Ference speaks out his frustration

Status
Not open for further replies.

YellHockey*

Guest
PecaFan said:
Being the sound logical mind you are, surely you're aware that for a logical AND to be true, both sides have to be true. The attendance numbers alone prove your entire statement false.

Depends on how you structure the logic.

Is it (attendance and television) revenues or attendance and (television revenues)?

Regardless the orginal point I was rebutting was "the game is less entertaining and that is reflected in lower attendance and TV revenue."

That statement is false since TV revenues have never been higher then they were last season.

And djhn579 proved in message #60 that the other side of your argument was false too, revenues have fallen massively with the new tv deals.

Which season are we talking about here? My original post clearly stated that I was talking about LAST SEASON. That post is talking about the 2004-5 season.

Is attendance lower (as in zero) for the 2004-5 season because the game is less entertaining?

Do you think that maybe ESPN paid less because they were worried about the effects of a lockout that everyone expected?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad

-->