Coyote Ugly: The character farce

I agree with almost all of this...

…except this:

…the only real blight on Balsillie’s character that’s relevant to these proceedings is where he wants a team.

That is not true. The only real blight on Balsillie’s character is that he directly and knowingly wants to ignore NHL bylaws and procedure in order to force a franchise relocation.

Balsillie could have tried to move to KC, Vegas, or Milwaukee and the BoG would still have blocked him on character grounds.

Other than that, pretty accurate.

You are validating my inherent mistrust of strangers.

by zyllyx on Sep 1, 2009 2:22 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs

No. This all goes back to before any of this ignoring bylaws and procedure happened.

Balsillie would be the league’s golden goose if he was waiting in the wings to bring a team to K.C.

Blogging on hockey at fromtherink.com

by James Mirtle on Sep 1, 2009 2:28 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Balsillie would be the league’s golden goose if he was waiting in the wings to bring a team to K.C.

Well put.

by cferneyh on Sep 1, 2009 2:30 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

That would have been true right up until the time he revealed he was planning to move the Pens.

I may be looking at this as an outsider (ironically enough given the circumstances) but I think it’s a simplification to make this all about Hamilton.

You are validating my inherent mistrust of strangers.

by zyllyx on Sep 1, 2009 2:43 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

It was never revealed that he was planning to move the Pens, not definitively anyway, as Balsillie has said in court documents he wanted to keep the team there. The NHL didn’t believe him (perhaps justifiably) and that set the course for where we are now.

It’s about Hamilton. Balsillie has certainly made missteps, but the league does not want another team in this area.

Blogging on hockey at fromtherink.com

by James Mirtle on Sep 1, 2009 2:45 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Wasn’t the breakpoint of the Balsillie/Pens negotiation when Bettman reiterated a 6- or 7-year Pittsburgh stay requirement that Balsillie didn’t think was there? I thought that was part of one of the filings (maybe the Daly statement).

That 17-year-old Hokie sitting in the rafters in Greensboro didn't see any of this coming.
@joshcvt / blog / photography

by JoshCVT on Sep 1, 2009 2:49 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

For sure it’s about Hamilton, but it’s not ALL about Hamilton. That’s all I’m saying.

You are validating my inherent mistrust of strangers.

by zyllyx on Sep 1, 2009 2:53 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Well, how do you define “it,” then?

Blogging on hockey at fromtherink.com

by James Mirtle on Sep 1, 2009 3:02 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

The basis for Balsillie not being “accepted” by the league or the other owners. Had Balsillie told the league, “Look, I’m interested in Hamilton as a destination for any team I buy,” for sure they wouldn’t have said, “Great, mas alla, we’re right there with you” because they have their own ideas for Hamilton. But they ALSO, IMO, wouldn’t have given him the big Finger Salute either – particularly given that Balsillie was and is a very very very very very wealthy hockey fanatic.

What soured them on him was NOT his destination, it was his METHODS. Balsillie played the savior for the Pens while all along he was planning to move them. I think the “where” is not as relevant as the fact that he was going to move them where he wanted, utterly without regard to the league.

Now, might the league have been more flexible in their dealings with Balsillie if the destination had been, say, Kansas City or Winnipeg? I don’t know. Maybe. It’s a possibility. BUT – and this is the key – their level of their resistance to him is a direct by-product of his complete dismissal of any responsibility he might have to play by the league’s rules.

Balsillie’s inability to play nice or even pretend to do so with the league is the fundamental basis for their rejection of him.

You are validating my inherent mistrust of strangers.

by zyllyx on Sep 1, 2009 3:34 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

There’s no question Balsillie’s being a dick in all of these proceedings, but he’s in a battle of dicks here. Playing nice wouldn’t have accomplished anything.

Blogging on hockey at fromtherink.com

by James Mirtle on Sep 1, 2009 4:23 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

It might have early on in the Pens’ deal. But it’s kind of a moot point since it may not be within Balsillie’s nature to actually play nice.

Or, actually, I should be more specific – RODIER on Balsillie’s behalf. I’m still not convinced that that fake-tan-having A. Dick isn’t worth at least 40% of the total dickery in this case.

You are validating my inherent mistrust of strangers.

by zyllyx on Sep 1, 2009 4:33 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Mmm, yeah, I'm going to have to go ahead and ask you to come in on Sunday

Being a dick at times seems to be valued in the business world.

by yrmom on Sep 1, 2009 6:56 PM CDT up reply actions 2 recs

At times, sure. But all the time? You can’t be 100% dick without someone eventually burning down your office to get his red stapler back.

(rec’d for awesome “Office Space” ref)

You are validating my inherent mistrust of strangers.

by zyllyx on Sep 1, 2009 6:59 PM CDT up reply actions 4 recs

Rec’d for the awesome Office Space reply.

Fear The Fin: Where Selling Your Soul Is The Likely Solution

by Mr. Plank on Sep 1, 2009 9:37 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

James, I’m curious (and I hope this doesn’t come off as anything other than curiosity, but, how would calling Balsillie (or anyone, really) a dick go over with your editors at the Globe?

by dzuunmod on Sep 2, 2009 8:57 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Well you might be able to call Mr. Roddier a dick.

by yrmom on Sep 2, 2009 9:34 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

It’s a synonym for jerk. Does that sit better with you?

Blogging on hockey at fromtherink.com

by James Mirtle on Sep 2, 2009 11:55 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

It’s not about what sits better with me. I just don’t think I could ever imagine seeing that phrase in the paper (unless it came from the lips of Eugene Melnyk or something, say). Certainly not in a news piece and probably not even a column, so I wondered how this sort of thing might go over with the people who employ someone who crosses over from blogs to traditional media and back again.

I was just curious is all. If it’s none of my business, that’s totally fair.

by dzuunmod on Sep 3, 2009 9:24 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Well, first of all, this blog is not an official G&M publication, so unless James has some language in his contract that specifically addresses either non-competition or standards and practices for non-G&M publication that he takes part in, he’s under no duress to maintain G&M standards.

Second, considering the kind of uber-biased, borderline advocacy-style missives published by his colleagues, the right honorable Messrs. Shoalts, Dowbiggen, and Brunt under the guise of editorial opinion on the G&M website, I really REALLY don’t think that the G&M has a leg to stand on if they take James to task for using the word “dick” to describe Jim Balsillie (or, in fact, anyone else).

You are validating my inherent mistrust of strangers.

by zyllyx on Sep 3, 2009 11:46 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Isn’t editorial opinion by it’s nature biased?

by yrmom on Sep 3, 2009 12:56 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

When it’s labeled an opinion piece, that’s one thing. When it isn’t, that’s another.

You are validating my inherent mistrust of strangers.

by zyllyx on Sep 3, 2009 1:50 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

I don’t really want to wade into this, but Shoalts, Dowbiggin and Brunt are columnists at The Globe.

Blogging on hockey at fromtherink.com

by James Mirtle on Sep 3, 2009 2:50 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Thanks James. I was just going to this out.

by yrmom on Sep 3, 2009 3:08 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

which makes it even worse…

Pension Plan Puppets: A Toronto Maple Leafs blog and a group therapy session.

by PPP on Sep 8, 2009 4:24 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Columnists by their nature offer opinions on things.

Money can be exchanged for goods and services.

Blogging on hockey at fromtherink.com

by James Mirtle on Sep 8, 2009 4:39 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

It’s not in the paper, a news piece or a column. It’s a comment on a blog. And really, with all that’s gone on, a pretty innocuous one.

Blogging on hockey at fromtherink.com

by James Mirtle on Sep 3, 2009 11:59 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Except I'm pretty sure the league didn't want to leave Pittsburgh for any market.

And his goal was to pull a Clay Bennett/Sonics with the Penguins. That doesn’t excuse the league for letting him get as far as he did, but if the league had wanted that franchise out of Pittsburgh and into K.C., they had every opportunity to grease the skids for someone else to do it, and they didn’t. That one wasn’t about Balsillie, Hamilton or Kansas City.

Balsillie took it personally, though, and his next effort to buy a team included lots of behind-the-back attempts to destabilize Nashville. I’m convinced that’s what did him in. The Leafs^H^H^H^H^HLeague may not want a team in Hamilton, but beside Leipold and Moyes, there are 28 other owners wondering if, when they decide to sell out, they’ll have to put up with a candidate undercutting their lease and trying to poison their fan relationships to devalue their franchise. Letting Balsillie in is an implicit endorsement of those tactics.

That 17-year-old Hokie sitting in the rafters in Greensboro didn't see any of this coming.
@joshcvt / blog / photography

by JoshCVT on Sep 1, 2009 2:44 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Let’s say Balsillie never had any intention of keeping the Penguins in Pittsburgh. Could the league not have said, “we don’t want to move this franchise, but we are interested in working with you down the line to put a team in Hamilton?”

Instead, in my view, what was said started with an expletive and ended with a you. There was no league-sanctioned way for Balsillie to get a team in the location he wanted. People are asking him to go a route which doesn’t exist.

Blogging on hockey at fromtherink.com

by James Mirtle on Sep 1, 2009 2:52 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Given Balsillie’s actions over the succeeding years, I’m guessing the “expletive you” came from him to the league, not vice versa.

This story is less about Hamilton and more about Balsillie getting his way at all costs with no regards to any other interests, IMO. He was and is an outsider claiming rights that are not his to claim, and that should not get forgotten simply because Hamilton deserves an NHL franchise.

You are validating my inherent mistrust of strangers.

by zyllyx on Sep 1, 2009 3:02 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Balsillie’s way is Hamilton, though. There’s no separating those positions. Anyone who attempted to purchase a franchise in Hamilton is “an outsider claiming rights that are not his to claim.”

Blogging on hockey at fromtherink.com

by James Mirtle on Sep 1, 2009 3:04 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Thus Bill Daly's statement...

…that Hamilton chose the wrong partner. Perhaps Balsillie just can’t get what he wants. Didn’t someone write a song about that?

Funny, usually in these Canada-vs.-America economic throwdowns, the Canadians are the ones decrying the distorting effects of wealth and demanding the rules be followed.

That 17-year-old Hokie sitting in the rafters in Greensboro didn't see any of this coming.
@joshcvt / blog / photography

by JoshCVT on Sep 1, 2009 3:08 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Ehh

I think that’s tenuous James. Like I said I don’t think the league wants a franchise in Hamilton, but they will let Balsille into their club over a judges edict or their dead bodies.

The 2009-10 Colorado Avalanche: Aiming for the Charity Point
Jibblescribbits: C'mon over and waste some time

by Jibblescribbits on Sep 1, 2009 3:09 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

It’s the same difference.

Blogging on hockey at fromtherink.com

by James Mirtle on Sep 1, 2009 4:24 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Not true.

IIRC, there’s another prospective ownership group that wants a team in Hamilton – I read about them earlier in the summer. Their entire position was (and, if they’re still working on it, is) that they believe in the potential of the Hamilton market but wish to work with the NHL to create a consensus on how it is to be done.

I guarandamntee you that the league would roll out the red carpet to those guys to expand in – or even relocate to – Hamilton if they played the “partner” card instead of the “challenger.”

You are validating my inherent mistrust of strangers.

by zyllyx on Sep 1, 2009 3:38 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

There hasn’t been another prospective ownership group that wants a team in Hamilton.

And your second point is flagrantly false.

Blogging on hockey at fromtherink.com

by James Mirtle on Sep 1, 2009 4:25 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

We’ll have to agree to disagree then. I guess in the same way I have my Phoenix blinkers, you have your Hamilton ones.

You are validating my inherent mistrust of strangers.

by zyllyx on Sep 1, 2009 4:34 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

I’m really not even from Southern Ontario. But moving here six or seven years ago from the West and seeing the way things work, with the Leafs pulling the strings, it’s really a shame the league didn’t expand into Hamilton 10 or 15 years ago.

It would be such a positive for the NHL in general to have a rivalry like that and another very successful franchise in the area. It makes infinitely more sense than trying to drip a few dollars out of a market like Kansas City.

As it is, people will start to turn away from the league the more they perceive its back is turned to them. It’s a damn shame.

Blogging on hockey at fromtherink.com

by James Mirtle on Sep 1, 2009 4:42 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

You know what? I don’t disagree with any of that.

But you’ll forgive me if I don’t subscribe to the Hamilton victimization theory. Sure, I can buy that the NHL has screwed the city over for decades, but to put a team in Hamilton AT ALL COSTS is ridiculous in the extreme – especially at the expense of another city and its fans.

I would also say that pulling a team out of the US to put in Hamilton is not a LONG-TERM growth deal for NHL hockey. Yes, a team in Hamilton would instantly become a sellout, generate huge revenues, etc. etc. etc., but it also would be a team in a saturated market. The NHL does not expand its footprint one iota by putting another team in the GTA except in the GTA. Nobody outside of Toronto is going to buy into the rivalry between Hamilton and Toronto, any more than you would buy into the very intense and bad-blood rivalry between the Ducks and the Coyotes.

At this point I’m sure someone’s going to come out with that old salesman’s maxim that it’s twice as expensive to recruit a new customer than it is to keep an existing one. But the only way you can be satisfied with that is if you are content to keep your business localized. The NHL is not content with that – or SHOULD NOT be.

And as far as turning people away from the league, I suppose fans in Phoenix (or, indeed, Tampa, Atlanta, or Nashville) don’t matter as much as the ones in Hamilton? At least, that seems to be the prevailing sentiment of the pro-Balsillie or -Hamilton camps. The problem with that is that generational hockey fans’ bark is a lot worse than their bite. They’ll whine and moan about the NHL forever but the likelihood of them totally abandoning the sport is very low. But you lose a developing market, and the danger is you lose it forever.

I think the thing to remember is that Balsillie, for better or for worse, is taking this issue all the way – if he doesn’t get his team in Hamilton (and he won’t), he’s going to bring the league down out of spite. And I can’t for the life of me fathom how that could be a positive.

You are validating my inherent mistrust of strangers.

by zyllyx on Sep 1, 2009 4:56 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

but it also would be a team in a saturated market.

How do you know that if you’re a kid and your family can’t (afford to) get tickets to see the Leafs – ever (think about that for a minute) – at some point you don’t just decide to follow the Raptors/NBA instead?

by dzuunmod on Sep 1, 2009 5:03 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

That’s definitely a possibility and that’d be a shame.

But they could always do what we’ll have to do in Phoenix when the Coyotes leave – suck it the hell up and buy an airline ticket to another NHL city to see a game (actually, you probably wouldn’t have to fly to Buffalo from Toronto, would you?).

You are validating my inherent mistrust of strangers.

by zyllyx on Sep 1, 2009 5:13 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

That makes a lot of sense, not putting franchises where the greatest numbers of fans are. Imagine any other business saying that to its customers (an analogy the Phoenix crowd likes to invoke – you can’t just move a McDonald’s across the street from another McDonald’s!!): “Yes, we know there are no rooms available in the Chicago Sheraton, but no, there are no plans to open a second one. Why don’t you stay in the Chicago one instead?”

A lot of sense.

by dzuunmod on Sep 1, 2009 5:18 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

And… obviously I meant to put any city other than Chicago at the end there, but you take my point.

by dzuunmod on Sep 1, 2009 5:19 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Comparing an NHL team to a McDonald’s or a hotel is pretty ridiculous, IMO.

You are validating my inherent mistrust of strangers.

by zyllyx on Sep 1, 2009 6:13 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Hasn’t stopped a good lot of the Phoenix-backers.

by dzuunmod on Sep 1, 2009 6:14 PM CDT up reply actions 1 recs

Well, I’m not one of them. I may be desperate but I’m also really doing my best to look at things objectively.

You are validating my inherent mistrust of strangers.

by zyllyx on Sep 1, 2009 6:26 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Probably worth noting that one of the people who’s drawn that comparison is the commish himself: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=41hyEwYHpXU

Around the 4:50 mark.

by dzuunmod on Sep 1, 2009 7:01 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Have I mentioned that I think Gary Bettman is a douchenozzle? He also said that the league wants to keep the Coyotes in Phoenix long-term. He says a lot of things.

You are validating my inherent mistrust of strangers.

by zyllyx on Sep 1, 2009 7:02 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

I hope most Phoenix fans remain skeptical of what Bettman tells them.

Blogging on hockey at fromtherink.com

by James Mirtle on Sep 2, 2009 4:54 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Are you kidding? After the NHL bid details came out, every Coyotes fan I know of burned him in effigy.

For me, I haven’t believed him since I first became a fan.

You are validating my inherent mistrust of strangers.

by zyllyx on Sep 2, 2009 5:41 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

do I spell “objectively” in lower case or in ALL CAPS?

by yrmom on Sep 1, 2009 7:01 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Here's a question

What makes you think that tickets to the Hamilton team would be any cheaper? Because Balsillie spouted some pap about not having a staid crowd? The main point of his renovations is the add 50 luxury boxes!

This isn’t an exercise in philantropy. Hamilton tickets might be marginally cheaper but nothing that’s be affordable for the average family.

Also, have you seen ticket prices for the Raptors? It’s a small step down.

Pension Plan Puppets: A Toronto Maple Leafs blog and a group therapy session.

by PPP on Sep 1, 2009 6:10 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

I’m more inclined to believe Andrew Zimbalist than Balsillie. The post about him is a few back on this very blog – perhaps you saw it? There’s a big, big gap between Leaf prices and Sabre prices, right? You’re willing to grant me that? Stands to reason that Hamilton prices (being as it is between Toronto and Buffalo) would be somewhere in the middle of those two.

With a team just down the highway from him chargine (relatively speaking) bargain basement prices, he can’t afford to gouge.

by dzuunmod on Sep 1, 2009 6:16 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

2008-2009
All Figures from Andrew’s Stars Page:
Toronto – $76.15
Montreal – $64.26
Vancouver – $62.05
Calgary – $55.81
Edmonton- $54.17
Ottawa – $48.82
Buffalo – $36.43

Halfway between the two would be an average ticket price of $56.42. I think that’s probably under estimating it and still far from the blue-collar utopia that Balsillie gives lip service to when discussing his plans.

The reason Hamilton is meant to be such a no-brainer is the high demand for tickets and the massive corporate support that is supposedly interested in sponsoring a team in the hammer. Keeping in mind that Copps will be smaller than every other rink on that list then I’d think the average ticket price will be over $60 per ticket.

And having a team a couple of hours away hasn’t kept MLSE from gouging. Hamilton, even if $20 per ticket on average more than Buffalo would be a better deal. No border hassle, less gas expended, among other savings.

Pension Plan Puppets: A Toronto Maple Leafs blog and a group therapy session.

by PPP on Sep 1, 2009 6:30 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Well, ok. I’ll presume I don’t need to show you the reams and reams of data demonstrating that competition lowers prices in pretty much every industry and we’ll agree to disagree.

I will say though, that if you look at most other markets where there’s more than one team at the top level in pro sports, there’s always one team with cachet that can, on that basis, charge more for everything. That the Devils, Nets, White Sox, Angels and A’s have all been, for the most part, at least as good as or better than their neighbours in the last decade or two doesn’t seem to have resulted in the ability to charge more than the Rangers, Knicks, Cubs, Dodgers and Giants, has it?

by dzuunmod on Sep 1, 2009 7:10 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Well, ok. I’ll presume I don’t need to show you the reams and reams of data demonstrating that competition lowers prices in pretty much every industry and we’ll agree to disagree.

In the sporting industry? I’d love to see the articles that show that the Rangers, Knicks, Cubs, Dodgers, and Giants lowered their prices due to competition.

That’s not the point I was making either and you didn’t seem to be suggesting that MLSE was going to lower prices on Leafs tickets.

What I was suggesting was that Hamilton’s tickets wouldn’t be cheap. You yourself said that it would likely be between Toronto and Buffalo.

Well, that would make them the 8th most expensive average ticket in the league based on last year’s prices. You might not think that plopping a terrible team in Hamilton and then charging the 8th highest average ticket price is gouging but I’d say it is.

Pension Plan Puppets: A Toronto Maple Leafs blog and a group therapy session.

by PPP on Sep 1, 2009 7:47 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

In the sporting industry?

I’d argue that if not for the Mets, the Yankees probably wouldn’t have had to cut prices at their park this season. I’d also argue that with the arrival of a Hamilton team, NHL tickets in Southern Ontario would be more plentiful and cheaper, on the whole. If you want to argue otherwise, or from a different perspective (when I said that competition lowers prices, I meant the price of “NHL tickets”, not “Leaf tickets”), that’s your prerogative.

Well, that would make them the 8th most expensive average ticket in the league based on last year’s prices.

Again, context is everything. If you want to compare them against Nashville and Columbus and Florida, no, Hamilton tickets would not come cheap. But 8th priciest in the league would be significantly cheaper than the next closest option.

And anyway, next to the Leafs, there really are no other gougers.

by dzuunmod on Sep 1, 2009 7:58 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

I’d argue that if not for the Mets, the Yankees probably wouldn’t have had to cut prices at their park this season.

And you’d be wrong. I’d argue that it was much much more of an effect of the economic collapse.

(when I said that competition lowers prices, I meant the price of "NHL tickets", not "Leaf tickets"),

I’d be shocked if it had even a miniscule effect on Leafs tickets. Sabres tickets maybe but not the Leafs.

Again, context is everything. If you want to compare them against Nashville and Columbus and Florida, no, Hamilton tickets would not come cheap.

I agree that context is everything. The context of my comment was that there is this pie-in-the-sky belief that Balsillie’s going to be giving tickets away to the poor unwashed masses when the reality won’t even be close to it.

Pension Plan Puppets: A Toronto Maple Leafs blog and a group therapy session.

by PPP on Sep 1, 2009 8:05 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

I feel like you’re missing the points I’m making.

1. If the Mets didn’t exist, 30,000-40,000 fans would be out of a game to watch each night. Let’s be conservative and say that only 15,000 of them might look for another game in town. That still would create significant additional demand for Yankee tickets, thereby allowing the Yanks to charge more.

2. Again, I’m not saying that Leaf tickets would decrease in price with the arrival of a team in Hamilton. (Did I say that somewhere? Did I say those precise words? I’m pretty sure I didn’t.) I said that there would be more NHL hockey tickets on the market in Southern Ontario, and people who wanted to go see NHL hockey would have another, cheaper option, and so NHL hockey tickets would be cheaper in that sense. Still not getting it? Look at it this way: The Leafs charge $76 a head right now, and while we can quibble over how much cheaper Hamilton ducats would be, we can agree that they wouldn’t average $76 or more, right? So, let’s just pick a number and say that the average at Copps is $60. That would make the average ticket price for NHL hockey in Southern Ontario about $68. I’m pretty sure that’s less than the average price of $76 that fans in Southern Ontario pay now.

by dzuunmod on Sep 1, 2009 8:15 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

If the Mets didn’t exist, 30,000-40,000 fans would be out of a game to watch each night. Let’s be conservative and say that only 15,000 of them might look for another game in town. That still would create significant additional demand for Yankee tickets, thereby allowing the Yanks to charge more.

I think 15,000 is a HUGE overstatement. The Yankees’ total fanbase would probably be larger if the Mets had never existed; but people who have adopted brand loyalty to the Mets are not going to be interested in the pseudo-substitute of Yankee tickets.

Again: if two goods are perceived to be of similar utility, then they can compete with one another. There is very little competition between two baseball teams in a city; brand loyalty dictates that buyers of one product will perceive the other to be inferior (and therefore an inadequate substitute), regardless of which product actually performs better.

I said that there would be more NHL hockey tickets on the market in Southern Ontario, and people who wanted to go see NHL hockey would have another, cheaper option, and so NHL hockey tickets would be cheaper in that sense.

How many people choose to spend money on a sporting event, with no care as to which teams they’re actually going to see? If it’s a sizable number, then the total supply of tickets might make a difference. But again, it’s only relevant to people who are not swayed by loyalty to one particular brand. If the Hamills and the Leafs are both playing at home, and the ACC is sold out, ticketless Leaf fans aren’t going to spend money to see An NHL Game In Hamilton; they’re going to watch the Leafs game on TV.

by BleedBlue42 on Sep 1, 2009 8:49 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

I think 15,000 is a HUGE overstatement. The Yankees’ total fanbase would probably be larger if the Mets had never existed; but people who have adopted brand loyalty to the Mets are not going to be interested in the pseudo-substitute of Yankee tickets.

Ok, fine, but do you think those people somehow, by virtue of the Mets never having existed, wouldn’t be baseball fans just the same? And do you think they wouldn’t want to get out once in a while just to see baseball? If I lived in Vancouver, I’d go see the Canucks now and then just because I like hockey. If I lived in Kansas City, I’d go see the Royals because I like baseball. That’s the way some people look at live sports – an entertainment option.

There is very little competition between two baseball teams in a city

I disagree wholeheartedly. I think there are plenty of casual fans in a city who’ll go and see the product that’s available to them at the best value. Not everyone is a die-hard. There are plenty of families out there who’ll just go to “a game” without a big rooting interest.

How many people choose to spend money on a sporting event, with no care as to which teams they’re actually going to see?

You’re looking at sports in a vacuum. There are lots of people out there who’re happy to go and see a sporting event as an entertainment option among many others – “Can I go sit in the bleachers at a ballgame for the same price I’d pay to see a movie? Huh, I can. Maybe I’ll go to the game instead…”

by dzuunmod on Sep 2, 2009 7:18 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

You’re pretty smug for a guy that keeps changing the argument. I focus on the Leafs and then you say that you were talking about general tickets to NHL Hockey.

I think you should do what I just did and take a look over the posts one more time…

Done? Ok.

Here’s what I am saying:

Hamilton’s tickets won’t be cheap in comparison to the league
Leafs ticket prices won’t come down because of Hamilton’s presence

Still not getting it? Well, I’ll just chalk it up to your fandom.

Pension Plan Puppets: A Toronto Maple Leafs blog and a group therapy session.

by PPP on Sep 1, 2009 9:06 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

You’re right. But it will be (a) easier to buy tickets in Hamilton and (b) more affordable.

But I think the argument that tickets would be expensive is a mark in Hamilton’s favour here.

Blogging on hockey at fromtherink.com

by James Mirtle on Sep 2, 2009 4:58 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

But I think the argument that tickets would be expensive is a mark in Hamilton’s favour here.

Who’s saying that it’s a mark against Hamilton’s favour?

Pension Plan Puppets: A Toronto Maple Leafs blog and a group therapy session.

by PPP on Sep 2, 2009 8:27 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

I guess I’m confused why we’re talking about this at all.

Blogging on hockey at fromtherink.com

by James Mirtle on Sep 2, 2009 11:55 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

You’re pretty smug for a guy that keeps changing the argument. I focus on the Leafs and then you say that you were talking about general tickets to NHL Hockey.

In that quote, you seem to be indicating that you should get to dictate the groundrules for the conversation, and you display a complete misunderstanding of the point I’ve been making all along: please point me to the part where I wrote that Leaf tickets would be cheaper. I’ve been focusing on NHL hockey tickets in general, and you keep hammering away, for some reason that must be apparent to you, at the Leaf ticket point. You’d have a solid argument, if it was actually countering the one that I’ve made. I don’t know how many times I can say it: I believe that there are plenty of people in Southern Ontario (and wherever), who aren’t 100% hung-up on a given team like you or I are. Again: I never said that Leaf tickets would decrease in price.

Have we settled that now?

by dzuunmod on Sep 2, 2009 7:22 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Jesus Christ

Did you just re-write you previous comment and miss the point again?

I’ll leave it because you seem to be unbelievably confused.

Pension Plan Puppets: A Toronto Maple Leafs blog and a group therapy session.

by PPP on Sep 2, 2009 8:26 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

At this point, I’m going to reply simply to see just how narrow this comment column can get. I already can’t see half of the posting box. Cool!

You are validating my inherent mistrust of strangers.

by zyllyx on Sep 3, 2009 11:47 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

I cannot condone this childish behaviour…but it is pretty cool.

I've seen enough to know that I've seen too much.

by Smoboy41 on Sep 7, 2009 11:20 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

It gets pretty damn narrow but then responsed stack on top of each other and it’s a bit of a pain.

Pension Plan Puppets: A Toronto Maple Leafs blog and a group therapy session.

by PPP on Sep 8, 2009 4:24 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Why can’t we read half the comment box now? That’s a new issue.

Blogging on hockey at fromtherink.com

by James Mirtle on Sep 8, 2009 4:39 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Competition < Brand Loyalty

Competition can only exist when two products are perceived to be of similar utility. Brand loyalty is an impediment to competition; brand loyalty seeks to win a customer with the product’s name, rather than its quality or price.

In the world of pro sports, brand loyalty is everything. If brand loyalty didn’t exist in the NHL, we’d all be Penguins fans right now — after all, they had the best product in the league last year. Competition can have some impact on brand loyalty; but more often, we choose teams based on something other than their historical track record.

It’s entirely probable that a Hamilton team will win over most of the residents of that city — after all, it’s their town on the label. But what about residents of Brampton or Mississauga or Guelph? Will they choose to abandon the Toronto loyalty they’ve built up for generations, or will they leave Hamilton to the Hamiltonians?

by BleedBlue42 on Sep 1, 2009 7:52 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Again, if you want to argue that NHL tickets in Southern Ontario would be cheaper without the arrival of a team in Hamilton, be my guest.

My father was a Red Wings fan from the time he was a boy in Sudbury until 1992, when a team showed up where he had decided to make his life, in Ottawa. He switched allegiances pretty easily because he loved where he lived, he loved his town. Civic pride and all that.

There’s no reason to think that a good number of people in Southern Ontario wouldn’t do the same – and maybe many in Toronto proper. As James keeps pointing out, Toronto is a fairly transient place. Many people there have no attachment to the Leafs. Many of them actively root against the Leafs in fact.

by dzuunmod on Sep 1, 2009 8:03 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

You realize that the Leafs have had 80 years and about four generations to build up their fanbase right?

Put aside the sheer number of Leaf fans that that has allowed to develop but there is not a large enough portion of bandwagon fans like your father ready to peel off at the first offering to depress demand for Leafs tickets enough to lower their prices.

Pension Plan Puppets: A Toronto Maple Leafs blog and a group therapy session.

by PPP on Sep 1, 2009 8:08 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

There aren’t enough people in Toronto from elsewhere who have no loyalty to the Leafs? Who don’t want to pay $76 to watch a team they don’t care about or despise?

by dzuunmod on Sep 1, 2009 8:17 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Oh man, seriously, re-read that. I am referring to the people that currently comprise the buying public for the Maple Leafs. The vast, vast, vast majority of that massive group are people/corporations that have some interest in the team.

When Hamilton comes there are tonnes of people that hate the Leafs or have no team and might pick up Hamilton as a team because it’s local.

However, the majority of those people will, outside of the Leafs games in Hamilton, be people that aren’t included in the Leafs’ consumer base.

Where do I say that there aren’t enough people willing to go see Hamilton? Time to slow down and read the entire comment a couple of times before firing off a reply.

Pension Plan Puppets: A Toronto Maple Leafs blog and a group therapy session.

by PPP on Sep 1, 2009 9:09 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

The Clippers don’t, and never have, kept Lakers prices anywhere resembling low. And the Angels, who have been successful, have had 0 impact on Dodger prices.

PPP’s right a team in Hamilton will in no way shape or form affect Leafs prices.

The 2009-10 Colorado Avalanche: Aiming for the Charity Point
Jibblescribbits: C'mon over and waste some time

by Jibblescribbits on Sep 1, 2009 9:17 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

PPP’s right a team in Hamilton will in no way shape or form affect Leafs prices.

He absolutely is right about that. If only he was making some point that anyone here had disagreed with.

by dzuunmod on Sep 2, 2009 7:24 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

HAHAHA

We’re each having our own conversations at this point.

Pension Plan Puppets: A Toronto Maple Leafs blog and a group therapy session.

by PPP on Sep 2, 2009 8:27 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Oh man, seriously, re-read that. I am referring to the people that currently comprise the buying public for the Maple Leafs. The vast, vast, vast majority of that massive group are people/corporations that have some interest in the team.

It’s great that this is who you’re referring to, but it’s not who I was referring to. Despite what you may want to believe, there are actual hockey fans in Toronto who aren’t strictly Leaf fans. Deal with it.

(And once more: Leaf ticket prices going down? Never the point I was making.)

by dzuunmod on Sep 2, 2009 7:23 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Despite what you may want to believe, there are actual hockey fans in Toronto who aren’t strictly Leaf fans. Deal with it.

Oh thank you great senators fan for your wisdom. Here I was thinking that all 6-8 Million residents of the GTA were Leafs fans.

Pension Plan Puppets: A Toronto Maple Leafs blog and a group therapy session.

by PPP on Sep 2, 2009 8:33 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

It’s amazing how you can go on and on about the size and scope of the Leafs’ fanbase, with the goal of making the case that the ACC will be full every night from here until eternity (presumably with some point about how a team in Hamilton is a bad idea, but really, who the hell knows what you’re on about at this point), and then get indignant when it’s said that the Leafs aren’t the be-all and end-all of hockey for 100% of the GTA.

by dzuunmod on Sep 2, 2009 9:10 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Who’s indignant? I’m well aware that not all residents of the GTA are Leafs fans hence my sarcastic response to your constant efforts to make that point.

Pension Plan Puppets: A Toronto Maple Leafs blog and a group therapy session.

by PPP on Sep 8, 2009 4:25 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

I get tickets given to me 3-4 times a year, and I have no love at all for the Leafs. When I am sitting in the suite of my host(s), the vast majority of people there (8-9/10, on average) have no love for the Leafs.

by Gerald on Sep 2, 2009 9:49 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

One other thing: these things can change. Maybe not among the types of people who run blogs devoted to their favourite teams (or even those who comment on them), but among casual fans, loyalties change. I’ve seen it happen plenty with people I know who don’t obsessively follow one team.

by dzuunmod on Sep 1, 2009 8:35 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Yeah, there are a lot of fans that will shift loyalties at the drop of the hat. You and your father prove that.

What I am saying, if you take a second to take it in, is that the consumer base is so large that the arrival of Hamilton won’t be enough to reduce ticket prices in Toronto.

Pension Plan Puppets: A Toronto Maple Leafs blog and a group therapy session.

by PPP on Sep 1, 2009 9:11 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

I really wish that Toronto realized that – then they wouldn’t fight a team in Hamilton. It would give them a nearby rival without a long road trip, it would be an away rink that the Leafs fans could take over, and it wouldn’t have any effect on Leafs ticket prices because once you have intergenerational loyalty, when fans are asked “why are you a fan?” and they talk about watching games with their mothers or going to games with their grandfathers, a new team can’t compete with someone who is already committed that fully. But it can provide another opportunity for a roadtrip. :)

"For myself I am an optimist - it does not seem to be much use being anything else." -- Winston S. Churchill

by Baroque on Sep 1, 2009 10:29 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Yeah, there are a lot of fans that will shift loyalties at the drop of the hat. You and your father prove that.

I don’t presume to tell you anything about your own loyalties, so please stay away from mine. (Also, way to undermine your whole point about Leaf fans being Leaf fans through and through forever and ever amen.)

What I am saying, if you take a second to take it in, is that the consumer base is so large that the arrival of Hamilton won’t be enough to reduce ticket prices in Toronto.

And what I am saying, if you take a second to take it in, is that I never, anywhere, said that it would! Last time: there are people in Toronto who don’t like the Leafs, who might go and see the Leafs play on occasion, if only they could get their hands on tickets (either because they’re priced out of them, or because the tickets are simply unavailable). For those people, the arrival of a team in Hamilton would be a new, cheaper option.

Everything I’ve written here hasn’t been about you or other die-hard Leaf fans. If you took it that way though, it’s on you.

by dzuunmod on Sep 2, 2009 7:27 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

(Also, way to undermine your whole point about Leaf fans being Leaf fans through and through forever and ever amen.)

I never said that Leafs fans don’t ever become apostates. The senators fanbase is a good example of the lure that a new team has for fans with shifting loyalties.

This is what I wrote:

You realize that the Leafs have had 80 years and about four generations to build up their fanbase right?

Now that you’ve presumably read it again do you understand the point? The Leafs’ fanbase is massive. Turncoats and bandwagoners can leave it. People that hate the team and only want to see their team play in the area can buy tickets in Hamilton if they want. That won’t change the fact that there are literally hundreds of thousands of fans willing to fill the arena.

I know that that is not your point (since you’ve shifted the goalposts) and I ceded it above.

Pension Plan Puppets: A Toronto Maple Leafs blog and a group therapy session.

by PPP on Sep 2, 2009 8:37 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Shifted the goalposts where, precisely? Point me to it. That’s all I ask.

by dzuunmod on Sep 2, 2009 8:59 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Like, the comments. I want you to point me directly to the comments where I supposedly shifted the goalposts, because I don’t see it.

by dzuunmod on Sep 2, 2009 9:11 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Is the Leafs average price...

really relevant, if there are no tickets to be had, ever? Someone in that market can correct me if I’m wrong, but my understanding is that if you want to see a Leafs game, you’re pretty much stuck going through the secondary market (at much higher prices), unless you know a season ticket holder.

by bison on Sep 2, 2009 11:59 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

There are limited tickets available during Insider pre-sales and public pre-sales.

But yeah, your best best is knowing someone.

Pension Plan Puppets: A Toronto Maple Leafs blog and a group therapy session.

by PPP on Sep 2, 2009 3:59 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Those average prices are incredibly misleading. All of the best upper bowl tickets have a face value that is more than $80 a ticket. The lower bowl costs, at minimum, about $200 and there are many seats that are more than $400 at face value.

Those average prices don’t include “premium” tickets. If you included every seat in the house, the average ticket price would be far higher. Perhaps double.

Blogging on hockey at fromtherink.com

by James Mirtle on Sep 2, 2009 5:01 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

That's what I thought...

from just talking to Leafs fans when we were in Toronto last summer. They were dumbfounded that I only pay $80 for lower level Sharks tickets on the blue line, or that my (now) 10 year old had been to (then) 60+ NHL games in 5 different arenas.

Is there even a Leafs seating chart with prices on-line somewhere. like most teams have? All their website chart says is “Please call (416) 872-5000 for more info.”

by bison on Sep 4, 2009 1:07 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

$81 buys you a seat in the upper deck in the greens (the first section)

Pension Plan Puppets: A Toronto Maple Leafs blog and a group therapy session.

by PPP on Sep 8, 2009 4:26 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

I have never been able to buy one of those tickets at face value before.

Blogging on hockey at fromtherink.com

by James Mirtle on Sep 8, 2009 4:40 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Ticketmaster shows...

Prices for the pre-season games as follows: (all CA$) 416/226/217/203/196/187/165/150/148/95/55/46/34/27. But no breakdown of price/seat. So I did the DIY method. I punched up single seats as follows:

$416 – 107 on the glass.
$226 – 106 row 3 Plat
$217 – 101 row 7 Plat
$203 – 118 row 10 Gold
$196 – 120M row 27 Red
$187 – 101 row 12 Gold
$165 – 110M row 24 Red
$150 – 101 row 18 Red
$148 – Unknown (maybe Orange seats?)
$95 – 322 row 11 Green
$55 – 323 row 14 Purple
$46 – 313 row 7X Obstructed
$34 – 307S row 19 Obst/SRO
$27 – 313 row 14X Obstructed

Add $7.50 TM per ticket.

Wow—all I can say is, to my Canadian hockey-loving brethren, my wallet sends its deepest sympathies. That’s some serious money there.

Had my beloved Sharks remembered how to play the game after April 11th, my tickets seats to the SCF would have cost less than equivalent pre-season Leafs tickets!

by bison on Sep 9, 2009 2:26 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

The Hamilton tickets would likely be relatively expensive, but expensive on the level of the Senators, or Oilers, etc. Not expensive on the level of more than $400 for a lower bowl ticket.

Blogging on hockey at fromtherink.com

by James Mirtle on Sep 2, 2009 4:56 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Toronto - Hamilton rivalry

I think it would actually get attention from fans not in the area – if it was intense and bitter. The same way Yankees – Red Sox gets attention from other baseball fans, even if only to cheer for a meteor impact on the ballpark in the seventh inning.

"For myself I am an optimist - it does not seem to be much use being anything else." -- Winston S. Churchill

by Baroque on Sep 1, 2009 5:14 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Seventh?

Hell, if the stadium isn’t a smoking crater before the national anthem, I’m changing the channel. Yankees/Red Sox is a regional rivalry shoved down the collective throats of the continent by a sports network headquartered between the two cities.

Do hockey fans in Alberta fidget on the edge of their seats for the start of a Leafs/Senators game? Probably about as much as baseball fans in Texas do in anticipation of YankeeSawx. Which is to say, not at all.

by BleedBlue42 on Sep 1, 2009 5:24 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

That is assuming that both teams are going for a playoff position, of course. A regular-season win isn’t as much fun if both teams are bad.

"For myself I am an optimist - it does not seem to be much use being anything else." -- Winston S. Churchill

by Baroque on Sep 1, 2009 5:28 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Say what you will about the Yanks/Sox rivalry and it coming out of an east coast bias, but look at the ratings for games on ESPN and FOX that don’t involve those two teams, and compare them to games that do. You’ll see pretty quickly that there’s a reason that almost every New York/Boston game on the schedule is broadcast nationally: they outdraw almost any other MLB games you can put on by a country mile.

by dzuunmod on Sep 1, 2009 5:32 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

As a hockey fan, I’m well-acquainted with the fact that my viewing tastes are out of step with most Americans. This also explains why professional basketball and auto racing draw sizable ratings, when I can’t stand to watch 30 seconds of either.

by BleedBlue42 on Sep 1, 2009 5:39 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

I like the last 30 seconds of basketball games.

by yrmom on Sep 1, 2009 7:14 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

And I like a good 30-car pileup.

But if I have to watch two hours of a race in order to get to that brief moment of joy, then forget it. The payoff isn’t worth the price.

by BleedBlue42 on Sep 1, 2009 7:56 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

It’s a good way to kill 30 minutes.

I've seen enough to know that I've seen too much.

by Smoboy41 on Sep 1, 2009 9:22 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

See also the reason why NBC and Versus feed Americans a steady diet of the same six teams for most of the year.

SNN Sports - A theoretical Oilers blog (i.e. theoretically, I write stuff there)

by Doogie2K on Sep 1, 2009 5:54 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Nobody outside of Toronto is going to buy into the rivalry between Hamilton and Toronto, any more than you would buy into the very intense and bad-blood rivalry between the Ducks and the Coyotes.

That’s just wrong again. I love all of the rivalries all over the league when it comes to Rangers-Islanders or Wings-Avs. Those make the games that much more interesting.

The two Southern Ontario franchises would have quite a war on their hands. It’d be a hoot.

Again, however, I’m not arguing that Phoenix doesn’t deserve hockey or anything of the like. This post is a statement on the merits of the Hamilton market while acknowledging that there are many existing teams in trouble.

Blogging on hockey at fromtherink.com

by James Mirtle on Sep 1, 2009 5:34 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

You forgot Canadiens – Bruins. Those are nasty, mean-spirited games. Pittsburgh – Washington looks like it might get to that point, too.

I agree with you – I’ll watch a game that I don’t have any particular interest in either of the teams in isolation if the intensity of the rivalry is such that it might be more interesting than a regular, run-of-the-mill middle-of-the-regular-season game.

"For myself I am an optimist - it does not seem to be much use being anything else." -- Winston S. Churchill

by Baroque on Sep 1, 2009 5:38 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

As would I. But then, we’re all hockey hard-cores. We’re already bought and sold by the league. It’s the fan that’s orbiting around us that’s the juicy target.

You are validating my inherent mistrust of strangers.

by zyllyx on Sep 1, 2009 6:15 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Ok, but you’re the one who said “nobody outside of Toronto…” to begin with.

Maybe you meant “no casual hockey fans or non-fans outside of Toronto are going to be interested…”

by dzuunmod on Sep 1, 2009 6:18 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

As you know, there’s no “edit” button on these posts. So yes, to clarify, I mean that very few “non-hardcore” fans outside of the Toronto – or, maybe to further clarify, south of the national border – are going to be invested in a Toronto-Hamilton rivalry. Part of this has to do with the perception of who the “big” franchises are. The Leafs don’t hold a candle, for instance, to the Red Wings in the States (which is a crime, but mostly because I can’t stand the Red Wings).

You are validating my inherent mistrust of strangers.

by zyllyx on Sep 1, 2009 6:31 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

The Leafs don’t hold a candle, for instance, to the Red Wings in the States

Really? Most road games in the States have an aubidly large Leafs presence from what I can see on TV.

Pension Plan Puppets: A Toronto Maple Leafs blog and a group therapy session.

by PPP on Sep 1, 2009 9:13 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

It seems the best teams for traveling are Detroit, Toronto, and Montreal. It depends on the opponent, but those seem to be the visiting teams that I’ve heard with the strongest presence as visitors.

(As much as you can tell from the damn mic placement, of course – sometimes from one channel to another I would swear I was listening to two entirely different rinks. And yet the most inane comments are never turned down so low they can barely be heard.) :)

"For myself I am an optimist - it does not seem to be much use being anything else." -- Winston S. Churchill

by Baroque on Sep 1, 2009 10:32 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

It varies widely by the home team. In the non-Florida Southeast rinks, the loudest visiting crowds are Buffalo, Detroit and Pittsburgh — clubs with major transplant fan bases. The Canadian teams don’t rate until you get into snowbird territory in FL.

That 17-year-old Hokie sitting in the rafters in Greensboro didn't see any of this coming.
@joshcvt / blog / photography

by JoshCVT on Sep 1, 2009 11:51 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Except for anything within driving distance of Toronto (Columbus, Buffalo, Pittsburgh).

Pension Plan Puppets: A Toronto Maple Leafs blog and a group therapy session.

by PPP on Sep 2, 2009 9:53 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Columbus? Man that’s a long haul… I wouldn’t do that more than once every four or five years.

Blogging on hockey at fromtherink.com

by James Mirtle on Sep 2, 2009 5:04 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Good thing the Leafs only play there once every few years.

The last time the Leafs played there were, I think, over 3,000 Leafs fans.

Pension Plan Puppets: A Toronto Maple Leafs blog and a group therapy session.

by PPP on Sep 2, 2009 8:29 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Rivalries

I’d like to think that after the Winter Classic, the regular season, and the subsequent meeting in the Conference Finals that Chicago and Detroit has once regained it’s rivalry-a rivalry that has seen these two as combatants more than any other rivalry in the NHL. Now throw in the Hossa departure from Detroit only to arrive in the hated Chicago…well that will make for one hell of a season series for sure.
Although the Pittsburgh-Detroit is quickly heating up as one hell of a rivalry as well.

It's never about the eventual destination, but rather the long journey and its challenging obstacles that are presented and what it takes to overcome them, that makes the taste of success all the more worthwhile!!!

by hawks61 on Sep 1, 2009 10:42 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

a rivalry that has seen these two as combatants more than any other rivalry in the NHL

If you count only regular season games, yes (703-699), but if you throw in the playoffs, the Habs-Bruins rivalry has them blown away (163-74), with a final tally of 862 MTL-BOS games to 777 DET-CHI games, including this year’s playoffs.

SNN Sports - A theoretical Oilers blog (i.e. theoretically, I write stuff there)

by Doogie2K on Sep 2, 2009 2:52 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Previous Expansion

As a certain radio show host is fond of iterating, when the option for a team in Hamilton was raised – with real money behind it and a rink more or less ready to go – the league chose to pursue the Ottawa option instead – despite the fact all their financing was more or less fictitious.

It was curious at the time, but given the recent revelations about how MLSE views Hamilton no longer.

Take a bow James, this post might be the single smartest thing I’ve read on the entire Phoenix/Balsillie mess so far.

by velociraptor on Sep 2, 2009 12:13 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Z – That might be true now, but it would very likely only be true because the Hamilton Coyotes under Someone Else is a much more attractive option than the Hamilton Coyotes under Jim Balsillie. But even still, thats very questionable, and probably wasn’t true prior to Balsillie going total dick mode in his attempts to get an NHL franchise.

http://sacrificethebody.blogspot.com/
Sacrifice the Body - Examining the NHL through statistical analysis, reasoned thought, and blind conjecture.

by IAmJoe on Sep 1, 2009 10:25 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

And his goal was to pull a Clay Bennett/Sonics with the Penguins

“Pulling a Clay” originally known in NHL as “Pulling a Karmanos”.

by Arenacale on Sep 1, 2009 3:48 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Norm Green is grateful that the phrase “Pulling a Green” has been lost in the mists of time.

by BleedBlue42 on Sep 1, 2009 5:13 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Well, to be fair, there are no sexual harrassment lawsuits pending in any of these other cases.

SNN Sports - A theoretical Oilers blog (i.e. theoretically, I write stuff there)

by Doogie2K on Sep 1, 2009 5:27 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Hence the lack of any possible double-entendres

… which would have made “pulling a Green” such an epic addition to the lexicon.

by BleedBlue42 on Sep 1, 2009 5:31 PM CDT up reply actions 1 recs

I don't think so

Balsillie would be the league’s golden goose if he was waiting in the wings to bring a team to K.C.

At one point this was probably the case, but I don’t think so any more.

I think his dealings with the Preds is the biggest reason the owners don’t like him and invoke the character clause. Trying to devalue a team so he can buy them probably left quite the bitter taste in their mouth. Leopold has said as much. That and the fact he was bitching about them not allowing him to move a team to Hamilton, and bitching about blocking him from buying a team before even formally applying to buy a team.

There was certainly initial resistance to a franchise in Hamilton, but I think any resistance that is there now is dwarfed by the owners complete dislike and distrust of Balsille.

The 2009-10 Colorado Avalanche: Aiming for the Charity Point
Jibblescribbits: C'mon over and waste some time

by Jibblescribbits on Sep 1, 2009 3:06 PM CDT up reply actions 1 recs

There was certainly initial resistance to a franchise in Hamilton, but I think any resistance that is there now is dwarfed by the owners complete dislike and distrust of Balsille.

It’s all tied together, however. Do you get that later resistance if Hamilton’s treated as a plausible location for a team in the future? Boots Del Biaggio was kept waiting in the wings for the Predators for a few years and was welcomed into the mix despite the fact he obviously had designs on moving the team at a later date.

Blogging on hockey at fromtherink.com

by James Mirtle on Sep 1, 2009 4:28 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Balsillie is no dumbass

The bankruptcy play was genius on the part of the Moyes/Balsillie show. Had they not pulled that move out of their (um) HAT, this whole deal would have been over and the Reinsdorf consortium would have been selling us tickets for this year and, probably, looking at a move next year or shortly thereafter.

Balsillie is continuing down the only path left to him, an aggressive attempt to get an NHL team. He was aware of his place in the NHL pecking order before he started this thing. He continues to hope, and he might still get his way, that the federal court will order the NHL to sell him the team. Sure, the NHL will then sue, and maybe the 2009-10 season is a throwaway, but that’s all factored into Balsillie’s scorched earth scenario.

As a Coyotes fan in AZ, it’s killing me and I wish it was over, with the Coyotes remaining in AZ for the forseeable future.

by George Fallar on Sep 1, 2009 2:26 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs

James, you are 100% right. If Balsillie wanted to either keep a team in Phoenix or move it to one of the pre-selected NHL sites for relocation the NHL would throw a party, vote him into the league 29-0, and likely let him buy the team for 2 million dollars cash with a rubber stamp on any kind of half-assed balance sheet he wanted to show them demonstrating his net worth a la Spano, DelBaggio, the TB owner, etc.

That’s the real issue. Greg is getting distracted by the NHL’s spurrious character argument, as though that’s ever been even tangentally the point, rather than merely a faux-legal means to prevent someone from doing something the NHL’s offices don’t want to see happen.

Are Balsillie’s tactics for getting a team in Hamilton ‘underhanded’, relative to established rules in the NHL? Of course.

The thing is, the established rules in the NHL will never ever allow a second team in Hamilton. Not ever. That really doesn’t leave Balsillie a whole lot of options, does it?

by HockeyinHD on Sep 1, 2009 2:48 PM CDT reply actions 1 recs

Hmph

Two wrongs don’t make a right of course, but the notion that Balsilile is somehow going to introduce a rogue into the ranks of the holy nation of NHL owners is, of course, absurd.

I don’t think he will succeed, but I think Balsillie’s play so far has been brilliant, given what options he had. At some point, the coalition of the other 29 owners may fracture as they see their own control and value of their franchises diminish and don’t understand why.

This also isn’t about the inability of hockey to succeed in some region. Maybe decent ownership could have made a go of it in Phoenix. It’s not a cultural thing. Teams succeed in the weirdest places. The idea that this move is some kind of referendum on hockey in America is just as absurd as the notion that it’s about the character of Balsillie (or certain former owners—you forgot to mention the Samuelis, who don’t come up because their team is doing ok in a “non-traditional” market).

The NHL is right to believe that relocation willy-nilly will not only damage the reputation of the league, but will also potentially harm the monopolies teams have on their “territory.”

Where they have made the grave mistake isn’t putting too many teams in the S.W. US—it’s that they are supporting a proven loser—wouldn’t matter if it was in Toronto, Minneapolis (ahem), or Buffalo.

by stormj on Sep 1, 2009 3:08 PM CDT reply actions 1 recs

I don’t think he will succeed, but I think Balsillie’s play so far has been brilliant, given what options he had. At some point, the coalition of the other 29 owners may fracture as they see their own control and value of their franchises diminish and don’t understand why.

If by brilliant you mean underhanded, defiant, and pretty much burning every bridge he could possibly have in the league, then yes it was brilliant.

Even if he does get this team, his word will be worth 0 in NHL board meetings because of the way he went about this. He better hope he never wants anything from league, because there is no way he’ll ever get it.

Had he taken a more conciliatory approach, by offering to buy a strapped franchise and helping it out financially for a few years in return for the opportunity to move a franchise to Hamilton, or an expansion franchise there he probably would have gotten what he wanted without burning every bridge within NHL front offices.

The 2009-10 Colorado Avalanche: Aiming for the Charity Point
Jibblescribbits: C'mon over and waste some time

by Jibblescribbits on Sep 1, 2009 3:15 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

" Had he taken a more conciliatory approach, by offering to buy a strapped franchise and helping it out financially for a few years in return for the opportunity to move a franchise to Hamilton, or an expansion franchise there he probably would have gotten what he wanted without burning every bridge within NHL front offices"

He would never been given that option. The leafs will not let another team into Ontario. If they do let one in they are going to call all the shots Thats a big if. From where the games are played ( ACC) to how much they are paid a royality, how much merc and TV rights will go to the leafs. In fact since MLSE is now a real estate company, more then Sports Entertainment. I can see them forcing the expansion team to purchase or lease a new arena that they will happen to build after playing out of the ACC for five years.

JB did what he had to do, is it pushy- yep- Under handed yep- Illegal-nope. I hope he wins just so the stink sticks to Bettman for years to come.

Leafs selling hope to the hopeless since 1967

by Toe Blake Hockey on Sep 1, 2009 3:25 PM CDT up reply actions 1 recs

The Leafs only think they run the league. Sure Balsille would never win the Leafs over. But if he sinks money into some franchises and keeps them solvent and profitable in exchange for the opportunity to move to Hamilton he may have created enough friends within NHL ownership to force the Leafs to relent. Maybe I’m being naïve, but money talks and he could have gained some clout by buying a team like the Predators, promising to keep them in Nashville and build them up as a test run for ownership build them up and keep them running until local ownership could be found, and then being given the opportunity to buy a team in Hamilton.

Like I said moving a team into Hamilton is certainly more challenging than, say, KC. But before he only had to worry about opposition from a handful of owners (Buffalo & Toronto). Now everyone hates him.

The 2009-10 Colorado Avalanche: Aiming for the Charity Point
Jibblescribbits: C'mon over and waste some time

by Jibblescribbits on Sep 1, 2009 3:32 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

But what if Balsillie did sink money into some franchise and keep it afloat, and after a few years mentioned that he would like to have a team in Hamilton now – and the only response he got from the NHL was “be patient, it isn’t quite the right time now, just keep being a good citizen and helping out the poorer teams and we’ll talk again later.”

I don’t think the time would ever be right and they would siphon off Balsillie’s wallet for as long as they could and use him for their own ends. He’d never get what he wanted from the NHL.

"For myself I am an optimist - it does not seem to be much use being anything else." -- Winston S. Churchill

by Baroque on Sep 1, 2009 4:29 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Like I said moving a team into Hamilton is certainly more challenging than, say, KC.

I think we just fundamentally disagree on this. Moving a team into Hamilton with the league’s permission isn’t more challenging than, say, K.C. It’s impossible. The NHL has zero interest in the market or fighting a battle with the Leafs.

Blogging on hockey at fromtherink.com

by James Mirtle on Sep 1, 2009 4:38 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

The NHL has zero interest in the market or fighting a battle with the Leafs.

I don’t think that’s true. Come up with a territorial rights fee big enough and an expansion fee large enough, and I bet you Hamilton gets a very good look from the league.

You are validating my inherent mistrust of strangers.

by zyllyx on Sep 1, 2009 4:42 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

So, basically, Hamilton fans should have to wait until someone puts together the $500 million (or whatever) fee that the NHL would charge (assuming the Leafs go along with it, which they wouldn’t).

“Sorry Southern Ontario, y’all just have to wait. You like hockey too much to get a team.”

by dzuunmod on Sep 1, 2009 5:05 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

I guess it depends on whether the phrase “you like hockey” only specifically means NHL hockey or if it’s a general idea.

I mean, hell, you have an AHL team there – and I’ve been told that that should be good enough for Phoenix when the Coyotes leave, so why can’t it be good enough for Hamilton?

You are validating my inherent mistrust of strangers.

by zyllyx on Sep 1, 2009 5:15 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Yeah, you’re right, Canadians are only interested in NHL hockey. American support of junior, international, minor and women’s hockey completely overwhelms ours.

Canadians should prove they can support other levels and forms of hockey before demanding more NHL teams.

by dzuunmod on Sep 1, 2009 5:22 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

I think that’s Z’s point. There’s already high-quality hockey there, that people are clearly watching, so why do you necessarily need an NHL team?

SNN Sports - A theoretical Oilers blog (i.e. theoretically, I write stuff there)

by Doogie2K on Sep 1, 2009 5:28 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Z is arguing (from what I can tell, please correct me if I’m misrepresenting) that if Canadians really like hockey for hockey, we should be happy with one team in Southern Ontario. Z is also arguing in other comments (again feel free to correct) that from a business standpoint, it makes sense for the NHL to go after new fans in new markets.

But how does that make sense? There’s a reason that in the Canadian suburbs, you see a Tim Horton’s three blocks down the street from another Tim Horton’s, there’s a reason that in Manhattan and Seattle and Vancouver, you’ll see a Starbucks almost literally across the street from another Starbucks: there’s enough demand there, so the company recognizes it’s good business sense to put two franchises close to one another – there are enough coffee-lovers to go around.

by dzuunmod on Sep 1, 2009 5:36 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

But does it make sense to take a store out of a new territory that’s struggling do to poor management, and move it to a spot three blocks from an existing one?

In the short term, it may make sense. But in the long term, it may make more sense to fix the management problem and absorb the immediate loss, for the sake of establishing your brand in that new market.

But this whole argument assumes that it’s an either-or choice, which is a false dichotomy. The league is perfectly capable of keeping its Phoenix store in place, while simultaneously preparing to build a new location in Hamilton. I don’t understand why it chooses not to do that; but that’s what the league wants.

by BleedBlue42 on Sep 1, 2009 5:48 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

I agree – this shouldn’t necessarily come at Phoenix’s expense. It shouldn’t be an either-or choice, but right now that’s what we’ve got, isn’t it? And personally, I think the possibility of a successful franchise in Hamilton, given all the circumstances that exist, is much greater than that of a successful franchise in Phoenix, given all the circumstances that exist.

by dzuunmod on Sep 1, 2009 5:50 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

I am not arguing that you should be happy with one team in Southern Ontario. If you take the Coyotes out of the equation, I’m actually very pro-Hamilton for an NHL franchise. I’m not stupid (much as I might appear so by my own arguments) – you don’t have to explain to me why Hamilton’s a good place for an NHL team. And I’m aware of the passion for hockey there and the corresponding angst over the NHL essentially douchebagging the place for decades.

What I’m arguing is that none of that is license to minimize the impact of a relocation on Phoenix as a market or on the fans there. I’m trying to get across to you just how skewed the perspective is for people to say, “Well, kids can’t see Leafs games in Toronto!” and use that as justification to wipe hockey off the map completely in Phoenix.

You can put two Tim Hortons within spitting distance of each other in a Canadian suburb, sure. In Utah, you can’t drive a block without seeing at least three Mormon chapels. But does that mean you cluster them all where there’s the highest demand? Of course not. If you’re McDonald’s, you put a franchise in, say, Merida, Mexico, where fast food joints certainly aren’t the norm and you BUILD YOUR BRAND there. In time, the McDonald’s in Merida becomes the local equivalent of fine dining – the patrons appreciate it to an extent that people in the “two-McD’s-per-block” areas would frankly be amazed by it. (By the way, that last example is from personal experience).

So yes, you have to satisfy demand – but you can’t rest exclusively on your proven markets and expect it to trickle down to others.

You are validating my inherent mistrust of strangers.

by zyllyx on Sep 1, 2009 6:24 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

But a lot of fans don’t really care about building the brand.They just want to see NHL hockey.

by yrmom on Sep 1, 2009 7:23 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Well, this is where you and I (and you and most Canadians, I’d say) disagree: you say Phoenix is a viable market (or at least, if it isn’t now, it can be in the future), and I say that with where we are now, Phoenix’s days as a viable NHL market are done. Now, you live there so you obviously know more about it up close than I do, but I can say that for all I wanted to believe Montreal was a viable baseball market up until the last days (when I was living there), the pragmatic side of me knew it wasn’t.

The ‘94 strike did a lot of damage and the messy final years of Loria and then MLB ownership did it in. I find it hard to believe that what’s going on right now with the Coyotes hasn’t soured most Phoenix residents on the NHL for a long, long time to come too.

by dzuunmod on Sep 1, 2009 7:30 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Baseball did Montreal wrong.

Period.

That ‘94 Expos team was a monster. In a parallel universe where the strike doesn’t happen, it’s entirely possible that Canadian teams won three straight World Series.

But that’s where the comparison to Phoenix ends. The Expos couldn’t afford to keep up with their competitors in the NL East, much less in the rest of baseball. They sold off players and lost interest due to league-wide revenue disparities — conditions that should have been alleviated in the NHL by the lockout and subsequent salary cap.

The Expos didn’t have bad ownership until the franchise had withered away; when Jeffrey Loria showed up wearing a black hood and carrying an axe, the execution of the team was just a formality. The Coyotes’ problem in Phoenix is different; Bad Owner sold out to Even Worse Owner, and the franchise rotted from the top down.

If MLB had the salary-cap and revenue-sharing rules that the NHL does, baseball would still be a viable sport in Montreal. Phoenix can still be a viable NHL market; the franchise needs an owner who actually cares about the team and the sport, rather than yet another real-estate developer who wants to use the team as leverage to build more shopping malls or whatever.

by BleedBlue42 on Sep 1, 2009 8:12 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

What I keep hearing though is that with a different team, Phoenix could be viable, going forward.

I just think that what’s happened this summer has turned the city off the NHL for a good while to come. You really believe that most sports fans in the city could get past what’s happened if only they could have a fresh start?

by dzuunmod on Sep 1, 2009 8:24 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Probably not next year, but maybe next decade. The Coyotes staying in PHX is a near impossibility, but I’d like to see if maybe Phoenix couldn’t get a team in 10-20 years, after some of these wounds have healed.

http://sacrificethebody.blogspot.com/
Sacrifice the Body - Examining the NHL through statistical analysis, reasoned thought, and blind conjecture.

by IAmJoe on Sep 1, 2009 10:29 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

I just think that what’s happened this summer has turned the city off the NHL for a good while to come. You really believe that most sports fans in the city could get past what’s happened if only they could have a fresh start?

You’re assuming that’s the case, since as you said, you don’t live in Phoenix. And for the City of Glendale, I’m fairly certain they want a NHL team to at least occupy their newly built building, unless of course another professional team decides to mosey on in. And from the looks of it, only the NHL is willing to use the arena due to the lease. So no, I don’t think this has soured the city from seeing a NHL team leave. They just don’t want to see the team move and have it resurface again decades down the road.

Supporter of the Sergei Berezin "Give and Go" - You give me puck, then you go to hell

by bkblades on Sep 1, 2009 11:43 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Neither Phoenix’s NHL experience nor Montreal’s MLB experience prove jack about the kind of markets they are for their respective sport. All that’s been proven is that Phoenicians won’t turn out for a bad hockey that’s been bled of money until it’s turned to stone, and that Montrealers won’t turn out for a baseball franchise being Major League’d by the league itself, after having its best shot at a World Series in some time yanked out from under them by labour action.

SNN Sports - A theoretical Oilers blog (i.e. theoretically, I write stuff there)

by Doogie2K on Sep 2, 2009 2:56 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

You put Tim's where the coffee drinkers are

As someone who agonized over the relocation of the Jets and Nordiques, I sympathize with those Phoenix fans disturbed by Balsillie’s maneuvering.

The truth I think, is that whether it is this year (Balsillie) or a few years from now, the NHL is dead in Phoenix.

A team simply cannot lose money hand over fist forever. A winning team with wicked awesome mgt might make things break even for a few years, or even make some coin if they have a couple of deep runs in the playoffs – but eventually teams lose/rebuild and when that happens the fan base in places like Arizona simply won’t keep the team from becoming a basket case.

Hamilton in contrast, would be about as bulletproof a market as you can get with fans hockey crazed enough to pay through the nose for a losing team – for decades if need be.

Mirtle’s right, this is all about the Leafs trying to keep a monopoly on S. Ont, and I for one hope Balsillie can break the ‘axis of Leafvil’.

by velociraptor on Sep 2, 2009 12:26 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

I think the saddest part of this whole mess is seeing “fans” of hockey HOPING that hockey is dead in Phoenix. I’m not mentioning you specifically here, although it’s kind of hard to sense any remorse over the idea from your post.

Context about the Coyotes’ losses aside – and pushing said context aside has been disturbingly easy for too many people – the fact of the matter is that hockey AS A SPORT is growing in Phoenix. That single fact is incredible given the nature of the market, but it’s true. That should be good news for anyone who is a true fan of the game.

But what galls me is that by overgeneralizing and undercontextualizing, Canadians are justifying their desire for a seventh franchise, breaking out the pom-poms for two truly epic douchebags in Balsillie and Rodier, and wholly and completely dismissing the ramifications of a relocation on people who they really ought to empathize with because of a shared love of the greatest game in the world.

It’s so much easier to say, “Phoenix is a dead market, there are only four Coyotes fans anyway, let them go back to farming cacti while the REAL fans get the franchise they deserve” than it is to say, “Hey, Phoenix has really gotten a raw deal with those incompetent greedhead owners, the relocation from Phoenix to Glendale, the absolute inhalation of mediocrity and underachievement, and a Not-So-Great-One coach who had to be persuaded to hire people with skill in place of his golfing pals.” And truth? It’s not just the hammerheads who are saying that kind of stuff.

So yeah, if the team leaves there’s going to be an awful lot of bitterness – but not just at the NHL. There’s going to be a ton of bad feeling against a nation that really doesn’t deserve it thanks to the dickery of a few very vocal and militant people and a marked feeling of being casually dismissed by the rest. Unjustified? Probably. As unjustified as being seen as thiefs for having “stolen” the Jets, when in reality we barely knew we were getting an NHL team until the franchise had already set up shop in the awful America West Arena.

But it’s not going to kill HOCKEY in Arizona. The roots of the game are deep enough now that even top-level douchebaggery can’t kill it completely. And if the NHL decides to expand here then you’ll see the fans come out to support it.

You are validating my inherent mistrust of strangers.

by zyllyx on Sep 2, 2009 11:23 AM CDT up reply actions 3 recs

…and of course I meant to type “thieves” instead of “thiefs.” Goddammit.

You are validating my inherent mistrust of strangers.

by zyllyx on Sep 2, 2009 11:26 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

If this is what It takes for Americans to notice Canada I’d be surprised.

by yrmom on Sep 2, 2009 11:41 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Dead Team Walking

Like I said, I sympathize with those fans of the Coyotes who are going to lose their team, but the facts seem to speak for themselves;

- The arena deal is well beyond awful.
- The location of the arena is a negative factor.
- The corporate fan base (big money boys) are tapped first by the Diamondbacks and Suns.
- Try as you might, you can’t play hockey outside in Arizona, though I give bonus points for any semi-pro ball-hockey leagues you may have. Nothing makes someone a fan of hockey like actually playing hockey does.
- Even if Reinsdorf had been successful he was leaving.
- Even if the NHL is successful they are leaving in two years tops.
-
Yes, I feel bad for the growing number of fans of hockey in AZ, but unless you can grow them by 12-14 thousand in the Glendale area, and get them buy season tix even when the team sucks, its over.

by velociraptor on Sep 3, 2009 12:58 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

- The arena deal is either going to be renegotiated or broken. Doesn’t seem like there’s a third option at this point.

- The location of the arena means nothing if the team is successful. Period. The only people making a stink about it are people who DON’T EVEN LIVE HERE. Phoenicians only use the laziness excuse if the team is underperforming. You can see it employed with ALL the local sports teams.

- The big money boys are attracted to success. If you had the inclination to investigate deeper into the market (which I doubt you do, no offense), you’d see that the Diamondbacks, by playing terribly, have actually lost corporate sponsors as well. As have the Suns. And Cardinals. Success breeds interest. Having said that, having an ownership group that is more apt to become involved in the community (like the D’Backs) really goes a long way towards increasing corporate/big money involvement in the team. The Coyotes haven’t exactly been very proactive about integrating with the Phoenix market – there’s still a sense of disconnect with them, maybe due to the fact that none of the players seem to stick around past the final game of the season.

- You DO know that the ice rinks in the Valley are open year-round, right? Sure, you’d have to drive 2 hours north to Flagstaff to play true pond hockey, but why do that if you don’t have a tradition of doing it already? Hit a rink, or play street hockey. Same dif. I’ve been a big advocate of the team (and, indeed, the NHL) investing in promoting not only local ice hockey leagues and rinks (which they have) but also involving themselves in street and roller hockey leagues and promoting that style of game around the state. Not many kids have ice skates around here but nearly every kid has a pair of Rollerblades.

- Maybe. That’s hearsay based on his relocation clause in his initial bid. Reinsdorf isn’t the front-runner anymore, though. IceEdge seems to have the advantage at the moment if Balsillie doesn’t win, considering they have Gretzky, John Breslow, and at least a preliminary deal with the CoG in place. Whether that is still true if the NHL wins the bid, I have no idea.

- The NHL will move the team if they can’t find a buyer. Whether they are planning to move regardless one or two years down the road is speculation – certainly a worry for all of us but so far not based in anything more than hearsay.

As far as the growth goes, if the team has an ownership group that at least gives lip service to trying to make this particular franchise work here in Phoenix, then the fans will come out to support them. I think it’s a little unrealistic to expect the kind of generational loyalty you imply by your comments when the team has only been here for 13 years and has only been halfway decent for less than half of that time.

If the team is bought by Balsillie, then it’s over. Even if Balls keeps the team here for a year, nobody I kno of will want to pay a dime to line that bastard’s pockets to subsidize his lame-duck season (which, I imagine, is the reason why he offered to keep the team here beyond September 14th in the first place – to offer “proof” that Phoenix fans won’t support a team).

You are validating my inherent mistrust of strangers.

by zyllyx on Sep 3, 2009 12:03 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Try as you might, you can’t play hockey outside in Arizona, though I give bonus points for any semi-pro ball-hockey leagues you may have. Nothing makes someone a fan of hockey like actually playing hockey does.

Because no one ever played street hockey in the summer here in Canada or the northern States, amirite? I don’t get this point.

SNN Sports - A theoretical Oilers blog (i.e. theoretically, I write stuff there)

by Doogie2K on Sep 3, 2009 12:52 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Maybe the “need” isn’t the issue. No one NEEDS to spend tens of thousands of dollars on an urban assault vehicle that can climb mountains when the biggest obstacle they encounter during a daily commute is a speed bump in the parking lot, but if they WANT one enough – and can afford it – they can get it just because they like the look of it.

If Hamilton really wants a NHL team, and has the capacity to support the team (afford the expensive vehicle), they why should they not have one? Need doesn’t enter into it.

"For myself I am an optimist - it does not seem to be much use being anything else." -- Winston S. Churchill

by Baroque on Sep 1, 2009 5:41 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Whats wrong with that?
When John McMullen moved the Rockies to NJ, he had to pay territorial fees to the Rangers, Flyers, and Islanders – a combined $12.5 million in 1982. That’s not a ton of money, but that’s precedent for you.

Why can’t Hamilton get an owner who isn’t perceived by the NHL Board of Governors to be essentially a predatory vulture and is willing to eat the cost? There are two variables here: Balsille and Hamilton. It’s assumed the two are the same, but I’m not convinced in that same assumption.

Devils in my heart! Devils in my mind! Devils in my eyes! Devils until I die!
In Lou We Trust - The Devils SBN Blog

by John Fischer on Sep 1, 2009 6:27 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

They’re only the same if the city of Hamilton refuses to deal with any other potential owner. Are the promised Copps renovations only available to Jim Balsillie, or can the city make those same promises to someone else who might want to put a team there?

If they’ve contractually tied themselves to Balsillie, then the idea of “two variables” flies out the window.

by BleedBlue42 on Sep 1, 2009 6:46 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

The City of Hamilton’s contract explicitly states that they are not exclusively tied to Jim Balsillie IIRC

Pension Plan Puppets: A Toronto Maple Leafs blog and a group therapy session.

by PPP on Sep 1, 2009 7:48 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Actually, it has come out in the court documents that McMullen actually paid fees in the mid-twenties of millions.

by Gerald on Sep 2, 2009 9:57 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

No one has had the stomach to fight this battle other than Balsillie. I’m not sure anyone else will.

Blogging on hockey at fromtherink.com

by James Mirtle on Sep 2, 2009 5:12 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

It gets back to the veto issue. Should MLSE feel they have the right to the market, I don’t see the NHL fighting MLSE over this.

Jimbo’s best chance at a team in Hamilton is starting a rival league. He’s ticked off any potential allies in the NHL.

by skatehack on Sep 1, 2009 4:50 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

The veto, however, very well could not be legally enforceable. Balsillie may fight the league over this and win.

Blogging on hockey at fromtherink.com

by James Mirtle on Sep 1, 2009 5:47 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

I believe that the veto issue is the NHL’s biggest fear. That opens up another can of worms that the NHL doesn’t want to deal with.

by skatehack on Sep 1, 2009 6:04 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

I don’t see the veto ever becoming an issue. Given that Balsillie lost his last vote by the score of 0-26-4, I think it’s completely unlikely that he would win a majority of relocation votes. And if he loses a majority vote, the veto is moot.

IF Balsillie wins the right to buy the Coyotes, the league won’t be sued over whether an individual team has the right to block a relocation; the league will be sued over whether it has the power to block any relocations.

by BleedBlue42 on Sep 1, 2009 6:57 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

No doubt

I don’t disagree that they have no designs to fight that battle, and they clearly have no intention of ever moving to Hamilton, but that still doesn’t make it the same as being opposed to Balsille.

In this case they are opposed to both, but for separate reasons. Saying they are inseparable is inaccurate. At this point they would oppose Jim Balsille buying a ticket to a game.

The 2009-10 Colorado Avalanche: Aiming for the Charity Point
Jibblescribbits: C'mon over and waste some time

by Jibblescribbits on Sep 1, 2009 5:02 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

I think you’re getting into a more interesting point here. I would argue that the fact they have no intention of ever moving to Hamilton is precisely the point, as Balsillie only follows this course of action in the face of that fact.

Unfortunately, for many, the battle’s worth fighting as this is likely the only way it ever gets discussed at all. Yes, it’s a disaster, and yes, Balsilile comes across as a lot of rather unflattering things, but there’s a point he’s trying to make that I feel needs to be made. There’s obviously a cost associated with all this, so at some point, it may not be worth it.

I’d like to see the NHL build a league that is as solid economically, etc., as possible, and to me that includes having teams where they’ll succeed above all else.

Blogging on hockey at fromtherink.com

by James Mirtle on Sep 1, 2009 5:47 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

as Balsillie only follows this course of action in the face of that fact.

I think this is where we disagree. I think Balsille has shown that he’s just as interested in winning against the NHL as he is as putting a team in Hamilton.

It seems like he sensed, from step one, that the NHL wasn’t interested in moving to Hamilton so he didn’t even try to work with them and build a coalition of own. In short, he skipped the diplomacy and declared war with a surprise attack.

The 2009-10 Colorado Avalanche: Aiming for the Charity Point
Jibblescribbits: C'mon over and waste some time

by Jibblescribbits on Sep 1, 2009 6:09 PM CDT up reply actions 3 recs

Rec’d for truth.

That 17-year-old Hokie sitting in the rafters in Greensboro didn't see any of this coming.
@joshcvt / blog / photography

by JoshCVT on Sep 1, 2009 11:52 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Work with who? The ones who aren’t interested in what he’s working toward?

Blogging on hockey at fromtherink.com

by James Mirtle on Sep 2, 2009 5:13 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

It’s pretty clear Balsille has some stuff ($) that the NHL wants. He could have certainly tried a “scratch your back and you scratch mine” strategy.

The 2009-10 Colorado Avalanche: Aiming for the Charity Point
Jibblescribbits: C'mon over and waste some time

by Jibblescribbits on Sep 2, 2009 5:51 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

I think there should have been more of that from both sides here. Especially given how ugly it has become.

Blogging on hockey at fromtherink.com

by James Mirtle on Sep 2, 2009 6:14 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

no disagreement there.

The 2009-10 Colorado Avalanche: Aiming for the Charity Point
Jibblescribbits: C'mon over and waste some time

by Jibblescribbits on Sep 2, 2009 8:24 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

I agree that these are separate issues. Another sentence on my part would have helped. We agree that MLSE doesn’t want a team in Hamilton and the NHL doesn’t want Balsillie in the league.

However, it’s a double whammy. The NHL doesn’t want Balsillie and they don’t to have to deal with MLSE.

by skatehack on Sep 1, 2009 5:52 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

My Kingdom for an Editor

My last sentence should have read: The NHL doesn’t want Balsillie and they don’t want to have to deal with MLSE.

by skatehack on Sep 1, 2009 6:06 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

This whole he said/she said doesn’t matter. Balsillie is trying to join an exclusive club on the cheap. Yes, no one likes Bettman, but Balsillie is no saint. And when you start taking shots at members of a club you want to join, you are toast.

by skatehack on Sep 1, 2009 4:20 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs

On the cheap? $212 million + stating he’d be willing to cover “reasonable” relocation fees is hardly cheap.

by Resolute on Sep 1, 2009 10:36 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Estimates have been as high as $450 mill for a franchise in Hamilton, so unless Jimbo’s reasonable fees are over $150 mill (unlikely), it is on the cheap.

by skatehack on Sep 1, 2009 11:28 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

If the figure of $450 million is accurate, can we dispense with the notion that Hamilton isn’t a vastly stronger market than Phoenix?

by J. Michael Neal on Sep 2, 2009 12:07 AM CDT up reply actions 1 recs

Who decides this amount?

If the NHL says $450 and the Leafs say $500 million why do they get to decide this? Those numbers are ridiculous. The Islanders didn’t pay anywhere close to that in inflationary value dollars. Neither did New Jersey or Anaheim. Just because the Leafs value their territory at that level doesn’t actually make it so.

The whole point is to move a failing franchise that’s losing money to a place where it’s making money. Now you want to tact on $200+ for the opportunity to make money? Why should Balsillie or anyone agree to that? You’ve just pushed back a break even point decades out. There’s nothing reasonable about that demand.

It’s like Russian hockey demanding soccer equivalent fees for player transfers rather than the old style $250k or so that they were getting. The NHL isn’t in a financial position to where they can extort those kinds of fees because Balsillie isn’t going to pay that kind of money and if he isn’t then no one else will either. Thus the “value” of moving a franchise to Hamilton isn’t a real dollar figure but a paper one that has no basis in reality.

by Hull Fan on Sep 3, 2009 3:29 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

This is about control. The NHL wants to control not only who gets in the club but where they’re located. Moyes wants to control who he sells the team to (mostlly, anyone who’s willing to see him as a creditor). Balsillie wants control over a franchise in Hamilton.

That the NHL brought out the character canard is not surprising, they have to jlegally ustify why Balsillie isn’t “NHL material” and this is what they chose. But it’s immaterial. It’s control that matters.

by Glenw9 on Sep 1, 2009 6:00 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs

Actually, I totally disagree with Wyshynski. The NHL already approved Balsillie once and that throws a wrench in things. It really calls everything into question and I think the judge is obligated to dig into the league’s motivations. If he hadn’t already been in the club, I would agree wholeheartedly, however, that’s not the case.

by RiversQ on Sep 1, 2009 7:43 PM CDT via mobile reply actions 0 recs

I think it’s easy for them to point out that they approved him before all of the shenanigans with the Predators, backdating of stock options, and this Phoenix fiasco. Pretty easy case to explain why they changed their mind I think.

Pension Plan Puppets: A Toronto Maple Leafs blog and a group therapy session.

by PPP on Sep 1, 2009 7:49 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Indeed. Undermining a franchise for the sake of trying to pry it out from under its lease strikes me as a good reason to start questioning the character of a man you once intended to have as a partner.

SNN Sports - A theoretical Oilers blog (i.e. theoretically, I write stuff there)

by Doogie2K on Sep 2, 2009 3:01 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Yeah, which is why I don’t lean too heavily on that previous approval. What is worth noting is that approval came only when they felt they had assurances Hamilton wasn’t in play.

Blogging on hockey at fromtherink.com

by James Mirtle on Sep 2, 2009 5:16 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Most of these comments are crazy and not worth responding to. A few points:

- James is exactly right. This isn’t about being dicks or being childish or having bad character. It’s that the league wants one thing and Balsillie wants something else, and I guess it sucks if you don’t like how business works, but that’s just how it goes sometimes.
- The league doesn’t want to expand into Southern Ontario. This isn’t an anti-Canadian thing. It may or may not be the right choice, but it’s a rational one with reasons behind it (future growth over present revenues; TV money over gate revenues).
- Saying that ticket prices in Hamilton may not be affordable is not an argument against a Hamilton team. That’s an argument in favour of having three or more teams in Southern Ontario.
- Suggesting that anyone, whether Hamiltonians or Phoenixians, should be happy with AHL hockey instead of NHL hockey is dumb.
- The fact that many (including nearly all American) hockey fans wouldn’t care about a Toronto/Hamilton rivalry is basically irrelevant, because I can guarantee that absolutely no hockey fan anywhere, ever, for any reason, has ever cared about the Toronto/Phoenix rivalry. The fact that anyone would care about a Toronto/Hamilton rivalry is a net plus. (I realise that taken literally, this argument doesn’t hold water, but hopefully you’re smart enough to understand that I’m being glib for the sake of levity and brevity.)
- I don’t really buy the argument that the NHL is afraid of or doesn’t want to challenge MLSE. It’s possible, but I think the real factor is what I alluded to above: just a rational (although not necessarily correct) preference for future and TV revenues over immediate and gate revenues.

There’s probably more that’s worth touching on, but there can’t be much that’s worth sorting through 125+ posts for.

by RyanV on Sep 2, 2009 1:37 AM CDT reply actions 1 recs

- James is exactly right. This isn’t about being dicks or being childish or having bad character. It’s that the league wants one thing and Balsillie wants something else, and I guess it sucks if you don’t like how business works, but that’s just how it goes sometimes.

I think it’s crazy to argue that no part of this is that the owners do not trust Balsille as a business partner. I think it’s clear that they don’t trust him at all, and that’s a large part of the reason they don’t want him buying a team.

The 2009-10 Colorado Avalanche: Aiming for the Charity Point
Jibblescribbits: C'mon over and waste some time

by Jibblescribbits on Sep 2, 2009 8:36 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

They didn’t trust him when they approved him the first time around. They never have. Bettman said over and over in his deposition on the Penguins that they were very concerned about the Hamilton scenario and Balsillie sandbagging them. (Perhaps justifiably.)

Blogging on hockey at fromtherink.com

by James Mirtle on Sep 2, 2009 5:22 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Good thing that you didn’t deign to grace us with your wisdom by replying to all of the comments because you didn’t read some of them properly:

- Saying that ticket prices in Hamilton may not be affordable is not an argument against a Hamilton team. That’s an argument in favour of having three or more teams in Southern Ontario.

What was being said was that tickets in Hamilton are not going to be dirt cheap as Balsillie has tried to intimate.

- James is exactly right. This isn’t about being dicks or being childish or having bad character. It’s that the league wants one thing and Balsillie wants something else, and I guess it sucks if you don’t like how business works, but that’s just how it goes sometimes.

Sure. You keep believing that champ.

Pension Plan Puppets: A Toronto Maple Leafs blog and a group therapy session.

by PPP on Sep 2, 2009 9:57 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

What was being said was that tickets in Hamilton are not going to be dirt cheap as Balsillie has tried to intimate.

Who cares? I don’t see how that changes the tenor of the conversation at all.

Blogging on hockey at fromtherink.com

by James Mirtle on Sep 2, 2009 5:17 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

I care that he characterises the comments properly. It’s tangential but at least be truthful.

Pension Plan Puppets: A Toronto Maple Leafs blog and a group therapy session.

by PPP on Sep 2, 2009 8:38 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

- I don’t really buy the argument that the NHL is afraid of or doesn’t want to challenge MLSE. It’s possible, but I think the real factor is what I alluded to above: just a rational (although not necessarily correct) preference for future and TV revenues over immediate and gate revenues.

I used to believe it was the second reason you mention there, but now I think it’s both. The Leafs are definitely a factor here.

Blogging on hockey at fromtherink.com

by James Mirtle on Sep 2, 2009 5:20 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

I don’t know if this was said but to me the truth of the matter seems more like why have Balsillie have a team in the golden horseshoe area for 200+ million when you know you should get four times that. This is why I agree can agree as to why he would be welcomed if he left the team were is or to one of the next stops such as KC, etc. but must be at all costs be stopped to move the team there.

"There's been four different Cup winners the last four years, and I got one of them (Anaheim) and it was a fighting team. We're playing it that way regardless." - B. Burke, Toronto Maple Leafs GM

by BlueBuds on Sep 2, 2009 1:40 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs

Can we at least agree that it’s pretty funny that we’re discussing the character issues around the Phoenix situation while revelations about Len Barrie’s alleged financial shenanigans seem to multiplying.

by yrmom on Sep 2, 2009 11:45 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs

The Basics

So let me see if I have some facts straight. Phoenix Coyotes ownership:

1996 – Phoenix businessmen Steven Gluckstern and Richard Burke purchased Winnipeg Jets and moved them to Phoenix
1998 – Burke bought out Gluckstern
2001 – Burke sold the team to Steve Ellman
2005 – Ellman sold the Coyotes to Moyes

So, 3 owners in 13 years – none have been able to make the team profitable.

Bettman:
“This is more about the tactic and I think a challenge to league rules than it is about economic condition of the club, which we believe can with new ownership and with the accommodations the city of Glendale is prepared to make, we think can succeed,” Bettman said.

So, the NHL has approved the all the previous sales of the Coyotes to get an owner who can make the team successful. None have been successful (everyone actually lost buckets of cash). Doesn’t that make them pretty bad at approving owners who can make the team work in Phoenix.

Is this “new owner” that Bettman speaks about going to be the one that can magically make it work? Isn’t the reality the NHL will approve anybody except Balsille?

or

Does the NHL think they actually have the brains to select an owner with enough buisness sense to run a team effictively and profitabley in Phoenix..as if.

by Ace3605 on Sep 2, 2009 1:43 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs

So far the only GOOD thing to come out of this latest Balsillie created fiasco is that the constitution and by-laws finally saw the light of day.

Balsillie is so hellbent on buying this franchise that he’s overlooking the conditions and requirements that come along with it and taking steps to destroy the very rules that are part of a certificate of membership. Apparently he overlooked the parts of the constitution that state valid only in Phoenix, non-transferable except under the provisions of this document, can’t be moved without the expressed approval of the BoG. With this being his third time in this rodeo, he should have a clue by now.

He needs to decide if he wants to be an owner or only the owner of a franchise in Hamilton. Past actions show he only wants them in one place and is unwilling to accept any restrictions in the way of his dream. If he’s willing to use the nuclear option to gain a franchise I doubt that he’ll suddenly start following the rules if he gets in the club.

The New York baseball analogies don’t hold up. Sure the Mets moved into Yankees territory …. less than ten years after both the Giants and Dodgers moved west. The Mets simply filled a recently created void.

by 101st on Sep 3, 2009 8:02 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs

The way I see it, there are multiple teams in Chicago, New York and Los Angeles in other sports; why on earth can’t they create similar intercity rivalries in hockey in some of their top markets?

Blogging on hockey at fromtherink.com

by James Mirtle on Sep 3, 2009 9:09 PM CDT up reply actions 1 recs

I think it would be fantastic. There is nothing like getting a few friends together for a road trip, and it makes it a lot easier if the visitors only have to go a short drive away. That much more opportunity to see a sports event.

"For myself I am an optimist - it does not seem to be much use being anything else." -- Winston S. Churchill

by Baroque on Sep 3, 2009 10:15 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Are you willing to let somebody completely bypass the constitution to create a multi-team market?

If Balsillie is successful in this attack then the league should just remove phrases such as “designated city” from its lexicon because they lose all say in the location of their franchises. The league is nothing if the franchises do not adhere to the terms of the constitution and by-laws and this tactic challenges the very right to manage where the league conducts business.

by 101st on Sep 3, 2009 10:35 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

I don’t think Balsillie will succeed here. I do think, however, that the league should stop ignoring the marketplace in this area, and with the next relocation or expansion, come into Southern Ontario. The only way that gets talked about is if someone wages the battle, and while it’s not pretty, in my mind, it’s a necessary one.

Phoenix was already a severely damaged franchise, one perhaps on its last legs, and whether it survives rests with negotiations with the city. Should it have to be relocated, which would have happened no matter what Balsillie’s role, the best choice is Hamilton.

If the Leafs are allowed to veto such a move, I’m not all that concerned about the constitution and bylaws of the league anyway.

Blogging on hockey at fromtherink.com

by James Mirtle on Sep 3, 2009 10:50 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

There’s a major difference in waging a battle and staging a suicide attack. Balsillie’s tactics are much more of the latter. There is a right and wrong way of doing things and Balsillie has been on the wrong side repeatedly. If he would have done things by the book he would own either the Pens or Preds and, if the latter, could have realistically petitioned for relocation within the rules.

The Balsillie antics aside, when was the last time Hamilton really had a shot at team? A weak Loonie and resulting financial difficulties of the late 90s made the States a much more attractive alternative. Honestly, while losing two Canadian teams and the beginning of the Canadian Assistance Plan isn’t the time to expand into an area, especially when only the Leafs were profitable in ’99. That leaves …. what, the 1990-92 expansion as the last realistic attempt? That one fell through on what, the expansion fee and led to Ottawa getting the second Ontario team?

by 101st on Sep 3, 2009 11:40 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

It would have been a strong expansion market at any point, I would argue, or at least better than a good number of teams currently in the NHL. Look at the revenue figures of the lowest 10 teams in the league — they’re incredibly removed from where a Hamilton franchise would be.

The when isn’t all that important. The acknowledgement from the league that this is a valuable and viable market for another team or a relocated one would be a start on a path to reason.

Bringing up Kansas City and Las Vegas instead is sheer lunacy, the likes of which has gotten them in the mess they’re in now anyway.

Blogging on hockey at fromtherink.com

by James Mirtle on Sep 4, 2009 12:06 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Just on a lark...

Yesterday I dabbled with a scenario I’ve been thinking of for a while now where the NHL would be split into American and Canadian leagues (similar to MLB) with the champions of each would play to win the Stanley Cup. It took a little work because the leagues simply wouldn’t balance completely even if there were several relocations/contractions on the US side, but in the end I got a fairly interesting spread set up.

In my model, I had THREE new NHL franchises in the Southern Toronto area – one in Hamilton, one in K-W, and one in London. Since this was a thought experiment I could ignore the fact that MLSE would never go for it. :P The other three teams were in Saskatoon, Winnipeg, and Halifax.

Now, since I don’t live in Canada I don’t know if I’m reaching too far on any of those cities, BUT based on my limited research it seems likely that Southern Ontario could support a three- (or even four-) team NHL presence every bit as well as the New York Metro area – perhaps better, considering that even with close proximity they would have more generational-style loyalty to the sport than the NYC area currently provides with the Rangers, Islanders, and Devils.

Kansas City and Las Vegas should not even be in the discussion, to be frank. If any US expansion/relocation should be mentioned, I would bring up Milwaukee, Salt Lake City, and Portland/Seattle as candidates.

You are validating my inherent mistrust of strangers.

by zyllyx on Sep 4, 2009 11:37 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

This area could support three teams, but they would be two in Toronto and one in Hamilton.

Saskatoon and Halifax are way too small, and Winnipeg is a bit of a reach, in my opinion. The revenues needed from NHL hockey are just far too high for cities of 500,000 or less without massive surrounding populations.

Blogging on hockey at fromtherink.com

by James Mirtle on Sep 4, 2009 5:47 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs