riffraff Posted September 9, 2012 Share Posted September 9, 2012 Do the future nordiques form a one team league should the pq continue to gain momentum? Seriously though, I would like to see Quebec get a team as well as seattle. Finances aside, a great rivalry potential for the Habs and the nucks Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tearloch7 Posted September 9, 2012 Share Posted September 9, 2012 I agree with Seattle and Quebec City .. also believe that Saskatchewan, Hamilton and Markham could all sustain NHL franchises, thus moving some of the less desirable US based teams north .. doubt it can happen under Bettman's watch .. he is all about developing "violence" on ice to attract and hold a less educated American TV audience .. I think this is the reason that a "WWE on ICE" mood seems to permeate the officiating at times .. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RUPERTKBD Posted September 9, 2012 Share Posted September 9, 2012 I agree with Seattle and Quebec City .. also believe that Saskatchewan, Hamilton and Markham could all sustain NHL franchises, thus moving some of the less desirable US based teams north .. doubt it can happen under Bettman's watch .. he is all about developing "violence" on ice to attract and hold a less educated American TV audience .. I think this is the reason that a "WWE on ICE" mood seems to permeate the officiating at times .. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RUPERTKBD Posted September 9, 2012 Share Posted September 9, 2012 No you can't..... The thing I don't get thougj is why in the fuxk would you wan't to play for a loser franchise Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tearloch7 Posted September 9, 2012 Share Posted September 9, 2012 Really? Is that what you think? I think if this really were his aim, he would not have been the driving force behind the instigator penalty. I do agree that he makes decisions based on a desire to appeal to non-tradition hockey fans, but if anything, I believe he'd prefer less violence, rather than more. I personally believe he'd be more than happy with an outright ban on fighting... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boudrias Posted September 9, 2012 Share Posted September 9, 2012 Well honestly, I have a bit of an anti-US-non-hockey-market bias myself. I resent the fact there are teams in places like Carolina, Nashville, Columbus, Phoenix, Anaheim, Florida, etc but not in some places where hockey is #1. I would like to see a team in Seattle as well, but that is about the only remaining place in the States I'd like to see get a franchise - and I think a number of US-based teams are inevitably going to fail in the long term. My only doubt regarding Seattle is a caution due the fact that they lost the Supersonics - and next to football and baseball, basketball is pretty much #3 - and gigantic in the US. The point you raise about broadcast revenue might rule out Regina/Saskatoon, which is sad, considering the remarkable amount of NHLers Saskatchewan produces and how rabid their hockey fans are, as well as the prospects of another eastern team in Canada outside of Onterrible or Quebec. Small Canadian markets may even have more hockey fans than even the large US markets, although the US networks no doubt can pony up more dollars for broadcast rights - I just have to wonder what the actual ratings in the oddball US markets are (particularly when they aren't icing a winning team)? Broadcast revenues a decade ago were only half of what the gate revenues in the NHL were. I wonder what the figures are today. Here's an interesting study that maintains that Canada could sustain 12 franchises - they use Edmonton as a benchmark, as the NHL team with the smallest population, but which manages to generate more revenue than many US franchises (despite the on-ice product not having been very competitive.) http://www.mowatcent...Research/31.pdf Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tearloch7 Posted September 9, 2012 Share Posted September 9, 2012 ^ ^ ^ Well said, and sadly, it is probably true .. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
surtur Posted September 9, 2012 Share Posted September 9, 2012 I think Portland would be a viable US option. as for canada i don't know..if Edmonton can do it (mind you they have quit the History) i am sure there are several options that could support a new team. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oldnews Posted September 9, 2012 Share Posted September 9, 2012 Again I have to bring up the NHL business plan as to why small Canadian markets such as Quebec City do not make sense. Even tho Seattle is not PHX it is still a major media market as far as NBC is concerned. Indeed there are a number of existing NHL cities in the USA that are not worthy from your and my perspective. But we are hockey fans. NBC is a media company who wants to appeal to as many viewers as possible. They like most media companies are starved for content. Currently the NHL fills a void and they are prepared to pay $300 million a year to get their games. I don't think the Nordiques coming to LA sells as well as the Seattle 'Thunderbirds' (nice name). $300 mil split 30 ways is a nice chunk of change for each franchise and pays a lot of payroll. The NHL already has the Canadian market in their pocket. Whether the CBC or Sportsnet carry the broadcast is almost irrelevent other than a few extra bucks when the contract renewal comes up. Attendance is a nice aspect of Canadian franchises but the ticket costs are already astronomical IMHO and how elastic is that demand? The USA media $ potential may never be fully realized compared to the NFL, MLB and the NBA but it makes the owners salivate thinking about it. In actual fact ticket prices could easily divert more fans into electronic media to get their hockey fix, American and Canadian. As long as the highly profitable NHL teams see value in continuing to subsidize less profitable venues then the current business plan will probably continue. They are risking to much to do otherwise. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
D-Bo7 Posted September 9, 2012 Share Posted September 9, 2012 Phoenix has been his home for several years. He and his family are comfortable there. Also, if ownership can be sorted out there, the team is actually fairly competitive. They went further than the Canucks last year.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
elvis15 Posted September 9, 2012 Share Posted September 9, 2012 A lot of folks believe there is more "violence" on the ice without the instigator penalty .. it allows the cowardly types (not mentioning any names here) to play cheap and loose and not be help accountable .. I suppose it depends on how you define "violence" .. I will take good, hard hockey over the snively kind of hockey we have now .. How many times have the long time hockey fans said, to the effect, that this kind of crap would not happen in the "good old days" when players were held accountable for their actions .. imagine Marchand rag-dolling Daniel pre-instigator? ..THAT is the kind of "violence" that is now allowed, even encouraged for the "fans" to enjoy .. Edit: .. and YES .. that IS what I think, or I would not have written it .. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
riffraff Posted September 9, 2012 Share Posted September 9, 2012 In that regard I disagree. The official position is they're trying to take the unnecessary violence out of the game to make it more marketable, and there's some truth to that. The other side would be to increase fighting rather than to increase cheap shots and illegal hits, as that would be something the uninitiated would be able to understand. You'd then be able to draw from the wrestling/boxing/mma crowd - the only way it could get more interesting to that type of American is if you found a way for the players to do nothing but left hand turns for 3 hours. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boudrias Posted September 9, 2012 Share Posted September 9, 2012 There is the contradiction in the owners position / which is divided - the highly profitable teams aren't terribly interested in adequately subsidizing the teams that are struggling financially. The current 150 million is not adequate - the owners are offering to increase that to 190 million - the players are willing to compromise their share if the revenue they concede goes into a 260 million revenue sharing pot. For me, the owners' position in this CBA negotiation seeks to service the NHL's most powerful and profitable franchises - instead of the league's richest franchises compromising, they are expecting the players to subsidize the weaker US markets. However it was Bettman and the league that decided to move into those oddball markets in the first place. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.Naslund Posted September 10, 2012 Share Posted September 10, 2012 Excsue me gents but I'm not sure, am I in the Doan thread? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
niklas Posted September 10, 2012 Share Posted September 10, 2012 Excsue me gents but I'm not sure, am I in the Doan thread? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RUPERTKBD Posted September 10, 2012 Share Posted September 10, 2012 A lot of folks believe there is more "violence" on the ice without the instigator penalty .. it allows the cowardly types (not mentioning any names here) to play cheap and loose and not be help accountable .. I suppose it depends on how you define "violence" .. I will take good, hard hockey over the snively kind of hockey we have now .. How many times have the long time hockey fans said, to the effect, that this kind of crap would not happen in the "good old days" when players were held accountable for their actions .. imagine Marchand rag-dolling Daniel pre-instigator? ..THAT is the kind of "violence" that is now allowed, even encouraged for the "fans" to enjoy .. Edit: .. and YES .. that IS what I think, or I would not have written it .. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stefan Posted September 10, 2012 Share Posted September 10, 2012 A Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tearloch7 Posted September 10, 2012 Share Posted September 10, 2012 I suppose an argument could be made that the instigator penalty has made the league more violent, rather than less, but if you truly believe that this is what Bettman intended, the we'll have to agree to disagree. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Colt 45s Posted September 10, 2012 Share Posted September 10, 2012 I want to see a team come to Houston. They have the population, they built an arena that houses 17,800 for hockey, and it is one of the areas in the US that is still booming economically. Plus, the players will love having no state income tax. For some contracts it may save them almost a quarter million or more a year. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WiDeN Posted September 10, 2012 Share Posted September 10, 2012 I want to see a team come to Houston. They have the population, they built an arena that houses 17,800 for hockey, and it is one of the areas in the US that is still booming economically. Plus, the players will love having no state income tax. For some contracts it may save them almost a quarter million or more a year. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.