Rapporter Les Nordiques

[$ven27]

Originally Posted by getbak

Or, you move Colorado back into the westernmost division, and move the two Florida teams into the Central. There's no ideal alignment for the Florida teams, but being with Dallas and Nashville makes more geographic sense than putting them with the northeastern teams.

PACIFIC (7): Anaheim, Calgary, Colorado, Edmonton, Los Angeles, San Jose, Vancouver

CENTRAL (8): Chicago, Dallas, Florida, Minnesota, Nashville, St Louis, Tampa Bay, Winnipeg

NORTHEAST (7): Boston, Buffalo, Detroit, Montreal, Ottawa, Quebec City, Toronto

ATLANTIC (8): Carolina, Columbus, New Jersey, NY Islanders, NY Rangers, Philadelphia, Pittsburgh, Washington

I'd rather keep Colorado in the Central and move back Detroit and Columbus.

[Brannigans Law]

florida panthers arent going anywhere. with the sweetheart arena deal they have they're raking in cash. the panthers are a loss leader, as embarrasing as that is for an NHL franchise.

[getbak]

Originally Posted by $ven27

I'd rather keep Colorado in the Central and move back Detroit and Columbus.

If the Coyotes move east, Colorado will move into our Division no matter what. The only question is who will move from the East to the West to balance things out.

[Caged Great]

Originally Posted by Brannigans Law

florida panthers arent going anywhere. with the sweetheart arena deal they have they're raking in cash. the panthers are a loss leader, as embarrasing as that is for an NHL franchise.

Didn't they still lose 15 million last year even with the sweetheart deal?

[Brannigans Law]

Originally Posted by Caged Great

Didn't they still lose 15 million last year even with the sweetheart deal?

Yeah but to my understanding, and I could be wrong, but the owners are able to rake in huge profits because the Panthers add home dates in some way. They bury the profits somewhere else with another team. It's part of why the players cried foul.

Otherwise ya move them away... their attendance is a joke. Why Florida needs 2 teams, LA 2 teams, and yet Toronto still has 1.

[troutman]

Request for Proposals

http://translate.google.ca/translate...3D2%26VPos%3D0

Deadline = June 27th

WORK HOURLY RATE FOR VARIOUS LOCAL REORGANISATION IN PEPSI COLISEUM

Service Description: The work consists mainly redevelopment and changing some space inside the enclosure.

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally Posted by Brannigans Law

Why Florida needs 2 teams, LA 2 teams, and yet Toronto still has 1.

They're still chasing the big television deals in the U.S., and from that standpoint, teams in Florida, California and Phoenix do more than another team in TO. At least I think that is what is going on.

[Stay Golden]

It would be great to have Quebec City back in the NHL. I have never been to the province of Quebec but my brother in law is a 3rd generation from Montreal. All his siblings etc remain there and he has said what people should realize out west here is that Quebec City and Montreal are as citizens the same with regards to rivalry as Calgary/Edmonton.
That very few new generation Habs fans would remain Habs fans in and around Quebec City if the Nords returned.
Quebec City would have a showing of instant support just like what we saw in Winnipeg.
Honestly they would probably have a mass Habs jersey burning ceremony. The Montreal/Quebec City hated rivalry would in an instant return.
Best guess if a team moved there it would be Florida. Cleaner transaction then the PHX mess.

[troutman]

Patrick Caisse ‏@PatrickCaisse
Is it still possible to relocate the Phoenix #Coyotes in mid-June? "We will see where we are on Friday" - Bill Daly.

[saskflames69]

Miami is not much of a sports town. They have the Dolphins. The Heat don't really count because the NBA is rigged. The Marlins are going to be the Expos in 5 years, and the Panthers should have been the Nordiques last year.

My guess is Phoenix moves to QC next year.

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally Posted by saskflames69

Miami is not much of a sports town. They have the Dolphins. The Heat don't really count because the NBA is rigged. The Marlins are going to be the Expos in 5 years, and the Panthers should have been the Nordiques last year.

My guess is Phoenix moves to QC next year.

Miami may not be a sports team, but I think they are more marketable as a road team in a lot of American cities than a team in Quebec would be.

I still want a team in Quebec, but I can see why the NHL is trying to cling on to American franchises that struggle. There are lot of other factors to think about.

[saskflames69]

Originally Posted by FlamesAddiction

Miami may not be a sports team, but I think they are more marketable as a road team in a lot of American cities than a team in Quebec would be.

I still want a team in Quebec, but I can see why the NHL is trying to cling on to American franchises that struggle. There are lot of other factors to think about.

Really though. If you're a Bruins fan, would you rather see Toronto or Florida? Montreal or Florida? Nobody watches a hockey team because the climate is nice or the city is big.

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally Posted by saskflames69

Really though. If you're a Bruins fan, would you rather see Toronto or Florida? Montreal or Florida? Nobody watches a hockey team because the climate is nice or the city is big.

It's not about who Boston fans want to see, but rather, who do Raleigh, Tampa, Nashville, Dallas (insert others), want to see. The NHL isn't trying to appeal to hardcore fans. They are trying to appeal to casual fans. They already have us where they want us.

I think a lot of casual "sports" fans (ie. people who might go see hockey, but aren't inclined per se) in the U.S. want to see their home team play against cities and towns that they relate to. Those are the fans that they are trying to convince.

[Violator]

Quick Question about Florida does anybody have knowledge of the cap hit of the last ten years or so?

[valo403]

Originally Posted by saskflames69

Really though. If you're a Bruins fan, would you rather see Toronto or Florida? Montreal or Florida? Nobody watches a hockey team because the climate is nice or the city is big.

Some people do, like all of the people on here who hit up Flames road games as part of a beach trip or a trip to NY or Boston etc.

Having broad national reach is important for any sports league. It allows them to sell themselves as a truly national league, not a regional league with the associated small time stigma. The NHL gets very little bump from entering an already saturated market, those people are already caught, hooked and cleaned. Entering non-traditional markets is costly and a long process, but it has the potential to produce much greater returns. People who advocate for remaining only in traditional markets have not paid attention to the growth models of so many companies that are now global superpowers.

[saskflames69]

Originally Posted by valo403

Some people do, like all of the people on here who hit up Flames road games as part of a beach trip or a trip to NY or Boston etc.

Having broad national reach is important for any sports league. It allows them to sell themselves as a truly national league, not a regional league with the associated small time stigma. The NHL gets very little bump from entering an already saturated market, those people are already caught, hooked and cleaned. Entering non-traditional markets is costly and a long process, but it has the potential to produce much greater returns. People who advocate for remaining only in traditional markets have not paid attention to the growth models of so many companies that are now global superpowers.

I wasn't talking about visiting fans, I was talking about the fans at home. Of course I would love to travel to Phoenix and watch a bunch of games, but I'm not going to watch the Coyotes at the Saddledome because Phoenix is a nice, warm city.

It's been ~20 years since southern expansion. You would think these markets would have caught onto hockey by now.

[valo403]

Originally Posted by saskflames69

I wasn't talking about visiting fans, I was talking about the fans at home. Of course I would love to travel to Phoenix and watch a bunch of games, but I'm not going to watch the Coyotes at the Saddledome because Phoenix is a nice, warm city.

It's been ~20 years since southern expansion. You would think these markets would have caught onto hockey by now.

As was pointed out by Flames Addicition, he's not talking about people in Calgary, he's talking about people in less established markets. I can tell you from experience that the perceived desirability of a game is tied to the rivalry, or at least familiarity, that people have with the city from which a team is visiting. Tickets to Rangers games (and this is an established market) against the Jets are a heck of a lot easier to get than tickets to a game against the Flyers, and they both sucked this year (Jets were actually a better team). There's a reason those Jets tickets weren't appealing to the corporate seat holder that handed them off to me, and it's partly due to 'where the f is Winnipeg?' Certainly rivalries can develop despite geography, and this isn't a definitive reason to place a team in a market, but it's part of the equation.

People have outrageous expectations with how long it should take for an entirely foreign sport to set down roots in a community. It takes a tremendous amount of time, leadership, money and luck to introduce something foreign and have it flourish. Expecting any market to achieve that in 20 years is unrealistic. A few will do well, a few will fail and most will fall somewhere in the middle. The funny part about people complaining about markets having had enough time is that they have no personal investment in that location, so why do they care? Evidently the people who are putting in the time, money and effort think that there's an opportunity to succeed in that market, and as long as those people exist there will be a team there.

[saskflames69]

Originally Posted by valo403

As was pointed out by Flames Addicition, he's not talking about people in Calgary, he's talking about people in less established markets. I can tell you from experience that the perceived desirability of a game is tied to the rivalry, or at least familiarity, that people have with the city from which a team is visiting. Tickets to Rangers games (and this is an established market) against the Jets are a heck of a lot easier to get than tickets to a game against the Flyers, and they both sucked this year (Jets were actually a better team). There's a reason those Jets tickets weren't appealing to the corporate seat holder that handed them off to me, and it's partly due to 'where the f is Winnipeg?' Certainly rivalries can develop despite geography, and this isn't a definitive reason to place a team in a market, but it's part of the equation.

People have outrageous expectations with how long it should take for an entirely foreign sport to set down roots in a community. It takes a tremendous amount of time, leadership, money and luck to introduce something foreign and have it flourish. Expecting any market to achieve that in 20 years is unrealistic. A few will do well, a few will fail and most will fall somewhere in the middle. The funny part about people complaining about markets having had enough time is that they have no personal investment in that location, so why do they care? Evidently the people who are putting in the time, money and effort think that there's an opportunity to succeed in that market, and as long as those people exist there will be a team there.

I'm not going to argue any further, because you clearly know more about the subject than I do, but I must ask why does the NHL think the next 20 years are going to be any different than the previous 20 years in terms of community support? Do they really assume grassroots hockey is going to thrive in Florida?

Hockey is way more expensive than football and basketball. One of the main reasons it works in Canada is because we have the climate for the game. The cost of operating an ice rink, in Florida nonetheless, is pretty big. Not to mention the cost of equipment (which would be pretty hard to find down there, and probably outrageously overpriced) and the fact that many families just don't have the means to afford it.

[valo403]

Originally Posted by saskflames69

I'm not going to argue any further, because you clearly know more about the subject than I do, but I must ask why does the NHL think the next 20 years are going to be any different than the previous 20 years in terms of community support? Do they really assume grassroots hockey is going to thrive in Florida?

Hockey is way more expensive than football and basketball. One of the main reasons it works in Canada is because we have the climate for the game. The cost of operating an ice rink, in Florida nonetheless, is pretty big.

The cost of operating an ice rink is likely significantly less in Florida than it is anywhere in Canada simply because everything is cheaper in Florida, geography has nothing to do with that. Equipment costs are no different, in many cases it's cheaper in the US, and availability depends on your ability to click a mouse and accept a package.

Were the last 20 years different than the first 20 years for the Kings? Were the last 10 years different than the first 10 years for the Sharks? The answer to both is a clear yes. Both franchises have seen their fortunes take off now that they are firmly established members of the landscape. It's not a coincidence that California is now producing NHL talent. Dallas was on a similar trajectory until Hicks ran the franchise, and a couple others, into the ground, and has become a strong grassroots hockey market. The below article has the data for a number of states, but here are a few notable examples of growth of registered players in the last 20 years:

AZ:
Membership in 1990-91: 1,196
Membership in 2009-10: 3,339
Growth: 179.2%

CA:
1990-91: 4,483
2009-10: 20,404
Growth: 322.4%

CO:
1990-91: 3,854
2009-10: 13,437
Growth: 248.6%

FL:
1990-91: 1,200
2009-10: 10,856
Growth: 804.7%

GA:
1990-91: 370
2009-10: 2,142
Growth: 478.9%

NC:
1990-91: 929
2009-10: 5,598
Growth: 502.6%

TX:
1990-91: 868
2009-10: 10,909
Growth: 1,156.8%

For comparison, growth in both Minnesota and Massachusetts was below 70%

http://unitedstatesofhockey.com/2011...tes-1990-2009/

[Vulcan]

It's kind of telling that the worst growth is in Arizona.