your argument on a projected rise of currently in the
> next few years? more rah-rah type of argument... Just like you bank your arguement on waiting to see if the fans come in the new cities.
We`ll wait to see if the currency rises. Why are you allowed to do it and not us?
> Come back to us after the projected rise happens... Shouldn`t be too ling, we have the highest living standard in the world, and we care
about defecit elimination (unlike some other countries I know of).
> >> Nonsense, if hockey is that important to the city, why didn't the city buy the
> >> team? or why didn't the citizens buy it (a la the Green Bay Packers)?
> >
> >BATtman doesn't like that.
> Is that a fact or just your fantasy? It is fact. Hamilton was rejected because of community ownership. Do you even read
what I write?
> Well, if you have the money to keep the team in the small markets, what
> can Bettman do? Bettman can prevent a sale to a corporation unless they agree to keep the team in the
same town.
> >He's against Edmonton floating stock, and he
> >was against Hamilton owning their expansion team thatway.
> I suppose you can quote Bettman's official line on that, or you
> are just lying. Should I believe anything you say without proof? Nope! What do you need as proof? The thing with Hamilton was all over the news. Do you even
follow hockey?
> >However, as
> >I've said MANY times before this is probably the best way to make sure
> >that a team is stable and isn't going to become a flight of the
> >bumble-bee event.
> Yep, unless you furnish proof, you fabricate Bettman's thoughts on that... What does this have to do with Bettman? He is saying that it is better to keep a team
in a city where you know they are going to be supported than move them somewhere else.
Expansion is for talking chances, and you shouldn`t even blow all of that away.
> >That's asking them to do so after they've speant all this other moeny
> >trying to secure the team in the first place.
> Well, if you are in a small market with little wealth, that's right! So if a poor person came into an American hospital, someone who had lots of operations
before, you wouldn`t try to save them and come up with the money to help them? Wow,
that`s cold.
> >Then they come back to the
> >well for more. Winnipeg could do it, but try justifying that when you are
> >closing 2 or 3 hospitals and delaying new classroom construction, etc.
> Well, if hockey is that important to you, then maybe hospitals and classrooms
> should take 2nd place. Afterall, as Bryce claimed, hockey is his life. I
> suppose life is more important than sickness and education... Well you`re not really having a life if you are not living (no healthcare). In fact
I`m kind of opposite of what you say. I`ve always defended Canada having a major junior
program in relation to US college, where they spend ridiculous amounts of money on
scholarships. Hockey is my life but not everyone else`s.
> >If
> >the city forced them to pay back what they've taken befoe leaving, then
> >you would see them willing to pay, because they'd probably get a few mil.
> >back. Second, they would only have to buy the team and not build a new
> >Arena, and in case you hadn't figured it out, the owners weren't
> >interested in just selling the teams, they wanted to make quick bucks
> >from new markets. Had nothing to do with either city.
> Of course it had, if the owner want to make quick bucks, the cities
> have to give him quick bucks. Afterall, he, not the city, owned the team.
> That's what 'owning' means... The Nords were corpratley owned and could have moved anywhere.
> >No the game is not fine, you can ask any of us from the BIGGEST markets
> >who are the loyal fans, and who created the game, and who have more clout
> >than you and you little piss-ant newbies, once you're in.
> Well, whether the game is fine or not is not based on your sour grape
> attitude. So asking you means nothing... So you are saying that a fan who has been following hockey for two years in comparison
to one who has been for fifty can just as well compare hockey in different eras? That`s
your dumbest statement yet.
> I guess Canadians are the only people in this world playing hockey ...
> I also guess that all hockey players are as loyal to Canadian small
> markets as you are. I wonder why the Nords/Jets players followed
> their teams to America... Because if they didn`t they would be unemployed?
> >> >They should have some respect.
> >> Hey, I spent the money in the supermarket to buy some oranges. Do I have to
> >> respect
> >> the person who planted the seed of that orange tree? The only thing I respect
> >> is
> >> that it's a legitimate transaction among all parties: every party gets what
> >> it deserves.
> >
> >And you don't even know the economics of the transaction. The person who
> >deserves the respect is you the consumer, not the persona who gives you
> >the oranges.
> Nope, in a transaction, every party deserves respect. Your attitude jsut
> tells us all -- I pay for the ticket, that's why I am entitled to run the
> operation... Every party deserves respect. Winnipeg/Quebec fans deserved respect, didn`t get any.
> >You don't know what you're talking about. You don't know dick about
> >economics, and so arguing with you is too great an opportunity cost.
> Dumbo, you don't know jack about the failure in your small market. And you
> are still bitter about it. And you even think that paying $20 for a ticket
> makes you team CEO... I still don`t understand why Quebec/Winnipeg losing money is failure and
Phoenix/Colorado losing money is success. That`s the most warped logic I`ve ever
heard...
Bryce McNeil
VLDept-E.LOR(MT5655)1240MT wrote:
> >Pretty easy, look at the attendance in Hockey markets, look at the
> >viewership in these same markets.
> I look at the attendance overall. It looks pretty good. It was pretty good a few years ago. So what?
> >Then look at the turn-out at the
> >'revival' cities, L.A. is even beginning to show that they will only
> >watch a winning-superstar team.
> What does it prove? L.A. has been like that all the time. When were they last fighting for survival though? I don`t recall it until now.
>
> >Sure the overall T.V. ratings are higher,
> >but that's because of the fad of hockey, which is primarily based on what
> >was, not what BATtman and the owners are now doing/screwing to the league
> >and fans.
> But dumbo, you have NO proof that Bettman and the owners are screwing hockey.
> That proof will be apparent if hockey fails in the new markets in the future.
> But you are banking your argument on your speculation -- you doom its fate
> just because you don't like it run that way... I think you should can the "dumbo" thing because you are becoming an embarassment to
youreslf. Your logic seems to be, "Try the acid, I don`t know if it`ll kill me, will
just have to find out".
> >Continue your ignorance, that's fine with me. I am part of the purist
> >group,
> So your point of view doesn't mean jack, as purist are usually not to
> realistic.... That`s a generalization if I`ve heard one. If this were you you would be asking,
"Where`s the proof that purists are not realists?"
> >I tend to consider that to be people from either country, but the
> >percentage of the pop. of each country is higher here, althought there
> >MAY be more in the U.S., since the N.Y. and NorthEast Area has an
> >equivalent pop. to Can., and has a strong Hockey crowd.
> ??? you care to convey your message in a more coherent fashion? Hey Dumbo, what was so hard to understand about that? There may be more traditonal
fans in the US but not the percentage is not a great as Canada`s.
> >Considering the depth of your thoughts, I'm not suprised you miss the
> >state that the sport is in.
> Considering your sour grapes, I am not surprised with your doomsday view
> of the present league, expect it doesn't match reality...
>
> >The meat & potatoes is the market I described above,
> Really, you get any proof that the big hockey markets (e.g. Montreal,
> Toronto, Boston, New York, Chicago, Detroit) are in bad shape? They aren`t in bad shape but they are pissed off. It takes a while to break the straw
on the camel`s back. You may have a high tolerance before you snap. If Bettman ever
made one absolutely ridiculous move, that could be it.
> >and the
> >fans are leaving for OHL and other minor leagues which offer better
> >hockey and more bang for the buck.
> Really? the last I check, league attendence has been rising almost every
> year since the last expansion. Probably because the expansion teams got new arenas.
> >The Colisse could probably have supported the suites AFTER the recovery.
> >But Quebec has economic woes that are unlike much of the rest of the NHL
> >market, except the expansion into Mexico. Winnipeg showed that they would
> >be willing to fork over the coin, and I think at least half the boxes
> >could have been filed, but I'm not sure.
> So good, you have NO substance to support your point, that Quebec and
> Winnepeg could have filled the luxury suites... I`m sure that Winnipeg could have filled the luxury suites because they said they would
have. That may not be definite, but it is more than we got in advance from Phoenix.
> >My Uncle (who lives there) said
> >it would likely have had about 70-80% sell-out immediately, and then it
> >would either go down or up depending on the fates of the team.
> If (big IF) that's true, then it's the city's and the local businessmen's
> short-sightness for not buying the team and build the luxury arena to house
> it. Who's to blame here? certainly Bettman is not entitled to buy the
> team himself and keep it in Winnipeg... No but he could not approve the sale unless he kept the team in Winnipeg. You seem
unaware of this option...
> >> Life in America, especially the New York area, is fine. We have
> >> three hockey teams in the area and 200+ games on local TV.
> >
> >Is that per season or all at once (re-runs of Isles wins) :) We have
> >probably MORE in Toronto, considering they get swamped, and then pick up
> >the double headers, and the Buffalo, and FOX games.
> Well, you have more games in Toronto != I have to buy a life.
> So you can't argue that point either. What?
> >> Nope, the only problem are the bitter Canadians who whine about losing hockey
> >> teams...
> >
> >Who whine(d) alongside the North-Star Fans.
> The North-Stars went to Dallas, so it's not America's loss. It is Minnesota`s though.
> Guess why America in general, don't whine as much in Hartford's loss... Yeah. I guess Americans don`t care about each other, you only want things for
themselves.
> >> And who are you to determine what's right or wrong?
> >
> >I'm a paying customer, and more importantly a lifelong fan. I've payed my
> >dues,
> And you've got what you deserve: hockey entertainment in the past. That's
> all you are entitled to. What you paid didn't get you ownership on the
> team or the power to run the league. Why do you think the league
> owes you anything more? Well fans in the old cities were willing to pay for more the next year. That entitles
them for more. How did Denver/Phoenix fans entitle themselves to a franchise?
> >helped build the league to where it is now.
> That's why you have your team in Toronto. Who's going to take away the
> Leafs? No one but someone took away the Jets.
> >Therefore I have a say in what is right and wrong.
> Since your logic
>
> you paid for the product in the past =>
> you determine the direction of the product in the future
>
> is flawed, you have no say in what's right and wrong. Not really. If you suscribe for season tickets one year, you get first crack next year
even though you haven`t actually paid for anything. This is the same kind of situation.
> >Now WHO are YOU to argue?
> Just someone with common sense. You have no say in right or wrong for other
> people's business, just by paying for tickets.
>
> >> do you represent God?
> >
> >Haven't you heard? I'm his front office guy.
> Oh, so another hockey fanatic who got insane... Well at least he is a hockey fan. I`m beginning to thinl that`s more than can be said
for you...
> >The casual fan, including yourself, are
> >quick money but nothing to draw any long term growth plans on.
> Well, the small market loyal fans are proofs that they were nothing to
> draw current growth plans on, let alone long term growth plans. What
> does that tell you? I tell myself that if they had kept the teams there and "grown" new arenas money would
have come up.
>
> >The minute there is something more interesting to watch
> >(X-games anyone?), then the NHL loses the draw for U.S. contracts, and
> >the need for teams like Atlanta disappear.
> Well, the current minute is that the teams in Quebec/Winnepeg already
> disappeared. Only because of unjust moving of the teams.
> >My bitterness
> >is due to the illogical occuring right in the face of the logical.
> Nope, your bitterness is due to your small market's weakness... Nah I think he had it right the first time.
> >Had
> >there been one expansion team, I'd have no qualms with Minn. getting it,
> >nor would I have a problem with them getting Edmonton, although, I'd
> >still be disappointed that the Oilers move south. But going to these
> >two-bit un-proven towns that have as much hockey history as MooseJaw has
> >baseball history, that's where it's irksome. It's not a well-balanced,
> >logical method of expansion.
> And you care to tell us how much hockey (as in NHL) history was there
> in Quebec and Winnepeg and Edmonton? I presume that you were one of the
> vocal opponents of having NHL teams there back in 1980, or were you born
> back then? All had teams in old leagues that were the NHL or NHL level in the 20`s. That`s
history that goes back pretty far.
> > Then, I'll spend my money on hockey and not pro ice-wrestling.
> But as you said, you are a purist. Real hockey fans would just go to games
> and enjoy the entertainment. No, that`s you. I go to see hockey, not fancy shows and the like.
> You mean fans in Winnepeg and Quebec are still paying their money to the
> teams for no NHL games to attend? That tells you the IQs of those citizens. Well they paid to keep the team for all those years.
> >> That's just speculation. If you can speculate, so can I: the NHL will
> >> make a great business, and improve its status among the major sports.
> >
> >Sure, and BATtman will be president of the U.S.A., sure!
> OK, so you can't support your speculation. In other words, you really have
> no argument against Bettman, except your subjective specualation which is
> based on bitterness. So what is your specualtion based on? Fantasy?
It doesn`t matter because according to you the NHL should just give teams to the
world`s 30 largest cities. Lots of room for development, it`s definitely "big-time",
and there are no small markets. Gee what could be better than that?
Bryce McNeil
VLDept-E.LOR(MT5655)1240MT wrote:
>
> In article <8680432...@dejanews.com>, <Taz...@istar.ca> wrote:
> >> Dumbo, in the past 2 years we found that Winnepeg and Quebec weren't willing
> >> to do whatever it took to keep their NHL teams. And you worry about what
> >I know where they came up short, they weren't American enough for the
> >American pres. It has nothing do do with small markets it has to do with
> >new markets. And of course, greed.
> Well, money is the name of the game. You can play along and you can whine.
> I suppose the only thing you are capable of is whine. Well you see when we started following the NHL things weren`t like that. That`s why we
were upset.
> >Don't worry other countries, including Canada, will come
> >along an kick your deteriorating little butt. Canada's economy is already
> >growing srtonger than yours, and will be per capita much better. It's
> >already #1, so it's always hard finding ways to improve. You on the other
> >hand need only look north.
> Yeah, we are finding ways to broaden our hockey exposure, I think looking
> north is the right way. You have lots of hockey teams for sale.
>
> As for wealth in Canada, I'll believe it when I see it. Right now I see
> your pithy little country losing your hockey teams here and there... Probably because we want to spend money on pity little things like saving lives.
> >> Corollary: the NHL is a big business. It's great to see it moving forward,
> >> instead of the sick Canadian bastardization to keep it as a 1970s minor
> >> league operation.
> >
> >Shows how much you know about hockey.
> Yep, and that's a lot more than you do. Not likely. Now would you like to see the NHL start rigging the games? Wouldn`t you
like them to put on six staged games and three staged periods and have a real game 7
overtime? Wouldn`t that be exciting? Maybe, but it would be a joke. This proves what
I have said all along: hockey is a sport, too.
>
> >It's obvious that you're simply a Yankee super-patriot ditto-head.
> Nope, it's obvious that I know more about the real world than you do. No, you know about the American real world and you`re trying to shove us in it, like a
lot of Americans do.
> >Otherwise you'd know, and agree that the
> >60's and 70's were hockey's greatest years so far.
> That's your opinion. I hardly consider a 6-team minor league operation
> "the greatest years". You`d be in the minority. About 99% of the people I talked to from that era liked it
better than. How lomg have you have been following hockey, five minutes? What would
you know about that era? I wasn`t around then so I`m not going to make a judgement.
But I did give you some facts.
> >But since you don't
> >know squat about hockey, I can see how you wouldn't get that.
> Well, since you are a minor-league purist, better keep that to yourself. You might have considered a six team NHL a minor-league, but I don`t.
> >So don't call me Dumbo, you dumb-ass.
> Because you are a dumbo, an even dishonest one. If you are actually resorting to this level you must be pretty dumb yourself.
> >Stick with the thread and try and figure out a
> >coherent argument.
> Good advice for yourself. Stick with what I said, not what you think
> I say... I couldn`t strick with anything you said because you haven`t said anything of
importance.
> >I wasn't simply talking about
> >the new franchises, although it was out of that discussion that this
> >aside was created. Try and follow the issue, it does make for more
> >productive use of everyone else's time.
> I follow the issues, that why I know you are a liar... You don`t follow hockey, so why I should I believe you follow the issues?
> >and my SARCASTIC response was illustrating
> >that, almost as well as your limited rebutal has attempted to do.
> Oh, so when you get caught red faced, you have to wimp out with sarcasm?
> No wonder... Not as bad as asking to prove every single thing (not taking our word for it) and
saying "dumbo" every two sentences.
> >Thanks
> >for coming out, do a little more work and maybe you'll make the cut next
> >year, DUMBO!
> Dumbo, I have cut your argument to pieces. You can do nothing but to resort
> to future speculation and sarcasm... You cut his arguement to pieces all right, you probably cut out all the pieces you
couldn`t handle when you replied.
> >Ed, you need help, formulating your responses and regulating your
> >medicine.
> I need help to stomp you? it's as if you haven't been beaten bad enough? Well the way I look at he`s won because he is still making points while your like a
tape recorder and you have ignored every major question to date. How long have you been
following hockey again?
Pelton M V (Mark)
In response to your comments that the Winnipeg Jets were Unnecessarily
moved, Check again. They moved do to lack of Fan support. In the last
few years of the team, they were one of the poorest teams in terms of
fans going to the games. They also had the Rep of being the Worst
fans in the League. Throwing things at the players, Spitting on teams
as they left the ice.... ECT. The only time they were able to fill
the seats was the last year, when the Fans Decided that if they went to
the games, that somehow, the team sould stay. Hell they were a laughing
stock in the sport... Can't blame the owners for moving on.....
I Hated The Jets and their fans. The last season, we killed them in
the playoffs, THe fans were out raged (not at the Wings, but at the
Jets) you could hear them cussing out their own team... Like it was
the players fault (and not their own) that the team was moving on.
I say.... Smart ownership.... Protect your investment, and the
hell with the whiners.
VLDept-E.LOR(MT5655)1240MT
In article <5pv6tj$34i$1...@thor.atcon.com>, Bryce McNeil <j...@atcon.com> wrote:
> Yes I`m sure that anyone would commit suicide to keep a team in the city.
>That`s doing anything.
mean losing the Jets == killing you?
So you don't have to commit suicide. You are already dead.
>Millions are not enough? That`s what we have been saying. The millions that
>Denver/Phoenix paid to get the teams isn`t enough.
Millions are not enough. You need tens of millions, probably hundreds of
millions to build a new arena.
>They don`t have the proven loyalty
>that Winnipeg/Quebec do.
They have the potential for franchise appreciation. Do you?
>> >The Stanley cup in Colorado was mostly
>> >payed for by the Fans in Quebec. You don't know what you're talking about
>> >at all, so, I'm going to quite wasting my time on you.
>> You are wasting your time, not because I don't know what's going on,
>> but because you are spilling BS. Why do you think your trash can parse?
>What BS was spilled there. That was a statement of fact.
"The Stanley cup in Colorado was mostly paid for by the fans in
Quebec".
How did the fans of Quebec pay for the Stanley Cup?
>Yeah the NHL was going to die before Phoenix and Colorado arrived.
>Not likely...
Well, the league had two dead franchises: the Jets and the Nords, and one
is dying. They have to be resurrected in American cities. So what
help did Quebec and Winnepeg provide for the league survival?
>> They'll? As opposed to they "DID" understand their grave error of
>> having teams in small market Canada?
>There was no grave error. Those teams belonged there.
Then where are they now? You mean "belong" is defined as "move away"?
>Some fans in the draft, the pissed off fans in
>Quebec/Winnipeg/Edmonton/Hamilton/Hartford, general Canadians who are pissed, people who
>outnumber you in this newsgroup...
Well, really? you mean the fans in the new markets, the fans in the
expansion cities don't outnumber you? the people in power (league,
owners) don't outnumber you?
>do you get the picture yet?
Well, the picture is that NHL hockey died in Winnepeg and Quebec.
Do you get that picture?
>Sounds like you have no common sense.
At least I have the common sense of where reality goes. You don't.
>> Then you are lying. NHL hockey didn't survive in Quebec and Winnipeg. They
>> were facts.
>No that is not correct. Who did they not survive there?
They left the town
>If I bought the Red Wings
>tomorrow and moved them to Sacramento but you couldn`t say they
>didn`t survive in Detroit. They were unnecessarily moved,
>like Quebec/Winnipeg.
That's a big 'if'. Since you claimed that you had no money to be
an owner, the premise is not true. Any conclusion derived from this
logic can be ignored.
So try something that the premise is true.
>This question isn`t really relevant because the NFL wasn`t really
>an organized league when it started out.
So in other words, "starting" doesn't mean anything. The Ziegler era
league was a minor league. It wasn't the major league that Bettman
wants it to be. So small markets having teams is irrelevant to the big
picture.
>The NFL became a billion dollar business with the Green Bay Packers. So
>the NHL could do the same.
The NFL has a billion $ contract from American TV. Does the NHL? is
CBC capable of giving a similar contract to the NHL?
>It tells you that the NFL wasn`t organized in their early years.
>The scheduling was all screwed up, they didn`t even have playoffs.
It also tells you that the NHL wasn't organzied before Bettman, i.e.
a minor league operation.
>> No, I am just a realist who aren't as bitter as you are...
>Realist? You don`t know the real deal that Colorado is losing money.
Losing money? your kiddy model of losing money? you don't know the
franchise is worth much more in Colorado than in Quebec? and before you
show any ledger of the new franchises, I wouldn't bet on your claim that
they were losing money. Afterall, you claimed "great support" of the team
in Winnepeg, which is also bluffing.
>No it`s fad-fan vs. traditional fan. I`m sure I`d find lots of Red Wings fans in
>Michigan who agree with me.
Then do it. I can't wait. I have been finding a lot of fans in the
having no problems with the NHL. It's reflected in the attendence.
>You admitted you weren`t a die-hard hockey fan so why
>should we take your advice knowing that you could be gone?
Why should we take your advice knowing that you are biased and bitter?
Have you shown any sign of formulating a subjective opinion? not at all.
>> Nope, you are just spilling sour grapes...
>What does this have to with the above statement?
What do you have to do with the NHL? As you admit, the league is going
a direction that it doesn't value your business as much as the business
in the new markets.
>Yep. If I had lived in Quebec I would have ripped my leg off and sold
>it to an amputated person to save the Nordiques. Get real.
Only ripped your leg off? you claimed that hockey was your life.
What do you prefer? lose a leg or lose your life?
>Did you see the playoffs this year? The white-out in Phoenix? You wouldn`t happen to
>know where that came from would you? The "Battle of Quebec"? That enough tradtition
>for you?
Nope. 16 years of NHL is not enough a tradition ...
>Just what do you classify as failure?
Can't keep your team in a country that consider hockey as a religon,
franchise valued near the bottom ...
>> It's still better choice of words than 'already failed'.
>But they didn`t! They were unjustly moved.
How can't a successful franchise determine its own fate? Can you unjustly
move the Red Wings? the Rangers? the Canadiens?
>How stubborn are you?
How blind are you? If you refuse to see that the franchise was a failure
in Winnepeg, that's not my problem.
>Bettman didn`t care about hockey fans in those cities because they he
>changed the game
>they started following and an overwhelming majority of the people I have talked to who
>supports those teams hates Bettman.
Well, kid, you are only 15. The complete set of the people you
have talked to may only include your parents and your buddies. And how does
that translated to the whole NHL fan population? Actually, have you
talked to people in the new markets?
Still, if the NHL overall attendence is good. Then what do you fault
Bettman for? See, your personal bias can't beat hard evidence: fans
are going to the games.
>The fact that you have to resort to insulting people like this shows your weakness and
>just plain lack of respect.
Well, I don't have respect for people who are biased and bitter, yet
try to disguise as real fans...
>They are definitely filling the shoes of Quebec/Winnipeg. You said those teams were
>losing money, and so are these new cities!
So? franchises are valued higher in new American cities.
>So does that mean there is a limit to how long you can have a team?
Sure, if it failed.
>That`s the dumbest thing I`ve ever heard.
What? it's dumb to move away from a failed plan? Tells me your lack of
intelligence...
>Are sour grapes the only two words in the English language you know?
Well, since sour grapes are the only attitude you display, I can't help it.
If you display a better attitude, I'll use better words.
>Yes, but someone can still buy the same and like the game less.
Dumbo, the only measure is whether you buy it or not. It's binary. If
the fans don't buy it, it will hurt the owners in their pockets. If you say
you hate the product but you keep buying it. Should I believe your actions or
your words?
As a business, I would love you hate my product to the guts if you keep
buying it. The more you hate it, the profit I can take ...
See, I don't trust emotional people's love and hate. They usually get
them confused...
>I don`t like hockey as
>much as I use to but there is a free game on tv so I`ll watch because
>I like hockey.
You don't count, because you have no spending power. Talk to those who
spend $$$ for tickets. If I fork out cash to buy a product, it just
means one thing: I have no problem with the product.
>But not as much as I used to. I`m one step closer to not watching at all.
Then talk to me again when a lot of people stop going to games.
>If they wanted to, I have no doubt they could. They have organized tours (99 All-Stars)
>and tournaments (Four-On-Four Challenge) in the past.
I have doubts even if they want to. So it's your opinion vs mine.
The fact was that they didn't start another league.
>How do you know that management in early days wasn`t former hockey players?
Early days? you side-step the early days NFL because it was not really
an organized league. Now you want to use an early days NHL to argue?
Hypocrite!
>> Well, maybe then you should take the control back, make it a Canadian league,
>> that getting an American national contract is not so important, filling
>> teams in Canadian small markets is. Do you think you get any chance to do
>> that?
>No because of the evil Bettman.
Well, Bettman works for the owners. So it means you have no chance of
filling teams in Canadian small markets because of the owners. Now do you
want to continue to support the NHL?
>Let me ask you this: If Colorado is so money-happy, how come it is so likely
>they are about to let go of one of their franchise players (Sakic)?
Oh, so letting go franchise player means financial trouble? so Edmonton
should not have had its franchise long time ago. They let go 4-5
all-time greats, who could have been franchise players on any other teams.
>From the way you
>made it sound, Colorado was rolling in the money.
Stop guess 'the way I sound'. You are not capablie of doing it.
>They can`t even scrape up the dollars
>to sign one of their top three players? Similar to your own words, "How cheap!"
In that case, ditto for the Canadian franchises: Edmonton, Toronto,
Calgary, Montreal, ...
>Well when you have five more teams and half the teams in bigger arenas it`s not too
>hard to have bigger attendance.
Well, if the game is so bad (changed by Bettman), what does 5 more
teams matter? If you have the worst restaurant in the area, does
it matter if you expand the restaurant by 5 more tables? or open another
branch on the next block? Would you get more business?
>> Well, Marcel Abutt was selling. Barry Shenkarow was selling. Did
>> they refuse local bids that were much higher than Colorado/Phoenix bids?
>It doesn`t matter if the bids were local.
Sure does. Local bids (including the Manitoba government) would keep
the team in Winnepeg.
>Why would someone in Winnipeg pay to move the Jets to Hamilton?
who is trying to move the Jets to Hamilton?
>And BTW, Cleveland
>merged, Brooklyn folded, and Atlanta moved to Calgary. That enough for you?
Sure, enough for me to shoot your argument. So you admit that
teams moved => fans disloyal,
right? now does it refute your loyalty claims of the fans in Winnepeg
and Quebec?
>The only reason the teams moved was because of personal convience.
>My speculation is worth as much as yours.
Not if the franchise is worth more in the new cities than in the old
cities. Personal convience? like what? the capital appreciation of the team?
>> Dumbo, nuclear weaponry involves millions of lives and deaths. Is NHL
>> hockey?
>No but millions of people are hurt, emotionally.
Hurt emotionally != life and death. And you have no proof that millions
of people are hurt emotionally. The fan support in Winnepeg weren't anything
to write home about.
>Your problem is as a fairweather fan
>you can`t possibly comprehend what a team means to a loyal fan.
Well, what does it mean to the loyal fans who failed to fork out the
cash to keep the team?
>That is why I don`t take all of your points seriously.
When you are using emotion as the argument, that invalidate your arguments.
>You are either at a lack of understanding or you are
>a cold person who doesn`t feel sad for the teams that moved.
You are an emotional hot head who can't sit down and analyze the situation
objectively...
>> Dumbo, take your bitterness to Bryce. It's his argument that Canadian
>> currency is weak.
>Prove that.
From your article <5pcl80$rpr$1...@thor.atcon.com>:
The reason that we can`t keep our teams here is because
any American corporation will make more many than a Canadian
one because US dollars are worth more.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>Just like you bank your arguement on waiting to see if the fans
>come in the new cities.
>We`ll wait to see if the currency rises. Why are you allowed to
>do it and not us?
Because the alternative is to stay put: keep the team in the small
Canadian markets, with failure already proven. That's why
wait and see in new markets > already happened failure
>Hamilton was rejected because of community ownership. Do you even read
>what I write?
But I don't believe you, because you don't put up honest argument.
Show me Bettman's quote that Hamilton was rejected ONLY because of
this reason, and have had all other requirements satisifed.
>Bettman can prevent a sale to a corporation unless they agree to keep the team in the
>same town.
But why would Bettman do that? Bettman act according to the owners' business
interests. Why would the owners want the teams stay in the small Canadian
markets? to have the franchise valued at < $40M?
>What do you need as proof? The thing with Hamilton was all over the news.
>Do you even follow hockey?
Then you should have no problem quoting Bettman saying that community
ownership was the only reason Hamilton not getting a team. Now cite it.
Afterall, Bettman had no problem having the Manitoba government owning
the Jets before they moved.
>What does this have to do with Bettman? He is saying that it is better to keep a team
>in a city where you know they are going to be supported than move them somewhere else.
But the city is not able to support the team, not with that kind of losses. If
nothing else, COMSAT would rather takes losses in Denver than in Quebec. Do
they have that rights?
>So if a poor person came into an American hospital, someone who had lots of operations
>before, you wouldn`t try to save them and come up with the money to help them? Wow,
>that`s cold.
What's the problem with you guys? why do you always try to compare an
entertainment to life, death, etc. Boy, you are really sick!
>Well you`re not really having a life if you are not living (no healthcare).
Nope, your own words, hockey is your life. Thus no hockey => no life.
So you are dead already.
>In fact
>I`m kind of opposite of what you say. I`ve always defended Canada having a major junior
>program in relation to US college, where they spend ridiculous amounts of money on
>scholarships. Hockey is my life but not everyone else`s.
Good, at least you have some perspective, that not everyone's life
has been destroyed after the Jets/Nords moved, your sick perspective
on the game not withstanding...
>The Nords were corpratley owned and could have moved anywhere.
Yep, that's why they moved to Denver.
>So you are saying that a fan who has been following hockey for two years in comparison
>to one who has been for fifty can just as well compare hockey in different eras?
Nope, I am saying that you cannot give any objective judgement on this
issue, since your emotion/bitterness already cloud your ability to judge.
You could have followed the game for 100 years, it doesn't mean jack.
And who's following the game for 2 years? you?
>> I also guess that all hockey players are as loyal to Canadian small
>> markets as you are. I wonder why the Nords/Jets players followed
>> their teams to America...
>Because if they didn`t they would be unemployed?
So what? aren't you advocating loyalty? loyalty means they should stay
in Canada unemployed rather than being employed by the evil Americans.
You should have known that loyalty requires sacrifices...
>Every party deserves respect. Winnipeg/Quebec fans deserved respect,
>didn`t get any.
Wrong. They paid for the tickets, they got what they asked for -- the
entertainment, for 15-16 years. Were they cheated of games before they
moved?
You are the one who don't respect the owners' business direction.
>I still don`t understand why Quebec/Winnipeg losing money is failure and
>Phoenix/Colorado losing money is success.
Easy, look at franchise worth. Now you may ask, why is a screwed-up
franchise like the Kings is still worth more than the Jets/Nords?
>That`s the most warped logic I`ve ever heard...
That's because you are naive. When you get older, you'll know that the
business game for adults is not as simplistic as you think...
Anders Bondensson
VLDept-E.LOR(MT5655)1240MT (l...@mtdcr.mt.att.com) wrote:
: Funny how the NHL franchises that recently moved are all WHA franchises
: (the Jets, the Nords, the Whalers), and the Oilers are on the blink.
: Does that tell you something about the WHA?
Not really. Care to tell me?
Looks like there were small cities more then anything else, but I'm
sure you have a better explanation
--
Anders Bondensson mailto:and...@uh.edu
http://www.egr.uh.edu/~anders/Welcome.html
VLDept-E.LOR(MT5655)1240MT
In article <5pv8jn$i4m$1...@thor.atcon.com>, Bryce McNeil <j...@atcon.com> wrote:
>> I look at the attendance overall. It looks pretty good.
>It was pretty good a few years ago. So what?
>When were they last fighting for survival though? I don`t recall it until now.
You evade the question. What does it prove? L.A.'s franchise, even though
with screwed up management, is still worth 2X the Jets'.
>I think you should can the "dumbo" thing because you are becoming an embarassment to
>youreslf.
"Embarassment" by beating up your argument? I like such "embarassment"...
>Your logic seems to be, "Try the acid, I don`t know if it`ll kill me, will
>just have to find out".
Why not? your logic seems to be:
"Better try the cyanide again, even though it has already killed a few
folks. It still beats trying something unknown"
>> >I tend to consider that to be people from either country, but the
>> >percentage of the pop. of each country is higher here, althought there
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>> >MAY be more in the U.S., since the N.Y. and NorthEast Area has an
>> >equivalent pop. to Can., and has a strong Hockey crowd.
>> ??? you care to convey your message in a more coherent fashion?
>Hey Dumbo, what was so hard to understand about that?
OK, for starter, can you tell us what this means:
"the percentage of the pop. of each country is higher here"
>There may be more traditonal
>fans in the US but not the percentage is not a great as Canada`s.
Is that what he tried to say? Are you two the same person?
>> Really, you get any proof that the big hockey markets (e.g. Montreal,
>> Toronto, Boston, New York, Chicago, Detroit) are in bad shape?
>They aren`t in bad shape but they are pissed off.
They aren't in bad shape? Great. You have absolutely no evidence
that they are pissed off. As long as they go to games, I would say
they are comfortable with the league.
>It takes a while to break the straw on the camel`s back.
But since it's not physics, how do you know it will happen? do you travel
from the future?
>You may have a high tolerance before you snap. If Bettman ever
>made one absolutely ridiculous move, that could be it.
Define "absolutely ridiculous move". How about using a football on ice
instead of a puck? How about an endzone for 7 points? So far Bettman has
been doing fine.
>Probably because the expansion teams got new arenas.
So what does that tell you? expansion means more fans. Do you have a problem
with more people sharing this sport? That looks like a selfish attitude to me.
"but not at the expense of the established fans", you yap?
Hey, if sacrificing the established fans (small Canadian markets) will bring
in more new Yankee fans, revenue and capital gain, that's not a bad move.
Afterall, it's a privilege, not a right, to have a pro sports franchise.
>I`m sure that Winnipeg could have filled the luxury suites because they
>said they would have.
>That may not be definite, but it is more than we got in advance from Phoenix.
Dumbo, after arguing with you for so long, the last thing I believe is
something based on "you are sure".
>No but he could not approve the sale unless he kept the team in Winnipeg.
>You seem unaware of this option...
But why would he do an idiotic thing like that? Is having a team worth
the least in the league losing $20M in 1996-97 good for his league?
>> The North-Stars went to Dallas, so it's not America's loss.
>It is Minnesota`s though.
It's Dallas' gain.
>> Guess why America in general, don't whine as much in Hartford's loss...
>Yeah. I guess Americans don`t care about each other, you only want things
>for themselves.
???
>Well fans in the old cities were willing to pay for more the next year.
>That entitles them for more.
Nope, willing to pay for more != you entitled you for it. In business,
your are willing to buy != other people have obligation to sell. You have
done business with me before != I have obligation to do business to you
forever.
So you better grow up and learn about common sense in business.
>How did Denver/Phoenix fans entitle themselves to a franchise?
Because franchise worth is estimated to be more there. Revenue is projected
to be more by putting teams in those markets. That's why they get teams.
Now, the only thing you have to argue against, and something you constanly
evade, is why is it considered a better investment to put a team in the
American cities than in Canadian small markets.
See, projection/image are stuff that you have no control over. That's why
you can't argue against it, you have to blame Bettman instead.
>> That's why you have your team in Toronto. Who's going to take away the
>> Leafs?
>No one but someone took away the Jets.
Because the Winnepeg fans didn't want it bad enough. Someone showed a stronger
demand than you did.
>> Since your logic
>>
>> you paid for the product in the past =>
>> you determine the direction of the product in the future
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>
>> is flawed, you have no say in what's right and wrong.
>Not really. If you suscribe for season tickets one year, you get first crack next year
>even though you haven`t actually paid for anything. This is the same kind of situation.
Well, you didn't argue against what I said, because you can't. How does
"get first crack next year for season ticket" translate to determine the
direction of the product?
>Well at least he is a hockey fan. I`m beginning to thinl that`s more than
>can be said for you...
What? having no problem with Bettman == not a hockey fan? another fanatic
on the blink of insanity...
>I tell myself that if they had kept the teams there and "grown" new
>arenas money would have come up.
Well, you can tell yourself lies, who's going to stop you? The fact in
that transaction just refuted your lie. The provincial government had the
option to absorb the operating losses of the Jets and keep them there.
They refused.
>> Well, the current minute is that the teams in Quebec/Winnepeg already
>> disappeared.
>Only because of unjust moving of the teams.
So it is a failure. Why would a successful franchise subject to such
unjustice even if (big if) it's unjustice?
>> And you care to tell us how much hockey (as in NHL) history was there
>> in Quebec and Winnepeg and Edmonton? I presume that you were one of the
>> vocal opponents of having NHL teams there back in 1980, or were you born
>> back then?
>All had teams in old leagues that were the NHL or NHL level in the 20`s.
>That`s history that goes back pretty far.
Well, so those cities were repeated failures? how nice...
>No, that`s you. I go to see hockey, not fancy shows and the like.
You mean something other than hockey is shown in NHL games?
>> You mean fans in Winnepeg and Quebec are still paying their money to the
>> teams for no NHL games to attend? That tells you the IQs of those citizens.
>Well they paid to keep the team for all those years.
So? Tazman was talking about
Actually they are still beholden to the fans as long as the fans pay for
^^^^^^^^^^
season's tickets and stadiums, and give tax breaks.
Do you know what "as long as" means? Since no one in Winnepeg and Quebec
are paying for Jets/Nords season tickets, it means the league is not
beholden to the Winnepeg/Quebec fans anymore...
>> OK, so you can't support your speculation. In other words, you really have
>> no argument against Bettman, except your subjective specualation which is
>> based on bitterness.
>So what is your specualtion based on? Fantasy?
What? you mean the failure in Winnepeg/Quebec are fantasy? cities so weak
that they can't control their own teams' destinies?
Bryce McNeil
Pelton M V (Mark) wrote:
>
> In response to your comments that the Winnipeg Jets were Unnecessarily
> moved, Check again. They moved do to lack of Fan support. In the last
> few years of the team, they were one of the poorest teams in terms of
the early stages of their last year.
> They also had the Rep of being the Worst
> fans in the League. Throwing things at the players, Spitting on teams
> as they left the ice.... ECT. The whiteout? That was perfected by Winnipeg`s "terrible" fans. And nothing there is
as classless as Ranger fans throwing sugar packets at Bobby Clarke, so I don`t think
that is justification for moving a franchise.
> The only time they were able to fill
> the seats was the last year, when the Fans Decided that if they went to
> the games, that somehow, the team sould stay. Hell they were a laughing
> stock in the sport... Can't blame the owners for moving on..... Funny I never heard about all of this until now... The Jets "poor" fan support not
only attended games, but put on a hell of a fundraising campaign that erased any doubts
about how loyal they were. If they were as sad as you say they wouldn`t have gone so
all-out. Not only that but they sold out an arena that hadn`t even been built.
> I Hated The Jets and their fans. The last season, we killed them in
> the playoffs, THe fans were out raged (not at the Wings, but at the
> Jets) you could hear them cussing out their own team... Like it was
> the players fault (and not their own) that the team was moving on.
> I say.... Smart ownership.... Protect your investment, and the
> hell with the whiners. The fans hated their own team so much they saluted them after they lost the series.
What terrible fans.
VLDept-E.LOR(MT5655)1240MT
In article <5pvbrv$312$1...@thor.atcon.com>, Bryce McNeil <j...@atcon.com> wrote:
>So I suppose you would do whatever it takes to not be poor, including
>robbing banks?
>Well you see when we started following the NHL things weren`t like that.
>That`s why we were upset.
Time changes. Blame Lemieux for signing that $40M contract. YOu know,
Lemieux's contract was worth more than the Jets franchise.
>> As for wealth in Canada, I'll believe it when I see it. Right now I see
>> your pithy little country losing your hockey teams here and there...
>Probably because we want to spend money on pity little things like saving lives.
Well, good. I respect your choice. So why don't you respect the owners'
choice of bringing the business somewhere else? Why is it injustice?
>> >Shows how much you know about hockey.
>> Yep, and that's a lot more than you do.
>Not likely. Now would you like to see the NHL start rigging the games?
Well, has NHL been rigging the games? you have any evidence?
>Wouldn`t you
>like them to put on six staged games and three staged periods and have a real game 7
>overtime? Wouldn`t that be exciting? Maybe, but it would be a joke. This proves what
>I have said all along: hockey is a sport, too.
Dumbo, maximizing their assets and profits != rigging games. You are
a sick person with that perspective about the game/business...
>No, you know about the American real world and you`re trying to shove us in it, like a
>lot of Americans do.
Wait, shove you in it? how? you lose a hockey team in a small market,
we didn't force you to do anything else, did we?
>You`d be in the minority. About 99% of the people I talked to from
>that era liked it better than.
But kid, 99% of the people you talk to doesn't mean jack. You mean
everybody in Denver/Florida/San Jose/Edmonton like the game better
in the 60s? even though they couldn't go to any games locally?
>How lomg have you have been following hockey, five minutes?
How long have you been born? based on your reasoning skill, not yet.
>What would you know about that era?
I know that that era's game wasn't shared by too many people. If what
you claim is true, that hockey fans invested a lot of emotions on their
local teams, then there is no way fans in Edmonton like the Oilers in
the 80s/90s less than any teams thousands of miles away in the 60s.
So make up your mind, were you bluffing when you say about emotional
ties to the local teams?
>I wasn`t around then so I`m not going to make a judgement.
>But I did give you some facts.
What you gave was something that contradict what you said...
>You might have considered a six team NHL a minor-league, but I don`t.
You might not have considered a six team NHL a minor-league, but I do.
>> >So don't call me Dumbo, you dumb-ass.
>> Because you are a dumbo, an even dishonest one.
>If you are actually resorting to this level you must be pretty dumb yourself.
Really? would you mind telling Tazman to stop using those obscenities?
>> Good advice for yourself. Stick with what I said, not what you think
>> I say...
>I couldn`t strick with anything you said because you haven`t said anything of
>importance.
Well, if you consider facts not important, that's not my problem.
>You don`t follow hockey, so why I should I believe you follow the issues?
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Lie. How do you know that I don't follow hockey? You don't even know about
the situations in Winnepeg, why do you think you follow hockey?
>> Oh, so when you get caught red faced, you have to wimp out with sarcasm?
>> No wonder...
>Not as bad as asking to prove every single thing (not taking our word for it) and
>saying "dumbo" every two sentences.
Wow, you want me to take your words for it? you have any credibility here?
As you admit, you are upset and emotional... why do you think you can look
at things objectively?
>You cut his arguement to pieces all right, you probably cut out all the pieces you
>couldn`t handle when you replied.
Well, I didn't wimp out with sarcasm. I didn't lie about the argument.
While we are at it, you have been cutting out about captial appreciation
on our argument. Is it because you have NO concept what it is?
>Well the way I look at he`s won because he is still making points while your like a
>tape recorder and you have ignored every major question to date.
Well, the way you look? with your emotions blinding you? with your
uninformative arguments? I couldn't care less the way you look...
>How long have you been following hockey again?
Longer than your life.
VLDept-E.LOR(MT5655)1240MT
In article <5q10tb$ssr$1...@masala.cc.uh.edu>,
Anders Bondensson <and...@no.spam> wrote:
>: Funny how the NHL franchises that recently moved are all WHA franchises
>: (the Jets, the Nords, the Whalers), and the Oilers are on the blink.
>: Does that tell you something about the WHA?
>
>Not really. Care to tell me?
>
>Looks like there were small cities more then anything else, but I'm
>sure you have a better explanation
NHL in 1980 were the small market teams (Quebec, Winnepeg, Hartford,
Edmonton). And these are all the teams that struggled to stay there
once the megabuck contracts are offered.
Nestor Ocampo
In article <5q18c6$b...@nntpa.cb.lucent.com>,
VLDept-E.LOR(MT5655)1240MT <l...@mtdcr.mt.att.com> wrote:
:What? you mean the failure in Winnepeg/Quebec are fantasy? cities so weak
:that they can't control their own teams' destinies?
what about hartford whalers?
minnesota northstars,
colorado rockies,
and perhaps new york islanders??
what you attribute as "failures" are actually acute acts of greed by
individuals (owners). pure and simple.
--
\|/ Nestor Ocampo
(.~.) Biological Sciences
oO(_)Oo University of Windsor, Canada
Taz...@istar.ca
In article <5ptvdq$6...@nntpa.cb.lucent.com>,
l...@mtdcr.mt.att.com (VLDept-E.LOR(MT5655)1240MT) wrote:
>
> In article <8680432...@dejanews.com>, <Taz...@istar.ca> wrote:
> >According to the earlier statement put forth that's what was the issue,
> >only top teams -> attendance -> etc. and therefore moves.
> Really? where is that statement? you care to cite it?
Sure thing Baby!
--
Subject: Re: Bettman the Bastard!
From: l...@mtdcr.mt.att.com (VLDept-E.LOR(MT5655)1240MT)
Date: 1997/06/25
Message-Id: <5or9ct$9...@nntpa.cb.lucent.com>
Newsgroups: rec.sport.hockey
So why should fans support a team that is poorly managed (e.g. the Kings,
the Whalers, etc.)? Hey, if the Winnepeggers and Quebecouis do support
losers, go ahead, but don't expect other people to be blindly loyal to
a poor product. That's just stupid.
--
Now seems like you're making wide statement about poor product and
support. Thus follows product -> attendence -> etc. (being the Lux.
suites, the merchandising, ETC.) If you try to use the argument that you
meant poor porduct in the Managerial dept. you're right F'stupid. Very
few people (me and some others here being the exception) give a rats-ass
about the management. I hated Synden even when the Bruins were doing
well, because he was killing their future, which is of interest to some
of us. Even having Dryden as Pres. of the Leafs will make little
difference if the on ice product is bad. So are you stupid or do you just
forget having said that? Second, what evidence or proof do you have that
it was management that cost the Nordiques, Whalers, OR anything else. You
make these Grand statements and then don't even back them up with logic.
> You have shown that you are putting up lies to argue here, so why do you
> think you can make a claim
This coming from the man who said..
-- I just BS him with a non-answer. Why do you think every question
deserve an answer? --
If you want, I can produce the article in it's entirety for you, as
substantive proof for ya. And this statement is WORSE than sarcasm, so
why don't you apply your arguments doubly so to that.
> "According to the earlier statemnet put forth..."
>
> without any substantiation?
Well, you have it now. There are other istances, but that's the reference.
Product = support.
> >So don't call me Dumbo, you dumb-ass.
> Because you are a dumbo, an even dishonest one.
I'm not the one who's dishonest, despite your claims, and INABILITY to
back up what you say, which you hardly ever do.
You're the one who also made the statement about someone using Canadian
Cable figures sompare to American over-air (BTW Sat. is 'OVER AIR'), when
in fact they were correct YOU were wrong, and the figure you use are
tiny, by EVERYONES standards. A 4.0 share is miniscule, many REGULAR
shows get cancelled with ratings like that. Then you want to have hockey
take up MANY prime spots. Not with that kind of marketing and viewership.
BATtman's job was to increase the viewership, and his efforts haven't
payed off in the one thing he was supposed to do which was get a BIG
national contract. Haven't seen it, and it doesn't look like it's going
to happen when it gets beaten by things like WWF and the likes. You make
think that's doing O.K., but that was not the goal of the experiment.
> Good advice for yourself. Stick with what I said, not what you think
> I say...
Perhaps if you your English were better and your arguments written
clrealy then we would be able to, but instead we have to try and decipher
what the hell you're saying.
> I happen to follow the thread fine. It's you who can't stand the
> challenge and have to fabricate "argument put forward". In which article
> was such argument put forward?
>
> I can't wait.
There it is, wait no longer.
> I follow the issues, that why I know you are a liar...
Sure, whatever, and I know you are an ignorant geek, who knows nothing
about hockey except that he can now watch a game thanks to FOX. You don't
even know the economics you use and you don't have a clue about the
references you use. Here's a good example of this...
--
Dumbo, wait until you grow up, you'll know that money is not just the
cash in your wallet. And why you do think money in the future (when they
sell the team) is not money? why don't you consider money loss now as
investment? You mean Bill Gates has no money because he hasn't cashed in
his Microsoft stocks yet?
Apparently you have no such concept...
--
And you have NO idea what you're talking about. Have you ever even owned
stock? First, Bill Gates HAS sold ALOT of his microsoft stock, in fact he
sold many hundreds of million dollars worth this year. He HAS sold alot
over the past MANY years. He NEEDS to do this in order to live, because
unless he decides to borrow money for everything and tell the people,
"I'll pay you in 50 year when I die and my stock is sold", then they
require money. He sells his stock to buy his 959, to pay for his
paintings, his suits and all the other toys. There are two reason to do
that. First, he wants to cash in on his stock while they have alot of
worth (a company like Microsoft is more likely to crash quicker than
most, and for sure crash quicker than it rose (as most companies do).
Second, he cannot sell all his stock at once becaus his PAPER value is
more than his REAL value and a rush to sell will devalue the stock as
well as change the structure of his net worth (no potential). These CAN
be related to the hockey situation if you're smart, and saying that the
future (my decade scenario) has no bearing lays waste to all your claims
in this area. The paper value is VERY volitile and can change for MANY
reasons. The value of the Jays changed drastically over the last few
years for many reasons, first, they didn't 3-peat, then they slumped,
then they got clements and made overtures indicating a title run.
Up-down-up. Meanwhile ALL the aspects of the market remain constant. Now
what dictates worth is more complicated than your 2-bit scenarios and
your small time accounting. Don't tell Bryce to grow up, it's you who
needs to grow up, especially calling EVERYONE Dumbo. You've got an
Elephant complex or something? BTW, Bryce being a Teenager has little to
do with anything. I know, and was myself, teenagers who could understand
concepts that many adults cannot. My sister is 15 and knows more about
Canadian AND U.S. politics than the majority of the U.S. voting
population (based on recent Articles published in the Globe and Mail,
during the elections, as well as Jay walking on the Tonight show which is
a sad reflection of our societies). If Bryce can support and articulate
his argument with sound logic, then he has every right to express it, and
I'd say he's one up on you.
> Whose original proposal? you care to cite it?
The proposal of new team fan support dropping => team moving was put
forth by myself and others. The teams will lose support and move. Even
following your little idea of people being "disloyal" (in reaction to the
statements made by Bryce ?) this would hold out. The teams will move once
the shine is gone.
> >and my SARCASTIC response was illustrating
> >that, almost as well as your limited rebutal has attempted to do.
> Oh, so when you get caught red faced, you have to wimp out with sarcasm?
> No wonder...
Thanks for leaving that open. No wonder... you don't get it, since you
would simply B.S. instead of using the thought intensive method of
sarcasm.
> Dumbo, I have cut your argument to pieces. You can do nothing but to resort
> to future speculation and sarcasm...
And you simply spew B.S.
> I need help to stomp you? it's as if you haven't been beaten bad enough?
Obviously. But the help you need is Psycho. since you have this problem
with dis-aassociation. You think you are actually winning an argument
when you're not. You also tend to project your flaws onto others. You
really should look into treatment. Or can you not afford it since your
gov't spent all their money on sports team venues and not on health care.
Try and get some rest and leave the Hockey to the people who know hockey.
Face-Off, Eh!
TRF
-------------------==== Posted via Deja News ====-----------------------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Post to Usenet
Taz...@istar.ca
In article <5q19nn$b...@nntpa.cb.lucent.com>,
l...@mtdcr.mt.att.com (VLDept-E.LOR(MT5655)1240MT) wrote:
>
> In article <5pvbrv$312$1...@thor.atcon.com>, Bryce McNeil <j...@atcon.com> wrote:
> >So I suppose you would do whatever it takes to not be poor, including
> >robbing banks?
> Nope, supposition wrong, try again.
Wow, you are brilliant. When someone says, "I suppose", it's a
suppositio. Well done, did you JUST learn that in your English class
today? The difference is that Bryce disclaims his suppositions, while you
simply put them forward calling people liars, etc. When you're are
clearly wrong.
> >Well you see when we started following the NHL things weren`t like that.
> >That`s why we were upset.
> Time changes. Blame Lemieux for signing that $40M contract.
No, I'd blame Bruce McNall who started things off a long time ago. He
even financed Gretzky's contract with money he didn't have and couldn't
afford. If you want to start blaming anyone blame him. Gretzky simply
said, "Sure!", so he could get the coin as well as be in L.A. which
benifited his wife and her potential continuation of her career (which
didn't happen yet). You can't even follow a paper trail let alone an
argument.
> YOu know,
> Lemieux's contract was worth more than the Jets franchise.
YOu KNOW it WASN'T, Mr. Economic genius. Lemieuxs contract was over many
years whereas the team was an immediate value. Take Taxes, appreciation
and everything else into account and guess what, You're WRONG!
> Well, good. I respect your choice. So why don't you respect the owners'
> choice of bringing the business somewhere else? Why is it injustice?
It is an injustice because it could have happened in a different manner,
instead of stealing the teams they could have expanded, and then let the
teams die of natural causes if that's what they were destined to do. The
main problem is BATtman's bastardizing of the game at ALL levels not just
the front office. The thing that irks me is that you argue FOR
economic/fiscal solutions and then you ask for governments to build the
arenas and fund the teams, which is mostly and American way of doing
things, but flies straight in the face of Adams.
> >I have said all along: hockey is a sport, too.
> Dumbo, maximizing their assets and profits != rigging games. You are
> a sick person with that perspective about the game/business...
No, you are the one with the sick mentality. Your methods are precisely
the Black Sox era thinking.
> >You`d be in the minority. About 99% of the people I talked to from
> >that era liked it better than.
> But kid, 99% of the people you talk to doesn't mean jack. You mean
> everybody in Denver/Florida/San Jose/Edmonton like the game better
> in the 60s? even though they couldn't go to any games locally?
Yeah, because they could watch Lafleur, Dryden, Orr, Chevers, Espositio,
Howe, Hull, Clarke, Etc. play and they were among the best, and the
rivalries were the best, and the game was an Incredible game, which DID
have a national T.V. contract and was the #3 spectator sport after
baseball and football (Basketball being a low #4). ANYONE who knows
ANYTHING about hockey and saw ANY of the past 30 years of games would
agree. The only thing to compare was MAYBE the Oilers and Islander of the
80s, And the tail end of the Habs and Bruins (the Leafs had Sittler,
Salming and a few, but still sucked (ever since they lost Lanny).
> >How lomg have you have been following hockey, five minutes?
> How long have you been born? based on your reasoning skill, not yet.
Great Answer (heavy Sarcasm), buy a comeback book buddy. You keep
avoiding that one. Obviously you haven't been watching hockey for long.
Obvious by your statements and your attitude to the question.
> >What would you know about that era?
> I know that that era's game wasn't shared by too many people. If what
> you claim is true, that hockey fans invested a lot of emotions on their
> local teams, then there is no way fans in Edmonton like the Oilers in
> the 80s/90s less than any teams thousands of miles away in the 60s.
B.S. Rememebr that the majority of the Population was living in the East,
and alot of it had access to hockey. In Canada people ALL across the
country got into the Games even if there wasn't a local team. Even when
they couldn't see the game (before HNIC) they listened to Hewitt. You
don't know Dick about hockey bud. Not a thing!
> What you gave was something that contradict what you said...
Which is still alot more than you ever produced.
> >You might have considered a six team NHL a minor-league, but I don`t.
> You might not have considered a six team NHL a minor-league, but I do.
Then I guess the Dunhill Cup is VERY minor league since it only has 2
teams.
> >If you are actually resorting to this level you must be pretty dumb yourself.
> Really? would you mind telling Tazman to stop using those obscenities?
Why should I? You go around calling people Dumbo, and I'll call you
Dumb-Ass. So get off your High horse, because you're far from
lilly-white, Bud!
> >I couldn`t strick with anything you said because you haven`t said anything of
> >importance.
> Well, if you consider facts not important, that's not my problem.
You have yet to provide facts which you deem so important for others. The
ones you do provide, as I've pointed out before, have turned out to be
B.S.
> >You don`t follow hockey, so why I should I believe you follow the issues?
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> Lie. How do you know that I don't follow hockey?
Simple; you just hit that keypad and prove it with every post. The number
of things you prove that you know nothing about increases everytime I
check this thread.
> You don't even know about
> the situations in Winnepeg, why do you think you follow hockey?
Neither do you. You talk a big game, but haven't produced one shred of
evidence top back up your claims. Especially when it comes to Quebec,
which you are TOTALLY wrong about. It wasn't possible for a local sale,
and that wasn't the issue put forward when the move was proposed. Tell ME
about the situation in Winnipeg, if you can!
> >Not as bad as asking to prove every single thing (not taking our word for it)
and
> >saying "dumbo" every two sentences.
> Wow, you want me to take your words for it? you have any credibility here?
More than you. He hasn't come up with CRAP yet. Opinion maybe, but not
CRAP like you.
> As you admit, you are upset and emotional... why do you think you can look
> at things objectively?
And you are being simplistic and Nationalistic, what makes you any
better. My emotions are because of the facts, not inspite of them. Bryce
may be emotional and perhaps they are colouring his thinking, but he has
yet to make a statement that runs counter to the reality of the situation
in the NHL.
> >You cut his arguement to pieces all right, you probably cut out all the
pieces you
> >couldn`t handle when you replied.
> Well, I didn't wimp out with sarcasm.
No, just B.S. which is worse!
> I didn't lie about the argument.
Yes you did, by claiming that I lied. If anyone is being untruthful here
it is you.
> While we are at it, you have been cutting out about captial appreciation
> on our argument. Is it because you have NO concept what it is?
Based on your past statement, especially Lemieux vs. the Jets you've
proven that you have NO idea what it is beyond perhaps what you passed
over in an accounting book. It also has LITTLE place in this argument
since it is as a FOX hockey fan.
> Well, the way you look? with your emotions blinding you?
And your ignorance blinding you.
> with your
> uninformative arguments?
"Uninformative"? Well that would be your fault for not getting the
information that he gives you. If they were uninformed then you could
fault him. I guess you're just frustrated with your own incompetance
again.
> I couldn't care less the way you look...
I'm sure the feeling is mutual. It might even be scary, I see a tortured
little hermit troll surfing the net for arguments so that he has
something to do with his life. You're really a sad little man.
> >How long have you been following hockey again?
> Longer than your life.
Is this based on your estimate that he wasn't born yet? Sound like it.
I think you're probably misunderstanding his statement. You probably do
'follow' hockey, but being a Circus act doesn't count for much around
here, so you don't get any points.
Bryce McNeil
VLDept-E.LOR(MT5655)1240MT wrote:
>
> In article <5pvbrv$312$1...@thor.atcon.com>, Bryce McNeil <j...@atcon.com> wrote:
>
> >Well you see when we started following the NHL things weren`t like that.
> >That`s why we were upset.
> Lemieux's contract was worth more than the Jets franchise. Contract, but not per year it wasn`t. Look at Lemieux. When he came to the Penguins
they were drawing 5 000 people. That team almost moved but didn`t because of Lemieux.
The Jets move while drawing 17 000? Come on. Lemieux isn`t entirely to blame for the
contract, it is the owners. And it doesn`t matter. The fact of the matter is that
teams in Colorado and Phoenix are losing money, which was the supposed reason for
leaving the old towns.
> >> As for wealth in Canada, I'll believe it when I see it. Right now I see
> >> your pithy little country losing your hockey teams here and there...
> >Probably because we want to spend money on pity little things like saving lives.
> Well, good. I respect your choice. So why don't you respect the owners'
> choice of bringing the business somewhere else? Why is it injustice? Because they have no reason to. If you say hockey has fallen through because Winnipeg
and Quebec lost money. Phoenix and Colorado are losing money. Healthcare is paid for
to keep people from losing their health. The owners should have made sure a town that
supports hockey didn`t lose its teams. There was no reason for it, because they
certainly aren`t making money now. Just ask Joe Sakic.
> >> >Shows how much you know about hockey.
> >> Yep, and that's a lot more than you do.
> >Not likely. Now would you like to see the NHL start rigging the games?
> Well, has NHL been rigging the games? you have any evidence? Of course they haven`t been. The NHL knows that fans love a seven game series. If
they wanted to be totally a "business" like you say it is, every game would go to
overtime and every series seven games. I guess the NHL is not completely a business
than, is it?
> >Wouldn`t you
> >like them to put on six staged games and three staged periods and have a real game 7
> >overtime? Wouldn`t that be exciting? Maybe, but it would be a joke. This proves what
> >I have said all along: hockey is a sport, too.
> Dumbo, maximizing their assets and profits != rigging games. You are
> a sick person with that perspective about the game/business... What? You would rather have seen this year`s Stanley Cup finals than a seven game
thriller between the two teams? Not me. Once they got to the seventh game they`d just
let `em go at it for real. It would be exciting.
> >No, you know about the American real world and you`re trying to shove us in it, like a
> >lot of Americans do.
> Wait, shove you in it? how? you lose a hockey team in a small market,
> we didn't force you to do anything else, did we? The way the NHL operates. You want it to operate the American way. It`s funny because
when I said I was a diehard fan you said you weren`t and that I was sadly wrong for
thinking that was the only way to follow the NHL. However, when I said that the NHL
used to business differently, youy shrugged it off and basically said that the
"American" way was the best and only real way. Kind of hypocritical don`t you think?
> >You`d be in the minority. About 99% of the people I talked to from
> >that era liked it better than.
> But kid, 99% of the people you talk to doesn't mean jack. You mean
> everybody in Denver/Florida/San Jose/Edmonton like the game better
> in the 60s? even though they couldn't go to any games locally? Why wouldn`t they in Edmonton? Thanks to Bettman, they won`t have a team soon anyway.
And the minor league hockey they had in those days was as good as major league hockey
now. And what about all the people who don`t live in NHL cities? It`s bad enough they
don`t have a team, but dilute it without giving them any?
>
> >How lomg have you have been following hockey, five minutes?
> How long have you been born? based on your reasoning skill, not yet. How long have you been born? That has to be the most intelligent question I`ve ever
heard before...
> >What would you know about that era?
> I know that that era's game wasn't shared by too many people. If what
> you claim is true, that hockey fans invested a lot of emotions on their
> local teams, then there is no way fans in Edmonton like the Oilers in
> the 80s/90s less than any teams thousands of miles away in the 60s. No, but you don`t need to have a team to follow any league. I`m 20 minutes away from a
major junior team, and that league is the closest to the NHL around here. I live 15
hours away from the nearest NHL team. But I follow the NHL. All you need to do to see
how popular the game was coast-to-coast is to look at today`s league when the Habs play
the Oilers, or the Leafs play the Flames. If it is in the west team`s rink, there are
always plenty of fans cheering for the visiting team. Yet when you go to the east, it`s
almost a regular home game. These fans love a team miles away even when they have one
in their own backyard.
> So make up your mind, were you bluffing when you say about emotional
> ties to the local teams? I don`t know what the hell this question means, you have emotional ties with whatever
team you go for. Like Winnipeg and the Jets.
> >I wasn`t around then so I`m not going to make a judgement.
> >But I did give you some facts.
> What you gave was something that contradict what you said... And that was...
> >You might have considered a six team NHL a minor-league, but I don`t.
> You might not have considered a six team NHL a minor-league, but I do. And you make what difference? I really feel sorry for you. If you were alive at the
time, you missed some of the best hockey ever played.
> >> >So don't call me Dumbo, you dumb-ass.
> >> Because you are a dumbo, an even dishonest one.
> >If you are actually resorting to this level you must be pretty dumb yourself.
> Really? would you mind telling Tazman to stop using those obscenities? I`m not refering to the obscentities, I`m talking about calling the guy Dumbo. Who
said he is dumb? Did God say it, is it written in stone? And if you have a problem
with me saying this, you are the one who said
Because you are a dumbo
Prove it.
> >> Good advice for yourself. Stick with what I said, not what you think
> >> I say...
> >I couldn`t strick with anything you said because you haven`t said anything of
> >importance.
> Well, if you consider facts not important, that's not my problem.
>
> >You don`t follow hockey, so why I should I believe you follow the issues?
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> Lie. How do you know that I don't follow hockey? You don't even know about
> the situations in Winnepeg, why do you think you follow hockey? Because I do know about the situations in Winnipeg, and you are ignoring the facts.
You say that "small-market" cities like Winnipeg couldn`t support NHL hockey. Why?
They were losing money? Gee Phoenix isn`t losing money...
> >> Oh, so when you get caught red faced, you have to wimp out with sarcasm?
> >> No wonder...
> >Not as bad as asking to prove every single thing (not taking our word for it) and
> >saying "dumbo" every two sentences.
> Wow, you want me to take your words for it? you have any credibility here?
> As you admit, you are upset and emotional... why do you think you can look
> at things objectively? Well when arguing with someone you present a fact. You either counter it or leave it
alone. You show weakness by just saying, "Prove it", basically saying that you can`t
prove otherwise. As for "dumbo" that contradicts everything else you do. You seem to
love asking us to prove stuff, so prove that we are dumb. Are you God, is it written in
stone? I can`t wait for your answer, I`m sure it will be fascinating.
>
> >You cut his arguement to pieces all right, you probably cut out all the pieces you
> >couldn`t handle when you replied.
> Well, I didn't wimp out with sarcasm. I didn't lie about the argument.
>
> While we are at it, you have been cutting out about captial appreciation
> on our argument. Is it because you have NO concept what it is? I cut out pieces where there is simply nothing left to reply and usually you are just
insulting someone. That is all.
> >Well the way I look at he`s won because he is still making points while your like a
> >tape recorder and you have ignored every major question to date.
> Well, the way you look? with your emotions blinding you? with your
> uninformative arguments? I couldn't care less the way you look... Well gee I guess the guy who`s emotions blinding him beats no one, who is percisely who
you have last time I checked. It`s funny how when it comes to moving a team the numbers
of people in the new cities matter but the numbers of people in these arguements don`t
matter. You`re right they don`t and they don`t matter in moving teams either but you
don`t realize this because you are a hypocrite.
VLDept-E.LOR(MT5655)1240MT
In <8685661...@dejanews.com>, the FarceMan wrote:
>> >According to the earlier statement put forth that's what was the issue,
>> >only top teams -> attendance -> etc. and therefore moves.
>> Really? where is that statement? you care to cite it?
>
>Sure thing Baby!
>
>--
>Subject: Re: Bettman the Bastard!
>From: l...@mtdcr.mt.att.com (VLDept-E.LOR(MT5655)1240MT)
>Date: 1997/06/25
>Message-Id: <5or9ct$9...@nntpa.cb.lucent.com>
>Newsgroups: rec.sport.hockey
>
>So why should fans support a team that is poorly managed (e.g. the Kings,
>the Whalers, etc.)? Hey, if the Winnepeggers and Quebecouis do support
>losers, go ahead, but don't expect other people to be blindly loyal to
>a poor product. That's just stupid.
>--
>
>Now seems like you're making wide statement about poor product and
>support.
Wait, don't "seem". What you "seem" don't count here, especially with your
low IQ...
Where in that paragraph say anything about:
1) only top teams -> attendance?
2) therefore moves?
>Thus follows product -> attendence -> etc. (being the Lux.
>suites, the merchandising, ETC.)
You better come up with better quotes from me, or you are just
making things up. From the above paragraph, I said nothing about
"only top teams will draw attendance", or "otherwise teams will move".
>If you try to use the argument that you
>meant poor porduct in the Managerial dept. you're right F'stupid. Very
>few people (me and some others here being the exception) give a rats-ass
>about the management.
Then you are dumb. Bad management => poor product. And if you don't give
a rat-ass about the poor product, that's your stupidity, but you have the
birth right to be stupid, so that's OK.
>I hated Synden even when the Bruins were doing
>well, because he was killing their future, which is of interest to some
>of us. Even having Dryden as Pres. of the Leafs will make little
>difference if the on ice product is bad. So are you stupid or do you just
>forget having said that?
I have yet to see anything like
"only top teams => attendance"
so I ask going to ask you again: quote it or shut up.
>Second, what evidence or proof do you have that
>it was management that cost the Nordiques, Whalers, OR anything else.
Dumbo, what evdience or proof do you have that I stated that it was
management that cost the Norqs, Whalers or anything else?
>You
>make these Grand statements and then don't even back them up with logic.
You lied about me making these grand statements and you want me to
answer to your fabricated statements?
Your named should be changed to "Farce"...
>This coming from the man who said..
>
>-- I just BS him with a non-answer. Why do you think every question
>deserve an answer? --
Well, you care to tell us how a non-answer become a lie?
>If you want, I can produce the article in it's entirety for you, as
>substantive proof for ya.
Go ahead, I want to see where a non-answer is defined as a lie. I can't
wait...
>Well, you have it now. There are other istances, but that's the reference.
>Product = support.
Well, I am still waiting for you to show the evidence that
only top teams -> attendance -> etc. and therefore moves.
>I'm not the one who's dishonest, despite your claims,
Yet you made up statements for me. Where did I infer
only top teams -> attendance?
and therefore moves?
>and INABILITY to back up what you say, which you hardly ever do.
Not until you can cite what lies I put up...
>You're the one who also made the statement about someone using Canadian
>Cable figures sompare to American over-air (BTW Sat. is 'OVER AIR'), when
>in fact they were correct YOU were wrong, and the figure you use are
>tiny, by EVERYONES standards.
Who's this everyone? using your own game, have you provided any shred
of evidence that everyone consider it tiny?
>A 4.0 share is miniscule, many REGULAR
>shows get cancelled with ratings like that.
Yes, and many business would fold with losses of $10M and projected losses
of $20M. So if you have nerve to criticize the ratings, do you have nerve
to criticize the NHL business in Winnepeg? Now do you consider something
stealing your business if they give you $65M instead?
>Then you want to have hockey
>take up MANY prime spots. Not with that kind of marketing and viewership.
>BATtman's job was to increase the viewership, and his efforts haven't
>payed off in the one thing he was supposed to do which was get a BIG
>national contract.
Dumbo, Bettman has been on the job for 3 years. Do you expect him to
take up a big national contract with 1/3 of the teams in small market
Canada?
>You make
>think that's doing O.K., but that was not the goal of the experiment.
What's the goal of the experiment? what's the time limit? You care to
shred some evidence on this?
BTW, what does $320 of expansion money tell you? Is it bullish or bearish?
>Perhaps if you your English were better and your arguments written
>clrealy then we would be able to, but instead we have to try and decipher
>what the hell you're saying.
Don't try to decipher. You have no ability to. On the other hand,
I still have problem figuring out your Canadish:
"the percentage of the pop. of each country is higher here, althought there
MAY be more in the U.S."
>> I happen to follow the thread fine. It's you who can't stand the
>> challenge and have to fabricate "argument put forward". In which article
>> was such argument put forward?
>>
>> I can't wait.
>
>There it is, wait no longer.
Where is it? where was it said
only top teams -> attendance?
and therefore moves?
>> I follow the issues, that why I know you are a liar...
>
>Sure, whatever, and I know you are an ignorant geek,
Hey, at least I don't make things up.
>who knows nothing
>about hockey except that he can now watch a game thanks to FOX. You don't
>even know the economics you use and you don't have a clue about the
>references you use.
Hey, at least I know paying $65M for something worth $35M is not a steal.
At least I know the Winnepeggers and Quebecuois are not paying for season
tickets anymore...
That's leaps and bounds more knowledgeable than your concept of economics.
>And you have NO idea what you're talking about. Have you ever even owned
>stock?
I sure do, I don't know about you...
>First, Bill Gates HAS sold ALOT of his microsoft stock, in fact he
>sold many hundreds of million dollars worth this year. He HAS sold alot
>over the past MANY years.
Dumbo, is Bill Gates considered the richest man in America because of
the hundreds of millions $$ he sold?
I can't imagine how stupid you are. You mean Bill Gates is evaluated
by the cash he owns?
>These CAN
>be related to the hockey situation if you're smart, and saying that the
>future (my decade scenario) has no bearing lays waste to all your claims
>in this area.
Your decade scenario is only a conjecture. You can speculate a doomsday.
I can also speculate a rosy picture. As of what the franchise is worth,
it's all that counts, the franchise's paper worth. That's how you get people
to invest: the potential.
Now if 4 different cities are willing to invest $320M on the NHL, you
care to justify your doomsday speculation?
>The paper value is VERY volitile and can change for MANY
>reasons.
At least in the NHL, the paper value is very bullish. That just stomp your
doomsday theory...
>Now
>what dictates worth is more complicated than your 2-bit scenarios and
>your small time accounting.
Well, it's definitely much more than your than your blinded nationalism.
$80M a franchise. Can you say anything about the Jets?
Sure, the Jets is one of the most stable in terms of net worth: usually
at the bottom...
>Don't tell Bryce to grow up, it's you who
>needs to grow up, especially calling EVERYONE Dumbo.
I don't think I need that, especially talking to someone really that
dumb. You have no concept on investment. If paper worth is not important
to you, don't invest at all. Just keep all your cash under your mattress...
>BTW, Bryce being a Teenager has little to
>do with anything. I know, and was myself, teenagers who could understand
>concepts that many adults cannot.
Except you don't understand the concept here, or you wouldn't have use
"Bill Gates sell a lot of his stock" as an example. Do you think Bill
Gates' net worth is determined by his liquidated assets?
>If Bryce can support and articulate
>his argument with sound logic, then he has every right to express it, and
>I'd say he's one up on you.
I wouldn't put too much stock in what you say. If nothing else, at
least I can pick apart your hypocrisy and lies ...
>> Whose original proposal? you care to cite it?
>
>The proposal of new team fan support dropping => team moving was put
>forth by myself and others.
This proposal has no backing.
>The teams will lose support and move.
That's just a conjecture. Now since you disclaim that your argument is
based on a conjecture, it can be ignored.
>Even
>following your little idea of people being "disloyal" (in reaction to the
>statements made by Bryce ?) this would hold out. The teams will move once
>the shine is gone.
I will believe it when I see it. As of now, since it's not happening, you
are banking your argument on thin air.
>Thanks for leaving that open. No wonder... you don't get it, since you
>would simply B.S. instead of using the thought intensive method of
>sarcasm.
Sarcasm is also a good way to cover up things you can't defend.
>> Dumbo, I have cut your argument to pieces. You can do nothing but to resort
>> to future speculation and sarcasm...
>
>And you simply spew B.S.
Really? you admitted that your argument is based on a future proposal,
The proposal of new team fan support dropping => team moving was put
forth by myself and others. The teams will lose support and move.
so how is that B.S.?
>Obviously. But the help you need is Psycho. since you have this problem
>with dis-aassociation. You think you are actually winning an argument
>when you're not.
But you think you are beating up my argument when you are not? when you
try to use Bill Gates' cash to teach me about his net worth?
>You also tend to project your flaws onto others. You
>really should look into treatment.
I don't need treatment. The only thing I need to make my life more
interesting is dumbo like you to flame...
>Try and get some rest and leave the Hockey to the people who know hockey.
Yes, and someone who claims to know hockey can't even
decide whether local presence in the small markets is important to the league
VLDept-E.LOR(MT5655)1240MT
In <5q4eda$beu$1...@thor.atcon.com>, Bryce McNeil wrote:
>And it doesn`t matter. The fact of the matter is that
>teams in Colorado and Phoenix are losing money,
Whose fact is this? I am still waiting for you to cite some evidence
that these two teams are losing money. Are you going to do it or just
cheap talk?
>which was the supposed reason for leaving the old towns.
Nope? whose supposed reason? if you want to use that as an excuse to
comfort you on the moves, that's fine. However, your naive mindset
have to avoid the real issue: the projected potential. Where is the
franchise worth more? American cities and Canadian small market?
>> Well, good. I respect your choice. So why don't you respect the owners'
>> choice of bringing the business somewhere else? Why is it injustice?
>Because they have no reason to.
They sure do. Franchise in America is PROJECTED to worth more than franchise
in Winnepeg. Franchise in America is projected to make more money.
>If you say hockey has fallen through because Winnipeg
>and Quebec lost money. Phoenix and Colorado are losing money.
Losing how much money? You know I don't believe you, so your losing
money argument doesn't have any weight.
>The owners should have made sure a town that
>supports hockey didn`t lose its teams.
NO such reason, if the town that support hockey doesn't jack up the
worth of the franchise...
>There was no reason for it, because they
>certainly aren`t making money now. Just ask Joe Sakic.
Dumbo, they don't have to make money NOW. That's what investment is
about. Besides, how much money are they losing now?
>> Well, has NHL been rigging the games? you have any evidence?
>Of course they haven`t been.
Then you have an empty argument.
.The NHL knows that fans love a seven game series. If
>they wanted to be totally a "business" like you say it is, every game would go to
>overtime and every series seven games. I guess the NHL is not completely a business
>than, is it?
It certainly is. A complete business doesn't mean you have to sacrifice
integrity of the product. Or is that your concept of a complete business:
cheating?
>What? You would rather have seen this year`s Stanley Cup finals than a seven game
>thriller between the two teams?
Sure, because those games are real, not rigged.
>Not me.
What? you would like to see 6 rigged games in order to see a game 7?
and you tell me you are a sports fan?
>Once they got to the seventh game they`d just
>let `em go at it for real. It would be exciting.
Well, for a kid, probably...
>The way the NHL operates. You want it to operate the American way.
Well, do the fans have any problem with the American way? Look at how
the attendances turn up...
>It`s funny because
>when I said I was a diehard fan you said you weren`t and that I was sadly wrong for
>thinking that was the only way to follow the NHL. However, when I said that the NHL
>used to business differently, youy shrugged it off and basically said that the
>"American" way was the best and only real way. Kind of hypocritical
>don`t you think?
Nope, I don't think so. Let's see,
The only real way to operate the NHL is the way it's being operated now,
which is the American $$$-priority way. You have doubts on that? Ask the
owners, the fans, the players, the potential investors (expansion groups).
Now is your way (Canadian small market way, a budget league) the real
way? it used to be, but no longer.
Now, on the other hand, are diehard fans the only way to follow the NHL?
do you know the NHL have fans not as diehard as you are? A lot of them
exist, here and there.
>>You mean
>> everybody in Denver/Florida/San Jose/Edmonton like the game better
>> in the 60s? even though they couldn't go to any games locally?
>Why wouldn`t they in Edmonton?
Well, then you care to tell us: are the Edmonton/Calgary/Winnepeg fans crazy
about their teams more than about the Leafs and the Canadiens in the
50s and 60s?
Yes? then fans of all these expansion teams after 1967 like this era
better than that era. It refutes your claimed that I am the minority
that do not consider the 6-team years the greatest years.
No? then it refutes your whole argument on this thread. How does NOT
having a local team in Winnepeg/Edmonton hurt the fans who put a lot
of emotions on their local teams?
So either way, you are cooked.
>How long have you been born? That has to be the most intelligent question I`ve ever
>heard before...
Oh, you didn't answer the question. Does it mean I guess right?
>No, but you don`t need to have a team to follow any league.
Fantastic, so what are you whining about Winnipeg and Quebec? How does
losing a team hurt the fans? As you claimed, they can still follow
the league...
The way I see it, you can't even make up your mind whether having a
local team is crucial in following the league...
>I don`t know what the hell this question means, you have emotional ties with whatever
>team you go for. Like Winnipeg and the Jets.
But you also claimed that you don't need the local team to follow the
league. So what's the problem of losing the Jets? According to what you
say, following the Leafs/Flames/new Minnesota team are just as good.
>> What you gave was something that contradict what you said... And that was...
About having a local team to follow...
>> >You might have considered a six team NHL a minor-league, but I don`t.
>> You might not have considered a six team NHL a minor-league, but I do.
>And you make what difference?
And you?
>I really feel sorry for you. If you were alive at the
>time, you missed some of the best hockey ever played.
Well, the hockey being played now isn't no slouch...
>I`m not refering to the obscentities, I`m talking about calling the guy Dumbo.
Oh, so the obscenitites he said was OK?
>Who said he is dumb? Did God say it, is it written in stone?
And who said the Jets were injustly taken away? Did God say it? or is
it written in stone?
>And if you have a problem
>with me saying this, you are the one who said
>Because you are a dumbo
>Prove it.
Well, easy, you claimed that the team shouldn't leave town because
they are losing money in the new cities. That statement itself qualifies
you...
>> Lie. How do you know that I don't follow hockey? You don't even know about
>> the situations in Winnepeg, why do you think you follow hockey?
>Because I do know about the situations in Winnipeg,
Ok, there was a local group trying to buy out the Jets from Barry Shenkarow
in mid-1995.
1) what's that group called?
2) how much did they agree to pay Shenkarow?
3) why did that group eventually fail to buy?
>and you are ignoring the facts.
And you aren't?
>You say that "small-market" cities like Winnipeg couldn`t support NHL hockey.
Easy, becasue
1) they don't have the revenue potential
2) they don't jack up the value of the franchise as fast.
NOw are these facts?
>Why? They were losing money? Gee Phoenix isn`t losing money...
So? does Phoenix have better potential than Winnepeg? Is an American
franchise worth more than a small market Canadian franchise?
>Well when arguing with someone you present a fact. You either counter it or leave it
>alone.
Nope, not until you can substantiate this fact. I challenge the "fact"
you present. As of now, you have NO fact.
>You show weakness by just saying, "Prove it",
Because you haven't. You mean whatever trash you say, I have to accept it
as fact?
>basically saying that you can`t prove otherwise.
Why would I have to prove otherwise? You mean when you say X, then it's
my job to prove !X? or I have to accept X as a fact? Dumbo, get some common
sense on argument...
>As for "dumbo" that contradicts everything else you do. You seem to
>love asking us to prove stuff, so prove that we are dumb.
Exactly, because the stuff you put up are suspicious at best. You claimed
that the Jets were well-supported in Winnepeg. I doubt very much. Another
poster had already question that. Or do you define "well supported" ==
"sold out their last game in the 1996 playoffs"?
You also claimed that the teams are losing money in the new cities. Why
should I believe you?
>Are you God, is it written in stone?
I don't have to be God to challenge empty statements you put up.
>I cut out pieces where there is simply nothing left to reply and usually
>you are just insulting someone. That is all.
Of course, because when counting capital appreciation, your argument that
"they are losing money in the new cities" simply doesn't wash, never mind
that "they are losing money in the new cities" is just an
unsubstantiated claim...
>Well gee I guess the guy who`s emotions blinding him beats no one, who is percisely who
>you have last time I checked. It`s funny how when it comes to moving a team the numbers
>of people in the new cities matter but the numbers of people in these arguements don`t
>matter.
Well, it's funny how this argument has boiled down to "only numbers of
people". Do you think this is a popularity contest?
The 26 cities have most butts on the seats deserve teams...
>You`re right they don`t
I am right, they don't. Sheer number is not the determining factor.
>and they don`t matter in moving teams either but you
>don`t realize this because you are a hypocrite.
Well, since I don't advocate sheer numbers of people matter in new
cities but not in old cities, how am I a hypocrite?
Now if you want to talk about sheer number of $$$, then you may be
closer to where we are...
VLDept-E.LOR(MT5655)1240MT
In <8685691...@dejanews.com>, the FarceMan wrote:
>Wow, you are brilliant. When someone says, "I suppose", it's a
>suppositio.
Well, then I suppose you are a psycho. Should I try to draw any conclusion
based on this supposition? Since you are a lunatic, anything you say has
no credibility here.
>The difference is that Bryce disclaims his suppositions, while you
>simply put them forward calling people liars, etc. When you're are
>clearly wrong.
Clearly wrong? I am still waiting for you to explain you lie in
<8680376...@dejanews.com>:
I was responding to the statement that salaries ARE the problem.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Who made a statement taht salaries ARE the problem that you responded to?
>No, I'd blame Bruce McNall who started things off a long time ago. He
>even financed Gretzky's contract with money he didn't have and couldn't
>afford. If you want to start blaming anyone blame him. Gretzky simply
>said, "Sure!", so he could get the coin as well as be in L.A. which
>benifited his wife and her potential continuation of her career (which
>didn't happen yet). You can't even follow a paper trail let alone an
>argument.
Well, did Gretzky sign a $40M contract? you can't even follow the facts.
Now, you didn't argue the point that time has changed. Is that an
admission from you this point stands?
>YOu KNOW it WASN'T, Mr. Economic genius. Lemieuxs contract was over many
>years whereas the team was an immediate value.
Dumbo. Lemieux's contract was over many years? how many years have elapsed?
Now does Lemieux's contract still worth more than the $35M the Jets was
worth in 1995?
>Take Taxes, appreciation
>and everything else into account and guess what, You're WRONG!
Yes, and why don't you take into account Lemieux investing his money
wisely? what is that worth now? Guess what, you are a kiddy mind with
no concept of money. My advice is that you should ask your dad about
things like this...
>It is an injustice because it could have happened in a different manner,
It could have happened in a different manner != it's an injustice. Get
a clue about "injustice", like having the net subject to your juvenile
ranting and raving...
>instead of stealing the teams they could have expanded,
More lunacy from you. You think paying $65M for something that's worth $35M
is 'stealing'? You really have to learn about money..
>The thing that irks me is that you argue FOR
>economic/fiscal solutions and then you ask for governments to build the
>arenas and fund the teams, which is mostly and American way of doing
>things,
And what's wrong with the American way of doing things? Your Canadian hockey
talents have no problems with the big fat contracts in America. So at
least your hockey icons are comfortable with the American way.
>> >I have said all along: hockey is a sport, too.
>> Dumbo, maximizing their assets and profits != rigging games. You are
>> a sick person with that perspective about the game/business...
>
>No, you are the one with the sick mentality. Your methods are precisely
>the Black Sox era thinking.
Taz, you are sicker than I thought. Have you had any slim evidence that
the NHL is rigged? Now, with the argument being cut into pieces, you have
to hypothesize stuff like that? You care to jump back to reality?
>You mean
>> everybody in Denver/Florida/San Jose/Edmonton like the game better
>> in the 60s? even though they couldn't go to any games locally?
>
>Yeah, because they could watch Lafleur, Dryden, Orr, Chevers, Espositio,
>Howe, Hull, Clarke, Etc. play and they were among the best,
Yeah, so what are you complaining about? fans in Quebec and Winnepeg still
can watch Gretzky, Lindros, Federov, Roy, Sakic, Bourque, Messier, Jagr,
Kariya, Leetch, etc. play and they are among the best, on TV.
So losing the local teams really doesn't mean jack, just like the 6-team
days when they had no local teams.
So moron, you put your own argument into your own trap.
>ANYONE who knows
>ANYTHING about hockey and saw ANY of the past 30 years of games would
>agree. The only thing to compare was MAYBE the Oilers and Islander of the
>80s,
But dumbo, you have been arguing against 'no local team' in Winnepeg and
Quebec. That's exactly the 6-team league brought: no local team in
Quebec, Winnepeg, Edmonton, as well as in St. Louis, Vancouver, San Jose,
Denver, Washington, ...
No, if no local team in Winnepeg/Quebec is going to doom the league, what's
your argument that the 60s was the best time in hockey?
See your hypocrisy?
>> How long have you been born? based on your reasoning skill, not yet.
>
>Great Answer (heavy Sarcasm), buy a comeback book buddy. You keep
>avoiding that one.
Why do I have to answer a question that's meaningless? What does the length
of following hockey have to do with common sense?
>Obviously you haven't been watching hockey for long.
>Obvious by your statements and your attitude to the question.
How long have you been following hockey?
Never mind. No matter how long you have, your bitterness and sour grapes
have already blinded your judgement.
>> you claim is true, that hockey fans invested a lot of emotions on their
>> local teams, then there is no way fans in Edmonton like the Oilers in
>> the 80s/90s less than any teams thousands of miles away in the 60s.
>
>B.S. Rememebr that the majority of the Population was living in the East,
And so you are you whining about the Jets leaving Winnepeg?
>and alot of it had access to hockey. In Canada people ALL across the
>country got into the Games even if there wasn't a local team.
Well, if that's the case, fantastic, then why do you worry about the
citizens of Winnepeg and Quebec?
So is the local presence of the NHL important?
I guess you have to switch your answers back and forth, because your position
on this matter is so inconsistent.
>Even when
>they couldn't see the game (before HNIC) they listened to Hewitt. You
>don't know Dick about hockey bud. Not a thing!
Idiot, you don't know jack about logic, or you wouldn't have used the
6-team league situation to argue here...
>> What you gave was something that contradict what you said...
>
>Which is still alot more than you ever produced.
That's right, you produced was a lot more contradiction than I ever
produced. That's why you are cooked here.
>Then I guess the Dunhill Cup is VERY minor league since it only has 2
>teams.
Dumbo, guess whatever you like. Your guess work has no value here.
>> Really? would you mind telling Tazman to stop using those obscenities?
>Why should I?
Because using obscenity indicated one thing: you are desperate.
>So get off your High horse, because you're far from
>lilly-white, Bud!
Nope, unlike you, I have used obscenity yet. Did you talk like ("ass",
"dick", "fuck") that to your dad?
>You have yet to provide facts which you deem so important for others.
Facts: Winnipeg and Quebec couldn't keep their NHL teams. Is that important
for others? for you? depends on whether you are arguing against the
Americans getting your teams or arguing for the 6-team league...
>The ones you do provide, as I've pointed out before, have turned out to be
>B.S.
If that's B.S. how do you classify your lie:
I was responding to the statement that salaries ARE the problem.
>> Lie. How do you know that I don't follow hockey?
>
>Simple; you just hit that keypad and prove it with every post.
You care to show us how that's the proof? I can't wait.
>The number
>of things you prove that you know nothing about increases everytime I
>check this thread.
Well, at least I know how to pick apart your argument, especially your
contraditions on whether local presence in a small market is important
to the league. If nothing else, what does that say about your
knowledge of hockey? you can't even make up your mind whether local
presence is important...
>> You don't even know about
>> the situations in Winnepeg, why do you think you follow hockey?
>Neither do you.
I sure do. At least I know more about the situation than you do.
>You talk a big game, but haven't produced one shred of
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>evidence top back up your claims.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
I haven't? that's another lie.
The evidence I quote was from the AP wire. I cited it in
<5pugqn$7...@nntpa.cb.lucent.com>, posted on 7/8/97:
Get a copy of the AP wire from Ottawa on 5/2/1995, titled:
"Jets, Nordiques offered no government help to stay in Canada"
So in other words, your statement
You talk a big game, but haven't produced one shred of
evidence top back up your claims.
is a lie. On the contrary, where did you provide any evidence that
"salaries wasn't the problem"?
Talking about talking trash ...
>Especially when it comes to Quebec,
>which you are TOTALLY wrong about. It wasn't possible for a local sale,
>and that wasn't the issue put forward when the move was proposed.
Really? have you provided a shred of evidence that it wasn't possible
for a local sale?
>Tell ME about the situation in Winnipeg, if you can!
The government was given the choice to absorb the operating loss and
keep the team in Winnepeg. They refused.
>> Wow, you want me to take your words for it? you have any credibility here?
>
>More than you.
Yet you have no proof of this, with the lies you put up...
>He hasn't come up with CRAP yet. Opinion maybe, but not
>CRAP like you.
CRAP like lies? like
I was responding to the statement that salaries ARE the problem.
and
You talk a big game, but haven't produced one shred of
evidence top back up your claims.
Are these your craps or what?
>> As you admit, you are upset and emotional... why do you think you can look
>> at things objectively?
>
>And you are being simplistic and Nationalistic, what makes you any
>better.
Sure, because I am not as simplistic as you are, and I am not as
nationalistic are you guys are (advocating hockey being Canada's game).
That's makes me beter.
>My emotions are because of the facts, not inspite of them.
What facts? your facts like
I was responding to the statement that salaries ARE the problem.
>Bryce
>may be emotional and perhaps they are colouring his thinking, but he has
>yet to make a statement that runs counter to the reality of the situation
>in the NHL.
That's another lie. He claimed that the Americans 'steal' the team in
the Canadian small markets. Tell me which dictionary defines paying
$65M for a $35M product is a 'steal'.
He also claims that the Winnepeg fans supported the team well. That's
the reality?
>> Well, I didn't wimp out with sarcasm.
>
>No, just B.S. which is worse!
B.S. is not worse than lies that you wimp out as sarcasm...
>> I didn't lie about the argument.
>
>Yes you did, by claiming that I lied.
Because you did. Cite the statement that cause your response.
I was responding to the statement that salaries ARE the problem.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
You are a very dishonest person, and you try to disguise it with craps
like I don't know anything about hockey.
Now cite the statement that states that salaries are the problem. I
dare you.
>If anyone is being untruthful here it is you.
Really? you care to cite any statement that's untruthful? Talk is cheap.
If nothing else, this is another statement that's untruthful, i.e. anther
lie.
>Based on your past statement, especially Lemieux vs. the Jets you've
>proven that you have NO idea what it is beyond perhaps what you passed
>over in an accounting book.
Based on your evasion of capital appreciation, you have proven that you
have no ability to argue about franchise value, that's why you have to
cut it out to argue, in order to paint the picture that the NHL should
stick with the small Canadian market.
>And your ignorance blinding you.
Ignorance? like claiming that paying $65M for something worth $35M
as a steal?
>"Uninformative"? Well that would be your fault for not getting the
>information that he gives you.
What information he gave me?
>If they were uninformed then you could
>fault him. I guess you're just frustrated with your own incompetance
>again.
Frustrated? by picking up the lies from a dummy like you in this
argument? why would I be frustrated?
>> I couldn't care less the way you look...
>
>I'm sure the feeling is mutual.
I don't think so, or you wouldn't have been here trying to hammer your
ideas to me...
>It might even be scary, I see a tortured
>little hermit troll surfing the net for arguments so that he has
>something to do with his life. You're really a sad little man.
Dumbo, you are a sad little liar who can't even find out the truth in
an episode that rattle your emotion...
>Is this based on your estimate that he wasn't born yet? Sound like it.
Does this mean he hasn't been born yet? sound like it...
>I think you're probably misunderstanding his statement. You probably do
>'follow' hockey, but being a Circus act doesn't count for much around
>here, so you don't get any points.
Points from whom? you? better save it for your lunch. I mean, I suppose
you are a lunatic. YOu know, 'supposition' that you put a lot of stock
on. Then why do I care about points from a lunatic?
AMoore22
Listed below are autographs I obtained in person over the past few years.
They are
guaranteed to be authentic or your money-back. I have dealt in autographs
for the past
seven years and my reputation in the business is impeccable. I am selling
off a few of my
extra autographs to continue my college education. Let me know if you are
interested in
anything I have at Amoo...@aol.com All prices are negotiable as I need
tuition money
bad.
baseball(photo price-baseball price)
Brady Anderson 20-25
Steve Avery 18-22
Jeff Bagwell 18-24
Yogi Berra 22-30
Will Clark 18-25
David Cone 16-24
Tony Gwynn 15-25
Jeffrey Hammonds 10-18
Mark McGwire 20-30
Alex Rodriguez 25-30
Ryne Sandberg 20-28
Ozzie Smith 25-30
Jim Thome 16-28
Mo Vaughn 20-28
Matt Williams 18-26
Robin Yount 20-30
hockey(puck price-photo price)
Jim Carey 12-12
Brett Hull 15-15
Jaromir Jagr 18-18
Mario Lemieux 25-25
Eric Lindros 25-25
basketball(photo price)
David Robinson 24
football(photo price)
Troy Aikman 25
Joe Montana 25
Taz...@istar.ca
I'm responding this because you lie again. You try to hide by breaking
the
thread (makes it harder on Dejanews), but you're lie is found anyways.
You are
the liar Lor, not I.
In article <5q661b$2...@nntpa.cb.lucent.com>,
Lor the Liar wrote:
> >The difference is that Bryce disclaims his suppositions, while you
> >simply put them forward calling people liars, etc. When you're are
> >clearly wrong.
> Clearly wrong? I am still waiting for you to explain you lie in
> <8680376...@dejanews.com>:
>
> I was responding to the statement that salaries ARE the problem.
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>
> Who made a statement taht salaries ARE the problem that you
responded to?
That would be mr.Bradely in the following text, which you could have
found had
you the brains to search for it yourself.
--
In article <x4k3eqd...@panix.com>,
John Bradley <j...@panix.com> wrote:
> There are forces there that he can't control. The league made an
effort
> to improve the financial position of the Canadian teams with their
> subsidy program. If Bettman had his way, the last collective
bargaining
> agreement would have included a salary cap that may have made things
> better for the small market teams.
The salaries aren't the problem, the problem is that someone south of
the
border wants the prestige of a pro team to go with the big bucks he
made
of his workers, and so he steals a team from up north. The market has
gone out of whack, and it has little to do with the players and more
to
do with the expansion and free-trade of teams. If Battman said. No
team
can move, then that would solve the problems very quickly. Fold or
sell
to a local concern, don't simply fuck-over the markets who created
your
now winning team.
> Bettman's job with the NBA was salary
> cap administration. Maybe we would still have Winnipeg and Quebec
under
> these circumstances ?
Not, unless he said they weren't allowed to move.
--
Now this whole passage including my response which you quote, is about
salary
caps, which are only there for salaries. Now if a Salry Cap is the
solution,
then by extension Salaries are the problem. That is the only thing
that salary
caps influence, they themselves don't increase T.V. ratings or
anything else.
That may be their end result, but that's not what they are implemented
for.
Now if you can't follow the fact that mr.Bradleys statement infers
that Salaries
are the problem (since salary caps are the solution), then you really
need to
learn alot more about sports. I've taken the liberty of deleting your
20
references to me a liar (which is what you obviously are) throughout
this post.
You dwell on your ether evidence. What a twit you are.
> >No, I'd blame Bruce McNall who started things off a long time ago.
He
> >even financed Gretzky's contract with money he didn't have and
couldn't
> >afford. If you want to start blaming anyone blame him. Gretzky
simply
> >said, "Sure!", so he could get the coin as well as be in L.A. which
> >benifited his wife and her potential continuation of her career
(which
> >didn't happen yet). You can't even follow a paper trail let alone
an
> >argument.
> Well, did Gretzky sign a $40M contract? you can't even follow the
facts.
You're the one who can't follow things. Gretzky doesn't have anything
to sign
unless McNall makes the offer, which he had to make to Pocklington
first, since
Gretzky was still under contract for a few more years. No matter how
you slice
it McNall initiated the move contract and everything. You can't even
see that.
Talk about following the facts.
> Now, you didn't argue the point that time has changed. Is that an
> admission from you this point stands?
What does time have to do with that argument. McNall started the
recent shift in
salaries and direction. What does that have to do with times changing?
They
obviously haven't changed that much since the same thing happened in
N.Y.
(deficit financing).
> >YOu KNOW it WASN'T, Mr. Economic genius. Lemieuxs contract was over
many
> >years whereas the team was an immediate value.
> Dumbo. Lemieux's contract was over many years? how many years have
elapsed?
> Now does Lemieux's contract still worth more than the $35M the Jets
was
> worth in 1995?
Invest the Jets (LOCAL) value and you get more. No matter how you
slice it, the
jets were worth more. If you want to compare WORTH with Apraisal, even
then the
Jets are ahead. BTW, the worth of the Jets was much more than $35mil.,
which was
their apraiosed value in the local market (the worth is what people
are willing
to pay or trade or what other uses it can be used for (it's expansion
value adds
to it's overall WORTH) so don't get Worth and Apraised Value mixed up.
> >Take Taxes, appreciation
> >and everything else into account and guess what, You're WRONG!
> Yes, and why don't you take into account Lemieux investing his money
> wisely?
And do the same with the absolute value (not worth) of the Jets, and
you still
come out ahead. Appreciation of assets when used in strictly monetary
terms have
equal access.
> what is that worth now? Guess what, you are a kiddy mind with
> no concept of money. My advice is that you should ask your dad
about
> things like this...
He would agree with me, you don't know squat.
> >It is an injustice because it could have happened in a different
manner,
> It could have happened in a different manner != it's an injustice.
Get
> a clue about "injustice", like having the net subject to your
juvenile
> ranting and raving...
I haven't ranted or raved, you headed into the depth of derogatory
language. We
just matched your ranting and ravings. Which aren't worth our time
anymore.
> >instead of stealing the teams they could have expanded,
> More lunacy from you. You think paying $65M for something that's
worth $35M
> is 'stealing'? You really have to learn about money..
You need to learn about money. The steal is taking away an investment
that was
made on the promise of long term results. Second, the value of the
jets was more
than their book value in winnepeg. Third stealing a team instead of
expanding is
just that. Taking a team from another market regardless of the
viability of the
team. It may be more profitable elsewhere but that's not the issue.
Even in your
terms, if I spend $2 for a nickel is that a steal? It is if it's a 3
legged
Buffalo nickel which I can sell to someone else for hundreds of
dollars.
The teams should be allowed to follow their business cycle into death.
The only
way that Pheonix and Denver should have gotten teams was through
expansion. They
could always have picked up the players after the team folded and they
became
free agents. Otherwise it is a steal.
> >No, you are the one with the sick mentality. Your methods are
precisely
> >the Black Sox era thinking.
> Taz, you are sicker than I thought. Have you had any slim evidence
that
> the NHL is rigged? Now, with the argument being cut into pieces, you
have
> to hypothesize stuff like that? You care to jump back to reality?
Did I say that? No! Anything abour rigging? No! Are you Lying? You can
only
answer that. My mention of the Black Sox era was regarding the
treatment of
players and fans which was so poor that it lead to the situation that
made the
sox infamous. After that things changed although just slightly. You
are the same
kind of money-grubbing no respect for the sport kind of person as
those owners.
Sure money is money, but there is also sports and fans involved which
are
outside the blind ambition of the dollar. Understand? Or did you
understand and
were just lying?
> >Yeah, because they could watch Lafleur, Dryden, Orr, Chevers,
Espositio,
> >Howe, Hull, Clarke, Etc. play and they were among the best,
> Yeah, so what are you complaining about? fans in Quebec and Winnepeg
still
> can watch Gretzky, Lindros, Federov, Roy, Sakic, Bourque, Messier,
Jagr,
> Kariya, Leetch, etc. play and they are among the best, on TV.
The above were on T.V. too. With greater area coverage. ABC and HNIC.
And they
were even better than the ones you listed, save perhaps Gretzky.
> So losing the local teams really doesn't mean jack, just like the
6-team
> days when they had no local teams.
>
> So moron, you put your own argument into your own trap.
Nope, you're wrong again. Especially since I didn't say anything about
original
6. That was your interpretation of my statement about the 60s and 70s,
which was
not just the original 6. Especially people like Hull who played for
the Flyers
(not origianl 6 team).
> >ANYONE who knows
> >ANYTHING about hockey and saw ANY of the past 30 years of games
would
> >agree. The only thing to compare was MAYBE the Oilers and Islander
of the
> >80s,
> But dumbo, you have been arguing against 'no local team' in Winnepeg
and
> Quebec. That's exactly the 6-team league brought: no local team in
> Quebec, Winnepeg, Edmonton, as well as in St. Louis, Vancouver, San
Jose,
> Denver, Washington, ...
>
> No, if no local team in Winnepeg/Quebec is going to doom the league,
what's
> your argument that the 60s was the best time in hockey?
It was, and it has nothing to do with original 6 or with Quebec and
Winnipeg.
What it does deal with is the fact that the teams were in Hockey
towns, not in
cactus land.
> See your hypocrisy?
See your ignorance.
> >> How long have you been born? based on your reasoning skill, not
yet.
> >
> >Great Answer (heavy Sarcasm), buy a comeback book buddy. You keep
> >avoiding that one.
> Why do I have to answer a question that's meaningless? What does the
length
> of following hockey have to do with common sense?
It has alot to do with arguments about the history and the integrity
of the
sport. Your avoidance of the question is relevant, and shows your lack
of hockey
knowledge.
> >Obviously you haven't been watching hockey for long.
> >Obvious by your statements and your attitude to the question.
> How long have you been following hockey?
I've been watching hockey for about 22-23 years, my uncle use to be a
pro. I've
been playing hockey (started with dad, my cousin and my uncle when I
was 2 3/4.)
which means about 24 years. Which is how old my Bruins draw-string
jersey is.
Now I've answer the question, what about you Mr. avoidance? You seem
to think
Bryce's age is relevant, now tell me about your incredible depth of
knowledge
and experience. Like when and who did you ever play for?
> Never mind. No matter how long you have, your bitterness and sour
grapes
> have already blinded your judgement.
Whatever buddy, you're the one whose blind.
> >B.S. Rememebr that the majority of the Population was living in the
East,
> And so you are you whining about the Jets leaving Winnepeg?
And so what's your point?
> >and alot of it had access to hockey. In Canada people ALL across
the
> >country got into the Games even if there wasn't a local team.
> Well, if that's the case, fantastic, then why do you worry about the
> citizens of Winnepeg and Quebec?
I'm worried about more than just them, I'm concerned for the people in
minnesota, Hartford, and the other hockey towns like Hamilton who got
screwed to
give the Desert more ice. I'm also concerned for the game which is
polluted.
Quebec and Winnipeg are only part of it, and more YOUR focus NOT mine,
which
was Hamilton which you try to draw comparisons to.
> So is the local presence of the NHL important?
>
> I guess you have to switch your answers back and forth, because your
position
> on this matter is so inconsistent.
Sure it's important, but it's not the only thing. It depends on what
aspect of
the game you're talking about. Overall for the entire league, it's
different
than for a local team, or markets, or other factors. If you want to
start saying
what applies for A must apply for B, then go ahead, I leave you to
your circular
logic.
> >Even when
> >they couldn't see the game (before HNIC) they listened to Hewitt.
You
> >don't know Dick about hockey bud. Not a thing!
> Idiot, you don't know jack about logic, or you wouldn't have used
the
> 6-team league situation to argue here...
I didn't you LIAR. I didn't bring it into this, YOU did. You assumed
that my
statement about the 60s and 70s was about the original 6, and that's
not it at
all, since I was refering to player like Hull who played for the
Expansion
Flyers, etc. That just shows how much you nkow about hockey. And to
use your
logic, and correctly. You sir are a lair. I didn't use the original 6
as my
argument, and I'd like to see you prove or show me that I did. My only
reference
to them was in response to you. Now the it's YOUR duty to go and find
the
passage. Which doesn't exist. I said 60s and 70s, not original 6. So
are you a
liar? Or just stupid and ignorant. I think your the later, but you
would
classify yourself as the former.
> >Which is still alot more than you ever produced.
> That's right, you produced was a lot more contradiction than I ever
> produced. That's why you are cooked here.
And you must be baked, because you haven't made sense or even
progressed your
argument once.
> >Then I guess the Dunhill Cup is VERY minor league since it only has
2
> >teams.
> Dumbo, guess whatever you like. Your guess work has no value here.
And that response doesn't even touch on the fact that you CAN have
competitive
situation with 6 teams or leass. The five nations comes to mind
(actually 6).
> >> Really? would you mind telling Tazman to stop using those
obscenities?
> >Why should I?
> Because using obscenity indicated one thing: you are desperate.
Is that why you STARTED the derogatory remarks with the Dumbo? I
simply went to
your level since I thought it's the only way you know how to
communicate. You
took this debate to the gutter.
> >So get off your High horse, because you're far from
> >lilly-white, Bud!
> Nope, unlike you, I have used obscenity yet. Did you talk like
("ass",
> "dick", "fuck") that to your dad?
Yeah, when I told him "there's this Fucking Dick-headed dumb-Ass named
Lor whose
Trolling RSH". BTW all of those words are in the dictionary, which is
something
you are obviously unfamiliar with based on your posts.
> >> Lie. How do you know that I don't follow hockey?
> >
> >Simple; you just hit that keypad and prove it with every post.
> You care to show us how that's the proof? I can't wait.
'We' all know that, it is you who are ignorant to the fact.
> Well, at least I know how to pick apart your argument,
You have yet to do that once, for ANYONE's arguments. You simply B.S.
and
contradict without any form of argument or logic.
> especially your
> contraditions on whether local presence in a small market is
important
> to the league.
You're confusing the issue as usual. Local, vs. small in your mind.
> If nothing else, what does that say about your
> knowledge of hockey? you can't even make up your mind whether local
> presence is important...
You want to dwell on your inability to see that it's dependant on your
issue
being discussed that's fine. You never were able to see more than 1
thing at a
time.
> >You talk a big game, but haven't produced one shred of
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> >evidence top back up your claims.
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> I haven't? that's another lie.
>
> The evidence I quote was from the AP wire. I cited it in
> <5pugqn$7...@nntpa.cb.lucent.com>, posted on 7/8/97:
>
> Get a copy of the AP wire from Ottawa on 5/2/1995, titled:
>
> "Jets, Nordiques offered no government help to stay in Canada"
>
> So in other words, your statement
>
> You talk a big game, but haven't produced one shred of
> evidence top back up your claims.
>
> is a lie.
That statement was made after we already agreed that the local gov't
wouldn't
pay, as I said before they want to put money into schools and health
care, and
other things. That isn't evidence of any of the claims we've been
arguing. It
doesn't show what the financial situation of the Jets was, it doesn't
say what
led to the requests in the first place, or what happened afterwards.
It's an
empty stat. of the same value of a "The Stars Moved to Dallas, and the
Whalers
moved to N.C.", neither explains or proves anything except what we all
accept
already. It doesn't support any of your claims. So you have yet to
come forth
with a shred of evidence in ANY of our conversations, since this was
obviously
with someone else, because it's not relevant to anything we've
discussed.
> Talking about talking trash ...
Yes you are verbal trash. It's called a Troll, and you are the model
T.
> >Especially when it comes to Quebec,
> >which you are TOTALLY wrong about. It wasn't possible for a local
sale,
> >and that wasn't the issue put forward when the move was proposed.
> Really? have you provided a shred of evidence that it wasn't
possible
> for a local sale?
Actually since you were the one who kept saying that people in Quebec
could have
bought the team to keep it from moving the onus in on you for proof.
As for my
statement, it is based on the news reports in Montreal at the time
that said the
only options were "Build me a new Arena or I move the team". It had
little to do
with a public option of buying the team as you would lead people to
believe. And
supporting someone with taxes is completely different from buying the
team.
> >Tell ME about the situation in Winnipeg, if you can!
> The government was given the choice to absorb the operating loss and
> keep the team in Winnepeg. They refused.
That wasn't the situation, that was but a small aspect. If you think
that's the
only reason they moved then you are more ignorant than we gave you
credit for.
> >> As you admit, you are upset and emotional... why do you think you
can look
> >> at things objectively?
> >
> >And you are being simplistic and Nationalistic, what makes you any
> >better.
> Sure, because I am not as simplistic as you are, and I am not as
> nationalistic are you guys are (advocating hockey being Canada's
game).
You first response was EXTREMELY simplistic, along the lines of "I
know you are
but what am I", I'm suprised you didn't put N'yah at the end. As for
being
Nationalistic, you're the one whose blindly nationalistic, thinking
it's just
'small Canadian Markets' while ignoring, Atlanta, Denvers, Seattle,
Minnesota,
Hartford, and now N.Y. I've supported Hartford and Minnesota, but
also
Hamilton, and Quebec and to a lesser extent Winnipeg; over places like
Dallas,
Houston and Tampa Bay.
> That's makes me beter.
Makes you a beter? It definitely doesn't make you better, just more
ignorant.
> >> Well, I didn't wimp out with sarcasm.
> >
> >No, just B.S. which is worse!
> B.S. is not worse than lies that you wimp out as sarcasm...
Yes you do lie saying I whimp out as sarcasm. And you B.S. Both. How
terrible.
> You are a very dishonest person, and you try to disguise it with
craps
> like I don't know anything about hockey.
You are the dishonest one, and ignorant to boot. And it's not crap
saying you
don't know anything about hockey since it's obvious that you don't
know hockey.
You also have yet to support your claim that you are familiar with the
sport,
all your arguments to date have been about economics, not the sport,
not the
game. You've specificaly decided that the two are separate. Well fine,
you've
yet to prove you know ANYTHING about the sport of Hockey beyond that
which is
brought to you by FOX.
> >If anyone is being untruthful here it is you.
> Really? you care to cite any statement that's untruthful? Talk is
cheap.
And so is your mom.
> If nothing else, this is another statement that's untruthful, i.e.
anther
> lie.
Anther lie? Hmm, What's that? Is it like an Anti-lie, thus the Truth.
Well if
that's the case, then for once you are corredct. I guess there IS a
first time
for everything. And don't fret you're FIRST TIME will come someday,
but keep
practicing with your right hand.
> >Based on your past statement, especially Lemieux vs. the Jets
you've
> >proven that you have NO idea what it is beyond perhaps what you
passed
> >over in an accounting book.
> Based on your evasion of capital appreciation, you have proven that
you
> have no ability to argue about franchise value, that's why you have
to
> cut it out to argue, in order to paint the picture that the NHL
should
> stick with the small Canadian market.
I never evaded Capital Appreciation, you are confusing me with Bryce.
Capital
appreciation isn't really relevant to the arguments I put forth, but
it is
relevant to the argument you had with bryce. Capital appreciation is
is just the
increase of either perceived (if it's a fixed or non-liquid item) or
the actual
increase of capital. It can happen in many ways. Now it's not really
relevant
since I agree that they make money from the sale, I disagree with the
WAY they
make money. I guess you would support drug dealing since in effect
it's a
perfect example of capital appreciation. Or do you have SOME standards
deep down
in there.
> Frustrated? by picking up the lies from a dummy like you in this
> argument? why would I be frustrated?
Because you have nothing. And you emphasis that by calling people
names.
> >It might even be scary, I see a tortured
> >little hermit troll surfing the net for arguments so that he has
> >something to do with his life. You're really a sad little man.
> Dumbo, you are a sad little liar who can't even find out the truth
in
> an episode that rattle your emotion...
You're looking in a mirror again. You're the one consistently lying
and bending
the truth, while providing nothing.
> >Is this based on your estimate that he wasn't born yet? Sound like
it.
> Does this mean he hasn't been born yet? sound like it...
Once again you make no sense. Get a dictionary, or at least someone to
help you
formulate your arguments into english. Your come-backs don't even make
sense.
Was your next level zinger that he wasn't even conceived yet. Oooh so
Wity, Lor.
> >I think you're probably misunderstanding his statement. You
probably do
> >'follow' hockey, but being a Circus act doesn't count for much
around
> >here, so you don't get any points.
> Points from whom? you? better save it for your lunch.
What? Once again you make no sense. Points for lunch, O.K., whatever!
Running
out of arguments? Finally realising that quoting the same thing over
and over
make you look like the idiot that you are?
> I mean, I suppose
> you are a lunatic. YOu know, 'supposition' that you put a lot of
stock
> on. Then why do I care about points from a lunatic?
Simply because those who were the great minds were always seen as
lunatics by
those who were unable to grasp what they were saying.
In the SUN the other day the daily quote was 'A wise man once said "It
is
impossible to win an argument with an ignorant man"' so keeping this
in mind, I
shall not argue with you anymore, since your ignorance blinds you and
wastes all
of our time.
Face Off, Eh!