60 years, but yeah, it's laughable to argue that the Ottawa fanbase could survive intact for six decades with no team - if that's the case, the same thing could be said for Hamilton, since they had a team in the 20's, too.
Balsillie puts in $212.5 mil offer for the Coyotes
- Thread starter Egil
- Start date
-
Work is still on-going to rebuild the site styling and features. Please report any issues you may experience so we can look into it. Click Here for Updates
- Status
60 years, but yeah, it's laughable to argue that the Ottawa fanbase could survive intact for six decades with no team - if that's the case, the same thing could be said for Hamilton, since they had a team in the 20's, too.
BigFatCat999
First Fubu and now Pred303. !@#$! you cancer
True but the team COULD be used as a tool to heal the masses and possibly draw Nordiques fans. I say POSSIBLY and COULD because I know how furvent the former Nordiques fans can be.
Last I knew, the rivalry that existed between the two prevents that from occurring, that's why the Canadiens were forced to relocate their affiliate out of Quebec....
vipernsx
Flatus Expeller
- Sep 4, 2005
- 6,791
- 3
Why doesn't the league just vote Balsillie in to be commissioner and be done with it. The guy wants to run a hockey organization, is obviously a stud of a businessmen, and is ruthless in his pursuit to get what he wants which is a profitable hockey organization. This guy is the perfect commissioner.
Evil Doctor
Cryin' Hank crying
Your arguement was that these cities are a footprint needed to have a television contract. I pointed out that there already was a contract with these cities, and it failed! You still haven't dealt with that fact. Footprint or no footprint, there is no contract coming! Faced with that fact, why keep propping up weak franchises?
Evil Doctor
Cryin' Hank crying
If the Coyotes come to Hamilton tomorrow, the Bulldogs will be gone the day after. I will miss them, my Bulldogs will stay remain my most prized possession. I'm having a baby in June and I was going to go to Hamilton and buy some Bulldog (and some Ticat) stuff for her, but I guess I should hold off until I see which way this goes....
The argument is better stated as "Ottawa has a fanbase predisposed to liking hockey". It has nothing to do with the long dead Sens, and everything to do with the constant presence of teams in the city since the late 1890's. And it's part of the culture. Hamilton is similar.
Making the argument that guy made was similar to saying "The Canucks have been successful because of the Millionaires 50 years before"... it's absurd.
mmitchell19
Registered User
23+ pages, and no mention of Jerry Bruckheimer & Co. (potential Las Vegas ownership group) yet? To be honest, that's the first end-around I pictured when I saw these headlines initially.
Evil Doctor
Cryin' Hank crying
First off, we now know they weren't wrong were they. Regardless, it has no bearing on the situation. I have trouble picturing somebody in Phoenix reading the G&M over their morning coffee and decided to have nothing to do with Coyotes over what is being said several thousand kilometres away...
Oh I read it, what I got from it is 'Not very'
They may not be legally bankrupt but they are literally bankrupt.
SuperDave21
Hockey Paradise
It's laughable? How? They brought back the team with the same name because...? Were they the same fans? Probably not. But were there fans of the Sens from 80 years ago? The evidence clearly says yes.
Would they be successful though? I think there needs to be a debate on what kind of "success" we're talking about. Financially? Sure. But what about the other teams that the people of Hamilton followed? They can't be 2 places at once. Either they will go to games in, say, Toronto, or they will go to games in Hamilton. I think a lot of people are doubling up on numbers. Hence my "lateral move" argument. Hamilton people will become new fans of the new team, but not new fans of hockey in general. Their loyalties will go with the new team instead of the old one, big deal.
I'm not really sure how to address your "blame the victim" argument. Go back and look at news reports from The Globe and Mail and tell me, with a straight face, that they aren't skewed views.
The Coyotes were successful (not sure about profitable because I don't know where to find those financial figures) from 1996-2002 when they went to the playoffs 5/6 seasons. People were going crazy for the white out and playoffs and loved hockey. Since 2003 (my 6 year equation) they have played poorly, resulting in a loss of revenue. The Sens, on the other hand, have been a successful team on the ice, going to the playoffs from 1996-2008. In other words, they put out a great team and people came to see them. Again, my argument stems from the fact that Coyotes have not had a good team in 6 years, have been mismanaged, and have had poor coaching from 2003-present.
But my question is, how do you call for relocation of a team after 6 bad years?
Sorry, but you are incorrect. This is a voluntary petition. The filing company is free to revoke its petition.
You are zero-for-two. The NHL can also take an assignment of player contracts and any other assets it deems appropriate - that is, if it does not simply seize the franchise under its secured lending agreement.
Possible. It can also cherry-pick.
Speak for yourself.
Correct on that one.
Unless the NHL's lawyers somehow forgot basic tenets of secured lending practice, they should be in good shape.
Evil Doctor
Cryin' Hank crying
I'm confused. First the Coyotes are a bad team and that's the reason they are losing money. Suddenly, they get to Canada, and presto, they're a top tier team? Did I miss a day of school or something? Since when does playing in Canada make you a better team? Is it the air? The water? If so, you need to start bottling it and selling it. Maybe that's how we can have more cash for poor teams such as the Yotes...Nope no biased or elitist thoughts in this post. We're safe folks!
*sigh* the difference is that the team will have fan support and will make money. I know when I went to school that making money is better than losing money.
SuperDave21
Hockey Paradise
Simply because they are in the country of Canada? So what happened with Winnipeg? They're from Canada, therefore, according to your logic, they should have made a profit?
. And yet they moved...When I took business courses, I was told that you have to spend money to make money. What's you're point exactly?
Evil Doctor
Cryin' Hank crying
It's interesting in so far that Hamilton Tigers moved to New York and became the Americans, not because of the lack of fan support but because the players went on strike for more pay (because they had to play four more games than was originally written into their contracts), so the franchise was revoked and transfered. Shame really, Hamilton at that time had plans for a War Memorial Arena that, from the drawings I saw, would have rivaled the other other original six arenas in shear beauty. Of course whether or not the Tigers could have survived the Great Depression and become part of the Original Seven is open to speculation.
Evil Doctor
Cryin' Hank crying
I just want to mention that one of the rationals for keeping a team in Phoenix is because it will help secure a TV contract and is tied very much into the whole discussion.
Simply because they are in the country of Canada? So what happened with Winnipeg? They're from Canada, therefore, according to your logic, they should have made a profit?
When I took business courses, I was told that you have to spend money to make money. What's you're point exactly?
Winnepeg NEARLY kept at team with a population of 600,000... Where they are moving has a rough metro area of up to 8,000,000 depending on wether we go by American or Canadian guidelines for a metro area.
All your talk about success on the ice is completely and utterly irrelevent, noone here cares weather they win. This is the Business of Hockey forums, success = profitability not making the playoffs.
You have no concept of reality if you do not think another team in Ontario could be successful.
Take into consideration the money people spend to go see the Leafs, take into consideration what people spend in Pheonix.
You know it is nearly cheaper for me to fly to Pheonix get a hotel room, and watch the Oilers play in Pheonix than it is to get tickets in my own city? This is with a Metro area of 1,000,000. Consider a Metor Area of 8,000,000 divded by two teams + all the tourists in the greater Toronto Area compared to Edmonton.
I cannot have a logical conversation with you anymore so I am done with you.
Their TV deal was terrible... Manitoba as a whole a very low population area. Plus the had an owner who acted kinda like Pheonix's current owner.
That's ridiculous. There is absolutely no connection at all between the first edition of the Senators and the recent reincarnation in terms of fan support. I have never met anyone who truly recognizes those Cups wins from the 20's or any of the players in modern records or statistics. You could have named the team "The Ottawa Boners" and people would have showed up, so your point is moot.. Sure, Ottawa has had a lot of exposure to hockey and the NHL over the years, before we got a brand new expansion team, but try coming to a game when the Habs or Leafs are in town. That's where many loyalties were previously and have subsequently moved over. We weren't waiting in droves for an NHL team to return. It has been a tough battle for the organization to lure people over I should add. Your assertion is a complete joke and completely ignorant.
Evil Doctor
Cryin' Hank crying
Simply because they are in the country of Canada? So what happened with Winnipeg? They're from Canada, therefore, according to your logic, they should have made a profit?
When I took business courses, I was told that you have to spend money to make money. What's you're point exactly?
First off the problems with Winnipeg and Quebec had more to do with a weak Canadian dollar than problems with fan support, but that is neither here nor there. We're talking about Southern Ontario here with a large population base here of hockey mad people. As we can demostrate with the Toronto Maple Leafs, winning isn't neccesary for making money....something that can clearly not happen in Phoenix...
BogsDiamond
Anybody get 2 U yet?
- Mar 16, 2008
- 1,132
- 79
Simply because they are in the country of Canada? So what happened with Winnipeg? They're from Canada, therefore, according to your logic, they should have made a profit?
When I took business courses, I was told that you have to spend money to make money. What's you're point exactly?
The difference is that nobody support the Jets while they were in Winnipeg either.
And I'm allowed to say that because I lived there for a year and went to many games. You could easily walk up on game day and get tickets anywhere.
On some nights, you could hear the players yapping on the ice from the upper deck. No joke.
In Hamilton, they'll be able to charge $50 for a nosebleed seat. In Phoenix that will get you four tickets, four hotdogs and a timeshare in Glendale.
Simply put, in Hamilton, Toronto, Waterloo, Kitchener, anywhere in Southwestern Ontario, you can sell out an 18,000 seat arena for any price you want every single night.
That means more money to keep the good players you have, or grab good free agents. This means a better chance at long term success.
I give the Coyote organzation props for going after Jokinen, signing Bryzgalov(sp?) long term and other players.
The problem is, most people in Glendale and Phoenix didn't care about the team. It's why it was the 3rd lowest in the league for attendance and that's with cutthroat prices.
There's better hockey markets out there. It's time to leave Arizona and find them.
SuperDave21
Hockey Paradise
http://www.azcentral.com/sports/coyotes/articles/2009/05/06/20090506spt-bickleycoyotes.html
Mod note: article is from Arizona pundit looking how the fans are not to blame, some of the legal machinations that might take place, etc.
Mod note: article is from Arizona pundit looking how the fans are not to blame, some of the legal machinations that might take place, etc.
Last edited by a moderator:
Athletique_Canadien
Registered User
It is amazing to me that Bettman prefers owners who are mortgaged to the neck and can't really afford franchises (see my teams' owner) to a guy who would like to move it to a place with a strong feasible plan.
Where was this Bettman in 1995 and 1996 when the Jets and Nordiques were in better shape than the Coyotes right now? Where was his endless desire to save those franchises? He set demands on a new arena, ticket revenue and made blanket statements about feasability, thus perpetrating a myth that they can not survive in the new NHL. When his ridiculous relocations/expansions could not survive, he locked out the league in search of cost certainty. When he got his cost certainty and his false hockey markets collapsed he started propping them up with franchise swapping and borderline legal loans between owners.
Who is responsible for Phoenix going this low and being this fragile?
Where was this Bettman in 1995 and 1996 when the Jets and Nordiques were in better shape than the Coyotes right now? Where was his endless desire to save those franchises? He set demands on a new arena, ticket revenue and made blanket statements about feasability, thus perpetrating a myth that they can not survive in the new NHL. When his ridiculous relocations/expansions could not survive, he locked out the league in search of cost certainty. When he got his cost certainty and his false hockey markets collapsed he started propping them up with franchise swapping and borderline legal loans between owners.
Who is responsible for Phoenix going this low and being this fragile?
- Status
